#129200 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, You explained the meaning of "dhammadaa" (naurally), well: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > JJ: > Than Acharn also explained this question with the word "dhammadaa" (in Thai) or "dhamma taa" (in Pali). > > "Dhamma taa" means being dhamma. Each person lifestyle is according to each person accumulation. And this is dhamma taa or natural. > > Because kusala or akusala arises according to accumulation and condition. If there are accumulation and condition of akusala, no one can stop akusala to arise. This is dhamma taa. > > When one studies dhamma and tries to obtain kusala and avoid akusala by trying to do something without understanding accumulation and condition. Is this dhamma taa? Surely, it is not and in the opposite trying to do something will accumulate more akusala of wrong view about self or sakkaya dhiti. .... S: I've always appreciated her great emphasis on "dhammadaa"....living naturally, understanding present realities. Metta Sarah ==== #129201 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice (Jon) jonoabb Hi Tony H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > Thanks for the reply Jon > ... > J: Intellectual understanding of dhammas, gained from having the teachings properly and appropriately explained. > > TH: Who is to decide that the teachings are being appropriately explained? > =============== J: By 'appropriately explained' I meant not only correctly stated but presented in a way that enables the listener to understand some aspect of the teaching not previously understood. Of course, the listener has to consider whether what he is hearing/has heard is consistent with the teachings as recorded in the texts. (Any btw, the same issue/question arises as regards things one hears concerning the 'practice'.) > =============== > TH: In the Tibetan Tradition there is something called 'Intellectually Formed Delusions'. Very subtle and seductive explanations of (for example) why the craters on the moon are created by large elephants that live permanently on the dark side.... I am of course being facetious. But you get the idea. The best you can hope for regarding an intellectual understanding is like the difference between reading about swimming and actually experiencing it. There is no comparison. You can sit through a thousand lectures on the various technicalities of swimming and become an expert...but this will be of no help at all if you fall in the deep end :) Why? Because you have never experienced it, only understand it. > =============== J: Right. Intellectual understanding is no substitute for direct understanding. I thought we had agreed on that some time ago :-)) In the Theravadin tradition, intellectual understanding is a prerequisite for direct understanding, and that is the case not just at the beginning of the development but throughout until final enlightenment. There is no 'practice' in the sense of an activity or method designed to bring about direct understanding; there is only intellectual understanding and, through reflection on the practical significance of that intellectual understanding, direct understanding. > =============== > TH: To be honest, not meditating sounds like avoidance. I have seen some of the side debates in here regarding what the Buddha taught about a formal practice. I have also seen some conversational gymnastics tweaking some of his words to imply he didn't really mean sitting meditation was necessary. I think this is undoubtedly a massive misinterpretation of his intention. > =============== J: The question as to the proper intent of the Buddha is one that requires a careful and thorough reading of the texts. I'd be interested to know the passage or passages from the texts that in your view most clearly imply that sitting meditation/formal practice is part of his teaching. > =============== > TH: A non-conceptual experience of Emptiness and by proxy an non-conceptual understanding of the nature of ALL phenomena cannot be understood by the intellect. Krishnamurti made this error too. It is by nature arrived at by conception but experienced non-conceptually. The mind is rarely quiet enough for this to happen whilst sat talking and intellectualising about reality. IMO (and others clearly) its only in a state of meditative equipoise that we can experience the difference between understanding and experiencing. > =============== J: Yes, again, nobody is suggesting that intellectual understanding is any substitute for direct understanding (not sure why you see the need to keep stressing the difference between the 2 :-)) As regards any "experience of Emptiness", in the Theravada tradition this is a synonym for "experience of not-self as a characteristic of all dhammas", where "dhammas" means something having a characteristic that cannot be broken down into component parts. Regarding, "its only in a state of meditative equipoise that we can experience the difference between understanding and experiencing", not sure whether you're quoting the texts or speaking from practical experience. But if you know any statement by the Buddha to this effect, I'd be very interested to hear it. Jon #129202 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... kenhowardau Hi Tony, ------------- > T: I feel like I am labouring a point and seem to be repeating the same explanation repeatedly. This must be irritating for you all. I will set out my stall as it were below in my reply to Sukin and I will gracefully back away. ------------- KH: I think you have accomplished at least one task that you had set out to accomplish. At Jon's invitation you have described the Mahayana Dhamma to our Theravada discussion group. The moderators here encourage people from all backgrounds to take part. The only proviso is that discussions stay on topic (Theravada). So I hope you will continue to make contributions from your Mahayana perspective. --------------------- > T: Understanding of the Madhyamika Prasangika view is an extremely difficult one to understand and took me many years for it to click! I have found it to be utterly watertight in terms of being irrefutable. I will of course still read all of your posts with interest, but having seen the Ox I need to concentrate on catching it now :-) --------------------- KH: I wonder why you prefer your understanding to ours. In which way is yours better? Consider the nutshell summary I gave in my previous post (that there are only dhammas and all other things that seem to exist -- including ourselves – are just ideas conceived by dhammas). What is wrong with that explanation? Why doesn't it inspire you deeply and satisfy your need to know the way things truly are? Ken H #129203 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah and all > S: I've always appreciated her great emphasis on "dhammadaa"....living naturally, understanding present realities. JJ: Yes, me too. Because understanding dhammadaa is not dhammadaa (naturally not easy to understand, something like: common sense is not common) And a lot of reminders and emphasises have to be taken for consideration. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question on pariccheda rupa, to Nina and all nilovg Dear Tam, Op 13-feb-2013, om 4:50 heeft Tam Bach het volgende geschreven: > Could you and others explain more to me about this? ------ N: You find more material, as Sarah indicated, in useful posts. I used to find it a difficult question, but then Acharn explained in a more practical, not theoretical way and it became clearer. Just now when we walk, is there no empty space around? This is unconditioned, not like the space between the kalapas which can be conditioned by one of the four factors that condition ruupas of the body. When we start to think too much about it, we become confused. Nina. #129205 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:51 am Subject: Dhamma is best psychology. truth_aerator Dear Tam, all, >Tam B: Sorry for my mistake. Please replace the word Dukkha there by >Dhamma. The remaining of my comment and  question stays the same. >Does psychology deal with the 2nd and 3rd kind of Dukkha? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dhamma is the best psychology and goes further than current psychology. I don't think that Dhamma was meant as purely philosophical or theoretical exercise where theory replaces actual experience. With best wishes, Alex #129206 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:16 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) nichiconn hi Tom, can you set your watch to Tavatimsa time? connie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: I am not sure how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time. #129207 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:16 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) thomaslaw03 Can you? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > hi Tom, > can you set your watch to Tavatimsa time? > connie > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > I am not sure how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time. > #129208 From: "connie" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:29 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) nichiconn i don't have a watch. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > Can you? > #129209 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma is best psychology. tambach  Dear Alex, all A: Dhamma is the best psychology and goes further than current psychology. I don't think that Dhamma was meant as purely philosophical or theoretical exercise where theory replaces actual experience. Tam B I haven't seen any member here who suggests that Dhamma is a purely philosophical or theoretical exercise. So that is not the question. I asked you questions on the 2nd and 3rd kind of Dukkha because of your conversation with Sarah, where she maintains that whatever is experienced should be understood in terms of dhammas, whereas you separate the experiencing of what is called keys board as belonging to science, and Dhamma as something else that should be kept away from that. But the Dhamma, as we have seen with the Four Noble Truth, concerns with whatever is experienced now (the five aggregate). If there's no clear  understanding of what  is reality, what is not, how can there be understanding of Dukkha? Without understanding dhammas, there can not be the understanding of the 2nd and 3rd kind of dukkha. Without thouroughly understanding Dukkha, we can not talk about the end of craving. Keybords, or Iphone, concepts or realities? in which way? Can it be seen, can it be touched? If we are not clear about that, can we really praise the Dhamma? Metta, Tam B #129210 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:15 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) thomaslaw03 I see, good on you! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > i don't have a watch. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > > > > Can you? > > > #129211 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:49 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma is best psychology. thomaslaw03 Dear Tam Bach, >... If there's no clear understanding of what is reality, what is not, how can there be understanding of Dukkha? ...> To my understanding, seeing the five aggregates (or sense spheres)as anicca (impermanent); seeing them as anicca, one sees them as dukkha (suffering); seeing them as dukkha, one sees them as anatta (not-self). This is about "see and know things as they really are" = "see and know yourself are you really are". As for the reason why anicca is dukkha, you may read: The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism (by Choong Mun-keat), pp. 55-56. Sincerely, Thomas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > > >  Dear Alex, all > > A: Dhamma is the best psychology and goes further than current psychology. > > I don't think that Dhamma was meant as purely philosophical or theoretical exercise where theory replaces actual experience. > > Tam B > I haven't seen any member here who suggests that Dhamma is a purely philosophical or theoretical exercise. So that is not the question. > I asked you questions on the 2nd and 3rd kind of Dukkha because of your conversation with Sarah, where she maintains that whatever is experienced should be understood in terms of dhammas, whereas you separate the experiencing of what is called keys board as belonging to science, and Dhamma as something else that should be kept away from that. > But the Dhamma, as we have seen with the Four Noble Truth, concerns with whatever is experienced now (the five aggregate). If there's no clear  understanding of what  is reality, what is not, how can there be understanding of Dukkha? > Without understanding dhammas, there can not be the understanding of the 2nd and 3rd kind of dukkha. Without thouroughly understanding Dukkha, we can not talk about the end of craving. > Keybords, or Iphone, concepts or realities? in which way? Can it be seen, can it be touched? If we are not clear about that, can we really praise the Dhamma? > Metta, > Tam B > > > > > > > #129212 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:01 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > I agree about the need to understand and have wisdom. ... S: Yes, but the need to understand what? ... > Dhamma is about cessatom of suffering, as since suffering is felt in the mind, Dhamma is psychology in that sense. Dhamma IS the best psychology, no question about that! ... S: What do you mean by suffering? The cessation of what? ... > > S: ... We are considering the reality experienced at >this moment. What is real now? ... >A: I think that it is better to ask question: Is there dukkha? What is the cause of it? How to make it cease? ... S: What is dukkha? Is there dukkha now? How can it be known? ... > > Is there clinging to anything? etc... > > > "What is real now" is extremely loaded question that philosophers are battling about for thousands of years with Buddhist teaching being not much better than ontological philosophies out there. ... S: The Buddha's teaching is about what can be tested and proved to be real now. Forget about all the philosophies. What is experienced now? .... > > > >A: Eventually it will break, be thrown away at recycling plant hopefully) and will be taken apart into parts at which point it will cease to be keyboard. > > > > ... > > > > S: More thinking about concepts only. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A: So what? Are you implying that one should be thoughtless log of wood that can do anything (and thus starve to death) because it would involve believing in concepts? ... S: We are discussing reality now. There is seeing now, there is visible object now, there is thinking. Ideas about keyboards are just ideas, just concepts. No problem with that - but they are not realities which can be directly known at this moment. Knowing all the fine details about keyboards will not help one iota on the path to liberation. ... > >S: When we study and consider more about the 24 conditions, it's clear >that there are only dhammas conditioned in various ways. > >>>>>>> > >A: No it is not clear at all. .... S: Take anantara paccaya (proximity condition). This shows how one citta (moment of consciousness) follows another without a break. It shows how no one, no self can make any citta arise or follow another one, but by this condition each one conditions the next one. it indicates that seeing arises when the eye-door adverting consciousness has fallen away and in turn conditions the next citta in the process. No computers, people or things are involved at all - just conditioned dhammas. .. > > S: Yes, like now, without concepts, we could not communicate. However, concepts can never be realities. ... >A: It depends what you mean by "reality". If words were totally false, then how could we communicate? ... S: I mean, paramattha dhammas, absolute realities as opposed to conventionally accepted "reality". Ideas and words are thought about sounds are produced by cittas (in the case of words). The cittas are real, the sounds are real, but the "words" such as "Alex" and "Sarah" can only be thought about. In truth, only sounds are heard. Metta Sarah ===== #129213 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:06 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 6. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Accomplishment in virtue surpasses birth in a good family, since a virtuous man of low birth deserves to be worshipped even by great, powerful khattiyas. Virtue surpasses material wealth, for cannot be confiscated by thieves, follows one to the world beyond produces great fruit, and acts as the foundation for such qualities as serenity, etc. Because it enables one to achieve supreme sovereign) over one's own mind, virtue surpasses the sovereignty of khattiyas, etc. And because of their virtue, beings attain sovereignty in the respective orders. "Virtue is superior even to life, for it is said that single day in the life of the virtuous is better than a hundred years of life devoid of virtue (Dhp.110); and there being life, the disavowal of the training (in the holy life) is called (spiritual) death." **** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129214 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:28 pm Subject: Theravda Poland Foundation szmicio Dear friends, Thanks to Wojtek and Peter foundation to Theravda Buddhism becomes real. Gathering people with the some interest. Here is a link: http://theravada-en.wikidot.com/ Best wishes Lukas #129215 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:48 pm Subject: Re: Reminder. szmicio Dear Jagkrit, For example for me, mana(conceit) is natural. I dont need to do anything special for mana to arise. It will find its object itself. Best wishes Lukas > > S: I've always appreciated her great emphasis on "dhammadaa"....living naturally, understanding present realities. > > JJ: Yes, me too. Because understanding dhammadaa is not dhammadaa (naturally not easy to understand, something like: common sense is not common) > > And a lot of reminders and emphasises have to be taken for consideration. > > Thank you and anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #129216 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:09 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) jagkrit2012 Hi Thomas I checked Sutta Pitaka, Khuddaka Nikaya, Katha Dhammapada: topic of the Lord Buddha preached his mother in Tavatimsa. It said the Buddha recited Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother for 3 months continuously. This 3 months should be human plane time. About your posting that you consider this story not only is unusual irrational, but also superstitious. Any comments? I asked A. Paderm, one of Thai dhamma learned person who participates in Thai DSG website. He gave interesting comment and I translate as follow: "If we understand the essence of the Buddha whether what is Buddha and what is the quality of being Buddha, we will understand this issue as not irrational. Before being the Buddha, Bodhisatta must accumulate all kind of skillfulness within countless amount of lives. All wisdom, all perfections and all other wholesome deeds are completed and ready for him to attain the Buddha-ship. In his last life, he, therefore, enlightened to be the Buddha who was the most superior being above others in all planes because both of his quality of jhanna development or samatha bhavana which is so skillful of deep tranquil inclining to illustrate any supernatural phenomenon and his great wisdom which is vipassana nana of clear knowing the characteristic of realities as they are. Human being is always overwhelmed by defilement and of course is limited to associate with such a special quality. But the Buddha accomplished all kusala up to the highest level. Because of these wholesomeness and flawless cittas from any particle of defilement,it clearly explains great distance of quality between a normal person and the Buddha. For understandable example, the one who has muddled mind and the one who has peaceful mind, which one performs effectively?. See the different?. Any citta which is calm from kilesas, doesn't have at all any defilement and skillful with samatha bhavana does definitely yield special effect much more different than other cittas. To compare what we generally are, which usually lack of wholesomeness with the wise one who completed highest quality is therefore impossible. We can not deny, by using our own standard, that something extraordinary could not be done by a special person. The cittas which are well trained with great wisdom and skillfulness are purified and can be expected to distribute supernatural phenomenon. This is normal. The Lord Buddha achieved the great value of vijja and jharaana. Vijja is the highest panna and jharaana is jhanna development in the capacity of illustrating all kind of supernatural phenomenon. No one could be compared to him because of the great wholesome value he had developed from indefinite lives. This made him embrace supernatural faculty according to his accumulation. Miracle is irrational and superstitious to a person who lacks wisdom. But it is normal and rational to the wise who is familiar with conditions. When clearly understanding conditions, one will see that normality not irrational at all. Illustrating supernatural phenomenon is possible because completed samatha bhavana can produce exactly that result. What is the benefit of this supernatural phenomenon of the Lord Buddha mentioned in Tipitaka? The great benefit would be the arising of kusala citta of any person who saw or heard this miracle with right understanding of conditioned dhammas. Supernatural could happen because the quality of wholesomeness of samatha bhavana at the highest level. This is for anyone to appreciate or anumodhana the wholesomeness of the great person who completed highest development of jhanna which is very difficult to develop. The kusala faith or sathtaa of any person would arise to worship the highest value of the Buddha both of his power and wisdom. For people in the Buddha time such as the Buddha relatives and followers, when they were seeing the supernatural illustration of the Buddha, their conviction was formed and all kusala cittas arose according the opportunity to observe the great value of the Buddha. The strong belief to wholesomeness and goodness reflected upon miracle they experienced. The kusala citta of believing in the person who was the greatest of all planes and very hard to find would bring about great benefit to their lives when they started to follow his great teaching. Everyone usually thinks that the supernatural potential is unbelievable but the Buddha said that capacity of illustrating supernatural phenomenon by him or others was just normal and indeed not remarkable because this faculty could be developed by the right cause. Nevertheless, this faculty can not eradicate any defilement. But to see the realities as they are at this moment is much more remarkable because the vipassana nana which is very very difficult to attain has developed. That is the great wisdom the Buddha had taught to understand the noble truths which is the way to be freed from samsara and dukka. Because vipassana nana can eventually eradicate all defilement and ignorance, it, therefore, is so extraordinary. Seeing as things, animals or people can become seeing what are seen as they are. How difficult it is?. That's why vipassana nana is the greatest patihara of all." Anumodhana Jagkrit #129217 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:25 pm Subject: Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Lukas > L: For example for me, mana(conceit) is natural. I dont need to do anything special for mana to arise. It will find its object itself. JJ: Yes, same to me. Mana always finds it way to arise without notice all the time. It is so natural as it is. Unless keeping reminder of Than Acharn to you (during fare well at Warsaw airport): "Remember, visible object!" When seeing sees visible object, mana seems to lose its way. Anumodhana Jagkrit #129218 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma is best psychology. truth_aerator Dear Tam, Sarah, all, >TB:...she maintains that whatever >is experienced should be >understood in terms of dhammas, whereas you >separate the >experiencing of what is called keys board as belonging >to science, >and Dhamma as something else that should be kept away >from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Buddha or Commentaries have never stated that things must always be understood in terms of dhammas. In fact the two truths teaching is a later addition. Commentary clearly states that conventional speech is not inferior to "ultimate" speech and one is not preferable to other. Whatever works. ======== Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-katha, whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-katha. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-katha. One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-katha. To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-katha , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-katha, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-katha, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-katha. There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-katha. It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena. AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55 ================================== With best wishes, Alex #129219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) nilovg Dear Thomas and Jagkrit, Thomas, on the Pali list we discussed the matter of miracles already, and now Jagkrit formulated it again. The right conditions can produce things we cannot imagine as ordinary beings. The Buddha's wisdom and carana, behaviour or conduct, are incomparable. But most important: how does this help our understanding now? He taught us the wisdom that can eradicate all defilements. At first we cling after seeing what is visible and we take it for people and things. But the Buddha taught us that that seeing only sees what is visible, and that seeing is different from thinking of people and things we believe we see. He taught us the different processes of cittas that arise and fall away. They all fall away never to come back. But we take what we perceive for permanent and self. Although the development of understanding of things as they really are is a long way, it can be done. But not by a self. Nina. Op 14-feb-2013, om 12:09 heeft jagkrit2012 het volgende geschreven: > Seeing as things, animals or people can become seeing what are seen > as they are. > > How difficult it is?. > > That's why vipassana nana is the greatest patihara of all." #129220 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence nilovg Hi Howard, Op 10-feb-2013, om 21:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I worry now about flooding in some areas as the snow melts. > ------------------------------------ N: I heard about the danger of flooding and hope it will not be so bad. You had enough already. H: P. S. I hope you are very well, Nina! ------ N: Thank you for your kind concern. As I wrote to Jagkrit: Nina. #129221 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence nilovg Hi Howard, Something happened to the mail I sent, it was interrupted. Here it is again: H: P. S. I hope you are very well, Nina! ------ N: Thank you for your kind concern. As I wrote to Jagkrit: Nina. Nina. #129222 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence upasaka_howard I'm guessing it's a Yahoo Groups issue. With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > Something happened to the mail I sent, it was interrupted. Here it is > again: > > H: P. S. I hope you are very well, Nina! > ------ > N: Thank you for your kind concern. > As I wrote to Jagkrit: > > not think that there must be an ending too. That seems so far away. > We keep on thinking of stories, beautiful ones and sad ones. > It is so good to constantly hear about paramattha dhammas, seeing, > visible object, hearing, thinking. Otherwise we forget that only > paramattha dhammas are real. A great lesson I learnt while in > Thailand. These constant reminders did me a lot of good.> > Nina. > > > > > > > > > Nina. > > > > > > > #129223 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:13 am Subject: Re: Theravda Poland Foundation kenhowardau Hi Lukas, I was very sorry to see that web page. It seems Poland will follow the rest of the world, turning the Buddha's teaching into a self-help meditation industry. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear friends, > Thanks to Wojtek and Peter foundation to Theravda Buddhism becomes real. > Gathering people with the some interest. > > Here is a link: > http://theravada-en.wikidot.com/ #129224 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:24 am Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S: Yes, but the need to understand what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4NT, for example. >A:Dhamma is about cessatom of suffering, as since suffering is felt >in the mind, Dhamma is psychology in that sense. Dhamma IS the best >psychology, no question about that! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > S: What do you mean by suffering? The cessation of what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suffering = Dukkha as 1st NT. It is cessation of that. >S:We are discussing reality now. There is seeing now, there is >visible object now, there is thinking. Ideas about keyboards are >just ideas, just concepts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And these ideas are helpful. Imagine living where you see colors only but don't recognize shapes and objects. Is that your goal? One will die from starvation if one totally loses conceptualization. >S:No problem with that - but they are not realities which can be >directly known at this moment. Knowing all the fine details about >keyboards will not help one iota on the path to liberation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to know and realize 4NT. >S:Take anantara paccaya (proximity condition). This shows how one >citta (moment of consciousness) follows another without a break. It >shows how no one, no self can make any citta arise or follow another >one, but by this condition each one conditions the next one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't show or prove anything. It just claims that there is proximity condition. Nothing prevents a concept to be a proximity condition for reaction toward it. >S:Yes, like now, without concepts, we could not communicate. >However, concepts can never be realities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Concepts are real in the sense that we can know them and communicate using them. With best wishes, Alex #129225 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:36 am Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) thomaslaw03 Dear Jagkrit, - ">I checked Sutta Pitaka, Khuddaka Nikaya, Katha Dhammapada: topic of the Lord Buddha preached his mother in Tavatimsa. It said the Buddha recited Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother for 3 months continuously. >This 3 months should be human plane time. ...." Thank you very much for this information. - "> Miracle is irrational and superstitious to a person who lacks wisdom. ...." Do you mean this is wisdom: One should believe that the Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on erath? Sincerely, Thomas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > > Hi Thomas > > I checked Sutta Pitaka, Khuddaka Nikaya, Katha Dhammapada: topic of the Lord Buddha preached his mother in Tavatimsa. It said the Buddha recited Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother for 3 months continuously. > > This 3 months should be human plane time. > > About your posting that you consider this story not only is unusual irrational, but also superstitious. Any comments? > > I asked A. Paderm, one of Thai dhamma learned person who participates in Thai DSG website. He gave interesting comment and I translate as follow: > > > "If we understand the essence of the Buddha whether what is Buddha and what is the quality of being Buddha, we will understand this issue as not irrational. Before being the Buddha, Bodhisatta must accumulate all kind of skillfulness within countless amount of lives. All wisdom, all perfections and all other wholesome deeds are completed and ready for him to attain the Buddha-ship. In his last life, he, therefore, enlightened to be the Buddha who was the most superior being above others in all planes because both of his quality of jhanna development or samatha bhavana which is so skillful of deep tranquil inclining to illustrate any supernatural phenomenon and his great wisdom which is vipassana nana of clear knowing the characteristic of realities as they are. > > Human being is always overwhelmed by defilement and of course is limited to associate with such a special quality. But the Buddha accomplished all kusala up to the highest level. Because of these wholesomeness and flawless cittas from any particle of defilement,it clearly explains great distance of quality between a normal person and the Buddha. For understandable example, the one who has muddled mind and the one who has peaceful mind, which one performs effectively?. See the different?. Any citta which is calm from kilesas, doesn't have at all any defilement and skillful with samatha bhavana does definitely yield special effect much more different than other cittas. > > To compare what we generally are, which usually lack of wholesomeness with the wise one who completed highest quality is therefore impossible. We can not deny, by using our own standard, that something extraordinary could not be done by a special person. The cittas which are well trained with great wisdom and skillfulness are purified and can be expected to distribute supernatural phenomenon. This is normal. > > The Lord Buddha achieved the great value of vijja and jharaana. Vijja is the highest panna and jharaana is jhanna development in the capacity of illustrating all kind of supernatural phenomenon. No one could be compared to him because of the great wholesome value he had developed from indefinite lives. This made him embrace supernatural faculty according to his accumulation. > > Miracle is irrational and superstitious to a person who lacks wisdom. But it is normal and rational to the wise who is familiar with conditions. When clearly understanding conditions, one will see that normality not irrational at all. Illustrating supernatural phenomenon is possible because completed samatha bhavana can produce exactly that result. > > What is the benefit of this supernatural phenomenon of the Lord Buddha mentioned in Tipitaka? The great benefit would be the arising of kusala citta of any person who saw or heard this miracle with right understanding of conditioned dhammas. Supernatural could happen because the quality of wholesomeness of samatha bhavana at the highest level. This is for anyone to appreciate or anumodhana the wholesomeness of the great person who completed highest development of jhanna which is very difficult to develop. The kusala faith or sathtaa of any person would arise to worship the highest value of the Buddha both of his power and wisdom. > > For people in the Buddha time such as the Buddha relatives and followers, when they were seeing the supernatural illustration of the Buddha, their conviction was formed and all kusala cittas arose according the opportunity to observe the great value of the Buddha. The strong belief to wholesomeness and goodness reflected upon miracle they experienced. The kusala citta of believing in the person who was the greatest of all planes and very hard to find would bring about great benefit to their lives when they started to follow his great teaching. > > Everyone usually thinks that the supernatural potential is unbelievable but the Buddha said that capacity of illustrating supernatural phenomenon by him or others was just normal and indeed not remarkable because this faculty could be developed by the right cause. Nevertheless, this faculty can not eradicate any defilement. > > But to see the realities as they are at this moment is much more remarkable because the vipassana nana which is very very difficult to attain has developed. That is the great wisdom the Buddha had taught to understand the noble truths which is the way to be freed from samsara and dukka. Because vipassana nana can eventually eradicate all defilement and ignorance, it, therefore, is so extraordinary. > > Seeing as things, animals or people can become seeing what are seen as they are. > > How difficult it is?. > > That's why vipassana nana is the greatest patihara of all." > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #129226 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question on pariccheda rupa, to Nina and all tambach Thank you Nina and Sarah for your answer ! Anumodana! Tam B  N: You find more material, as Sarah indicated, in useful posts. I used to find it a difficult question, but then Acharn explained in a more practical, not theoretical way and it became clearer. Just now when we walk, is there no empty space around? This is unconditioned, not like the space between the kalapas which can be conditioned by one of the four factors that condition ruupas of the body. When we start to think too much about it, we become confused. Nina. #129227 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:18 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) kenhowardau Hi Thomas, --- > T: Do you mean this is wisdom: One should believe that the Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on earth? --- KH: If you have been reading DSG you will have seen two types of mundane wisdom defined. One is the wisdom that knows kusala as kusala and akuusala as akusala, and the other is the wisdom that knows nama as nama and rupa as rupa. Do you agree with those definitions? Would you perhaps like to add another one: namely, a wisdom that knows conventional truth as conventional truth, and conventional untruth as conventional untruth? Ken H #129228 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:38 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) jagkrit2012 Dear Thomas > " Miracle is irrational and superstitious to a person who lacks wisdom. ...." > > T: Do you mean this is wisdom: One should believe that the Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on earth? JJ: I think for us now to believe should come after we develop some understanding the way thing is. Higher wisdom should know clearer about how phenomenon arises and the cause of it. In this period after 2600 years of the Buddha time, we hardly see miracle as mentioned in Tipitaka. And our wisdom of people in this period is far different than people in that period. Therefore, we can not say yes and no to things we do not see with our own eyes and only think with our own idea. When you said "one should believe....", I think it isn't matter of should or shouldn't but we can note that miracle is mentioned in Tipitaka in very few parts. There are a lot of other teachings in Tipitaka which are not concern miracle but they lead us to more understanding of wholesome or unwholesome and lead us to understand the ultimate truth. These important parts of teaching should be more interesting to paid much intention to because they are very reasonable for us to understand. And if one can develop such a great wisdom from the Buddha teaching, IMHO, he must understand that Buddha's quality of all miracle he illustrated is not irrational. About this miracle things, there is the said that "the blind can't say there is no sun and moon which he can't see" Anumodhana Jagkrit #129229 From: Kenneth Elder Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: Re: Theravda Poland Foundation txbodhi I scarcely think including such books as Bhante Gunaratana’s Mindfulness in Plain English along with Pali Text Books constitutes a superficial “self-help meditation industry.” Are you jealous of people who are meditating more? By the way when Bhante Gunaratana was a young monk in Sri Lanka doing several hours of sitting meditation plus walking meditation every day he was made fun of by other monks who said, “Look he thinks he is a Buddha.”  Kenneth “Ken” Elder #129230 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:57 pm Subject: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Dear Community, My name is Annie and I am a friend of the beautiful Sarah who I swim with at Manly Beach, Sydney. I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. I have decided I am going to do what I have wanted to do for years and visit South East Asia, especially Vietnam and would like to come to Hanoi at the end of March. I am interested in being introduced to Buddhism and learning about Buddhist practices. I have much fear about this trip as I will be travelling on my own. I fear being lonely and not being about to manage my loneliness. I also know I have to be strong to attempt a trip like this and wonder if I can actually do it as I feel vulnerable at the moment. I find my anxieties often crippling and I would like to learn tools to manage it. I am hoping this trip will give me inner strength and self confidence. Thank you for the opportunity to share my story. Annie #129231 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:32 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices sarahprocter... Dear Annie, (Tam B & all Vietnamese friends), I'm so glad you've taken this 'plunge' and joined DSG (this group)! You've given a very honest introduction and I'm sure our Vietnamese friends will be delighted to meet you and assist when you reach Hanoi! For others, as Annie has mentioned, we are good swimming (and breakfasting) friends and I appreciate her keen interest in understanding more about life *at this moment* and the real causes of all problems in life. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "annieaqua" wrote: > I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. ... S: Other friends here often express similar emotions. What we learn is that the cause of all such sadness and grief is attachment, clinging - especially to our own feelings. We also learn that nothing lasts at all - not even for an instant. ... > > I have decided I am going to do what I have wanted to do for years and visit South East Asia, especially Vietnam and would like to come to Hanoi at the end of March. I am interested in being introduced to Buddhism and learning about Buddhist practices. ... S: I know our Vietnamese friends (who will see your message) will be delighted to help introduce you to the Buddhist teachings and in the meantime. Please keep discussing all these topics here. You can just follow this thread in the beginning and ignore others which may seem too complicated or full of words that make no sense. We can introduce these terms one by one. ... > > I have much fear about this trip as I will be travelling on my own. I fear being lonely and not being about to manage my loneliness. I also know I have to be strong to attempt a trip like this and wonder if I can actually do it as I feel vulnerable at the moment. I find my anxieties often crippling and I would like to learn tools to manage it. ... S: As we discussed at breakfast, in truth, we are all alone, however we live - alone with our experiences of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. The strength and 'tools' will come through more understanding of the different 'realities' of life. ... > > I am hoping this trip will give me inner strength and self confidence. > > Thank you for the opportunity to share my story. ... S: Thanks so much for sharing it, Annie. I know it took some courage to do so. I do hope many other friends will respond to your introduction too. Metta (which means 'loving-kindness' or 'good wishes') Sarah ====== #129232 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:24 pm Subject: Re: Theravda Poland Foundation kenhowardau Hi Kenneth E, Thanks for your reply. If you don't like my meditation-free understanding of the Dhamma please say so as strongly as you like. I will not take offence. I appreciate any opportunity to discuss it. ------ > KE: I scarcely think including such books as Bhante Gunaratana’s Mindfulness in Plain English along with Pali Text Books constitutes a superficial “self-help meditation industry.” Are you jealous of people who are meditating more? ----- KH: Some people are enjoying their meditation, aren't they? I might appear jealous, but I actually want to help. The true Dhamma is so infinitely superior to the self-help meditation industry, there really is no comparison. If only people would realise that! ----------------------- > KE: By the way when Bhante Gunaratana was a young monk in Sri Lanka doing several hours of sitting meditation plus walking meditation every day he was made fun of by other monks who said, “Look he thinks he is a Buddha.” ---------------------- KH: I am not familiar with his books. Do you mean to say he was practising jhana? Was he, for example, "detached from sensual objects, detached from unwholesome consciousness . . . born of detachment (vivekaja) and filled with rapture (píti) and joy (sukha))"? (Buddhist Dictionary) Or was he practising a ritualised, imitation, version of jhana? Or, worse still, did he think he was practising vipassana? There is no record in the Pali texts of a vipassana meditation ritual – either sitting or walking. According to the texts, vipassana happens at any time, by conditions, (without control) or it doesn't happen at all. Ken H #129233 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visit Hanoi , live in the present. nilovg Dear Annie, Op 15-feb-2013, om 7:57 heeft annieaqua het volgende geschreven: > > I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a > 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and > grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. > ------- N: As Sarah said, others feel similar emotions. I lost my husband in September after sixty years of marriage. I decided to take a trip to Thailand alone (I am almost 85) and I did. ------- > A: I have much fear about this trip as I will be travelling on my > own. I fear being lonely and not being about to manage my > loneliness. I also know I have to be strong to attempt a trip like > this and wonder if I can actually do it as I feel vulnerable at the > moment. I find my anxieties often crippling and I would like to > learn tools to manage it. > ------- N: My trip alone was just wonderful, I enjoyed it and before I had never thought so. Everything was so easy and I will join the trip in September from Thailand to Vietnam. It is a lovely group, you will enjoy their company. I got the taste of traveling now. The tools: constantly hearing from Acharn Sujin what is really important. Realities now, and not our own thinking of stories about the past, sad stories. Past is past, and now we learn to live in the present. I am in the process of writing about the trip and will post on dsg bit by bit. But I need time. ------ Nina. > #129234 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > J: "The Visuddhimagga (Ch XXIII) gives, as the first among the `benefits in > > developing understanding', the removal of various defilements. It explains this > > as follows: > > > > "2. Herein, it should be understood that one of the benefits of the mundane > > development of understanding is the removal of the various defilements beginning > > with [mistaken] view of individuality. This starts with the delimitation of > > mentality-materiality. Then one of the benefits of the supramundane development > > of understanding is the removal, at the path moment, of the various defilements > > beginning with the fetters." > > *** > > Sarah: As I also quoted: > > > > "When a noble disciple is wisely discerning, the faith that follows from that > > stands solid. The effort that follows from that stands solid. The mindfulness > > that follows from that stands solid and stable. The concentration that follows > > from that stands solid and stable."- SN 48.52 ... >R: No one would doubt the central importance of panna, either in its own right or as a support for other path factors. But the idea that panna is the whole of the path .... S: I haven't seen this said.... ... >and takes precedence over all other path factors is not borne out by these quotes, as far as I can tell. ... S: I think the quotes show: 1) it is panna, right understanding which eradicates defilements 2) other 'right' factors follow right understanding. Without right understanding, no other 'rights' at all. Similarly, it is wrong understanding which leads to the development of all wrong factors and it is this wrong understanding which is the greatest hindrance to the development of the path: AN, Bk of 10s, 104 'The Seed' (PTS transl): " 'Monks, for a man, a person, who has wrong view, wrong thinking, speech, action, living, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wrong knowledge and wrong release, whatsoever bodily action is carried to completion and fulfillment according to that view, whatsoever action of speech, of mind, whatsoever intention, aspiration, resolve, whatsoever activities of mind (directed thereto) there may be - all those states conduce to what is unpleasant, not delightful, not charming, not profitable, to what is painful. What is the cause of that? Monks, the view is bad. ... S: The opposite is given. When there is right view, all the other 'rights' follow. In this way, we see that it is right view/understanding which takes 'precedence' and is the 'leader' of the path. ... >R: Neither do they establish that it is not necessary or important to develop the other mundane path factors in their own right in order to fully create the conditions for the path. ... S: There cannot even be the beginning of development of other mundane path factors without the development of right understanding. For example, without intellectual right understanding (pariyatti), there is not even any right consideration of what is right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration and so on - the pre-cursor of the development of the path with direct understanding and associated path factors. This is why we spend a lot of time discussing and considering present realities - what can be directly understood by right understanding now. Metta Sarah ====== #129235 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:09 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) thomaslaw03 Dear Jagkrit, -"> About this miracle things, there is the said that "the blind can't say there is no sun and moon which he can't see" " I think this is not wisdom at all for the blind to just say there is a sun or moon. The blind should be able to know (= see) there is a sun or moon by right understanding. Do you really mean this is wisdom, not irrational: The Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on earth? Sincerely, Thomas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Thomas > > > " Miracle is irrational and superstitious to a person who lacks wisdom. ...." > > > > T: Do you mean this is wisdom: One should believe that the Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on earth? > > JJ: I think for us now to believe should come after we develop some understanding the way thing is. Higher wisdom should know clearer about how phenomenon arises and the cause of it. In this period after 2600 years of the Buddha time, we hardly see miracle as mentioned in Tipitaka. And our wisdom of people in this period is far different than people in that period. Therefore, we can not say yes and no to things we do not see with our own eyes and only think with our own idea. > > When you said "one should believe....", I think it isn't matter of should or shouldn't but we can note that miracle is mentioned in Tipitaka in very few parts. There are a lot of other teachings in Tipitaka which are not concern miracle but they lead us to more understanding of wholesome or unwholesome and lead us to understand the ultimate truth. These important parts of teaching should be more interesting to paid much intention to because they are very reasonable for us to understand. And if one can develop such a great wisdom from the Buddha teaching, IMHO, he must understand that Buddha's quality of all miracle he illustrated is not irrational. > > About this miracle things, there is the said that "the blind can't say there is no sun and moon which he can't see" > > Anumodhana > > Jagkrit > #129236 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:11 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) jagkrit2012 Dear Thomas > -"> About this miracle things, there is the said that "the blind can't say there is no sun and moon which he can't see" " > > T: I think this is not wisdom at all for the blind to just say there is a sun or moon. The blind should be able to know (= see) there is a sun or moon by right understanding. JJ: Yes, you are so right. =============== > T: Do you really mean this is wisdom, not irrational: The Buddha recited the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka to his mother in Tavatimsa for 3 months continuously, after performing the Twin Miracle on earth? JJ: I mean wisdom knows what is rational and what is not. And like Nina mentioned, Twin Miracle of the Buddha is conditioned by his vijja (wisdom) and jharana or carana. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #129237 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices tambach Dear Annie, The majority of our group will be in Hanoi at the end of March, and will be happy to meet and spend some time with you. You can send me an e-mail when you know which day you  will arrive to Hanoi, so that we can arrange some meeting together. A: I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. Tam B: Sadness and grief won't last, even though it might seem to be so overwhelming now. It is its nature to be not permanent. Do you notice even now, in a day, it is not all the time there? It is not you, so you can't tell it to go away, but it will go away when there's more understanding that it is something that arises by conditions, then fall away...It takes time for that understanding to grow, but there is for sure the possibility for it to grow. I think Nina's story is a good example of how greatly understanding can help... -------------------------- A: I have decided I am going to do what I have wanted to do for years and visit South East Asia, especially Vietnam and would like to come to Hanoi at the end of March. I am interested in being introduced to Buddhism and learning about Buddhist practices. Tam B:  Like Nina and Sarah have said, please keep up with the discussions on DSG, and listen to AS' audio. In Hanoi, we will be happy to share with you our understanding of the Dhamma on a personal life level too. --------------------------- A: I have much fear about this trip as I will be travelling on my own. I fear being lonely and not being about to manage my loneliness. I also know I have to be strong to attempt a trip like this and wonder if I can actually do it as I feel vulnerable at the moment. I find my anxieties often crippling and I would like to learn tools to manage it. I am hoping this trip will give me inner strength and self confidence. Tam B:  The trip, along with more discussions and listening might provide conditions for your understanding to grow. Understanding is always accompanied by strength and confidence. So I wish you all the best. With friendliness, Tam B #129238 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma is best psychology. tambach  Dear Alex, A: Buddha or Commentaries have never stated that things must always be understood in terms of dhammas. In fact the two truths teaching is a later addition. Tam B:  How do you understand the 2nd and 3 truth without dhammas? What are the vipassana nana are about? ------------------- A: Commentary clearly states that conventional speech is not inferior to "ultimate" speech and one is not preferable to other. Whatever works. Tam B: IMHO, conventional speech can give rise to understanding to people of high level of accumulated panna only. Because ultimately, the insights are about dhammas, not concepts. So if someone who has never developed the understanding of paramatha dhammas, how can he realise them when hearing conventional speech? Metta, Tam B #129239 From: Tam Bach Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma is best psychology- correction tambach Please read "2nd and 3rd truth" bellow as " 2nd and 3rd kind of Dukkha". Sorry for the mistake.  Dear Alex, A: Buddha or Commentaries have never stated that things must always be understood in terms of dhammas. In fact the two truths teaching is a later addition. Tam B:  How do you understand the 2nd and 3 truth without dhammas? What are the vipassana nana are about? ------------------- A: Commentary clearly states that conventional speech is not inferior to "ultimate" speech and one is not preferable to other. Whatever works. Tam B: IMHO, conventional speech can give rise to understanding to people of high level of accumulated panna only. Because ultimately, the insights are about dhammas, not concepts. So if someone who has never developed the understanding of paramatha dhammas, how can he realise them when hearing conventional speech? Metta, Tam B #129240 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) to Htoo. htoonaing... > Vipassanaa is the path that bridges puthujjana and sotapanna, > sotapanna and sakadaagaamii, sakadaagaamii and anaagaamii' and > 'anaagaamii and arahat. At least precepts have to be kept well. ------------------------------------------------------------------- N: But first there is a beginning of developing insight as you will agree. -------------------------------------------- Htoo: I agree. ----------------------------------------------- Nina: As to precepts, this reminds me of something. Some people stress that first siila must be observed, then samatha developed, and only then vipassanaa can be developed. I mention this, because I often hear this. ------------------------------------------- Htoo: Saariputta and Pu.n.na were speaking. The example was there were 7 chariots. The king first rode in chariot 1 and then 2 and so on. After declining from 7th chariot the king arrived Saavatthi. These 7 were referred to 7 visuddhi or 7 purifications. The first was siila, the second was samaadhi and 3rd to 7th were pa~n~naa. I understand this is just for example. When the wheel has to roll all 8 spokes have to participate. Dhammacakka pavattana sutta. ------------------------------------------- Nina: When one reads some texts it seems that there has to be síla first, then concentration and then pańńĺ. We discussed this with Acharn Sujin who said: "Can síla and samĺdhi be fully developed without pańńĺ?" --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This will depend on individuals. Aasayaanusaya only lies in Sammaasambuddha. No one knows individual maturity. So non-sammaasambuddha teachers (who attain enlightenment) teach for individuals for their(trainees) benefit. When study siila panna approaches even before real taking of or practising of siila. Siila and panna have to go hand in hand. Also samaadhi and panna have to go hand in hand. And samaadhi and siila also have to go hand in hand. About 1000 years after the Buddha monks on Sirilankaa especially abide vinaya. Just before dying what he recollected was that his vinaya is pure. Then piiti arise. Piiti was contemplated and then new panna which never arisen before arose and attained enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina: The sotĺpanna has fully developed síla, he cannot transgress the five precepts nor commit akusala kamma leading to an unhappy rebirth. ----------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :) Pro-sotapannaa have to fulfill siila to the extend that it becomes pure. Completeness is associated with arising of path-consciousness. No one know when path-consciousness will arise in an individual except the Buddha. So trainee (sikkha) has to fulfill siila first. Path-consciousness can only arise once. Before this time siila must be pure even though there is still anusaya. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina: The anĺgĺmi has fully developed calm, he has eradicated all clinging to sense pleasures. Síla and samĺdhi become fully developed by pańńĺ. --------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Feeling or release associates with departure from realm of sensual sphere. If there is no more craving on sense the individual becomes calm and there is no more anger and sexuality. Again this is just after arising of anaagaami magga citta or non-return-path-consciousness. --------------------------------------------------- Nina: We have to investigate whether the text refers to the lokuttara cittas. See the following: --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have discussed lokuttaraa cittas in citta sections of dhamma threads. In this post is to step on the path leading to nibbaana. A journey starts from a point and ends at a point. Here Journey-to-Nibbaana is the journey. End point is nibbaana. Starting point is anywhere in the samsaraa but at the time of interest in nibbaana. This is the very earlier point to start nibbaana journey. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina: We read in the Commentary to the Mahĺparinibbĺnasutta: "Such and such is síla (virtue), meaning, it is indeed síla, síla to that extent; here it is síla which are the four purities of síla. Samĺdhi is concentration. Wisdom should be understood as insight wisdom (vipassanĺ). --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This atthakathaa is explanation and not the path itself. 4 purities of siila are paatimokkhasamvara siila, indriyasamvara siila, aajiivapaarisuddhi siila and paccayasannissia siila. The first is 227 rules (in summary_where there are more than 90;000,000,000 precepts) abiding. The second one is like vipassanaa meditation that is purity at 6 doors. The third one is related to living. And the fourth one is also related to living but everyday living. ----------------------------------------------------- Nina: As to the words, when it is fully developed by síla, this means, when he has abided in that síla etc., these produce concentration accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness; when this is fully developed by that síla it is of great fruit and of great benefit. When he has abided in this concentration, they produce wisdom accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and this, when it is fully developed by this concentration, is of great fruit, of great benefit. When he has abided in this wisdom, they produce the path- consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and thus when it is fully developed by this (wisdom) he is completely freed from the intoxicants." Thus, when we read about full development this pertains to lokuttara cittas arising at the different stages of enlightenment. -------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have written in the previous DT series almost all about theory. This post is initiation of of real walking the path. That is to start the Journey-to-Nibbaana. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #129241 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) to Htoo. nilovg Dear Htoo, thank you for your post. The subject is so complex, isn't it? As you say, you have written begore about the theory. and now the real walking. That must start at the reality appearing now and that can be understood by pa~n~naa without using words. Such an amount of listening and considering is necessary before that kind of pa~n~naa can arise. We are always warned by Acharn Sujin: do not expect anything, we cannot do anything because pa~n~naa arises when the conditions are right. No self, no self. Nina. Op 16-feb-2013, om 9:22 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > I have written in the previous DT series almost all about theory. > This post is initiation of of real walking the path. That is to > start the Journey-to-Nibbaana. #129242 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:47 am Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Dear Tam B, all, >TB:Please read "2nd and 3rd truth" bellow as " 2nd and 3rd kind of >Dukkha". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha can be explained using normal speech. ex: dukkha of change is that rich person can become poor person (stock market collapse). Healthy person can catch a virus and become sickly. Fortune changes, health changes... Sankhara-dukkha: It is hard to maintain a body and to make a living. Or more subtly, even most peaceful state of consciousness is not 100% peaceful. Total cessation of ALL consciousness and all aggregates is the most peaceful (peaceful as lack of all disturbance). It is NOT felt peace which does contain degree of very subtle agitation. >TB:So if someone who has never developed the understanding of >paramatha >dhammas, how can he realise them when hearing >conventional speech? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Tam, IMHO you are making an issue out of non-issue. There is no evidence that early suttas or the Buddha ever taught about paramattha dhammas. It is scholastic development which Indians really loved. With best wishes, Alex #129243 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:59 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices jagkrit2012 Dear Annie Welcome to Community, Annie. Here you can find a group of friend who love to discussion and share topics of realities. Even though the page called dhamma study group but the dhamma of the Lord Buddha is only about realities or truths. And these realities are absolute realities, nothing is more real than these. In the conventional sense, we take a lot of things as if they are real. Books, computers, cars, houses etc. Cats, dogs, horses, fish etc. Mother, father, husband(s), wife(s), friends etc. But if you are interested to learn Buddhism and follow through, you might think again about those realities. The strong pole of conventional believing about realities staked deep into the ground will be shaken. The confidence of that believe will be reexamined and explicated thoroughly by not just philosophy, ideology or theory but with the righteous reason. Misbelieve or misunderstanding about realities is one factor which brings on "dhukka" (one type of it is suffering: sadness, grief, fearfulness, whatever is unpleasant feeling etc.) As your story shows that you are now experiencing them constantly, I hope that you're not trying to avoid them but instead learning and understanding them. Study some useful posts and recorded discussion in DSG web is one tool which can be used to understand your suffering right now. Best wish with your journey of life. Even at home or Vietnam or any where. Jagkrit #129244 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 2:41 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Dear Thomas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" wrote: > I am not sure how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time. Does anyone know how long the Buddha stayed in Tavatimsa at that time, according to the Pali tradition? ... S: just to also add a comment and quotes. Nina and I wrote the following before: "S: Again, at the time The Buddha returned to Sankassanagara from Tavatimsa, the realm of 33 gods, Sariputta, in Sariputta Sutta, unttered the following in praise of The Buddha: "Erst have I never seen Nor heard of one with voice So sweet as his who came From Tusita to teach." (Suttanipata verse No 955, transl by E.M. Hare, p.139) ...... "N: This verse is also found in Mahaniddesa (Sixth Synod, p.386), where there is a detailed commentary on it. The following is the commentary on the first line: "At the time The Buddha, after having resided for the period of Lent on the Pandukambala Stone at the foot of the Coral tree in Tavatimsa, came down to Sankassanagara.......... "When Sariputta, based on the methods given by The Buddha, preached Abhidhamma to his pupils, The Buddha not only stated that He had expounded the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa but also narrated this Sariputta Sutta to be left behind as evidence of having done so for the later generations. The Mahaniddesa was included in the Three Councils.> >S: Different moments, different realms. The Buddha could visit the Tavatimsa realm without anyone noticing anything untoward. The time frames are completely different in such heavenly realms, and this is why the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma there. >S: Sitagu Sayadaw wrote: " The time-scale in the ream of the gods is vastly different from our own. One hundred human years equals only one day in Tavatimsa heaven, Because of this, the times for eating and sleeping, for example, are separated by extremely long intervals. Moreover, the gods neither defecate nor urinate, and they feel no bodily aches or weariness. Therefore, they were able to listen to the entire exposition of the Abhidhamma in a single sitting, and - for what was to them only fifteen minutes - to attend to the discourse with a stream of thought that was undivided and continuous. In contrast, it took the Venerable Sariputta, who was the most intelligent of the Buddha's disciples, ninety days and ninety separate trips to Tavatimsa to learn and then preach in the human realm that Abhidhamma which was taught to the gods in one uninterrupted sitting." **** Metta Sarah ==== #129245 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:06 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... sarahprocter... Hi Tony, Hang in there! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > T: Just because something isn't 'real' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. ... S: As far as we understand the Buddha to be saying and the testing out of what is said to be so, that which is real exists and that which is not real doesn't exist. So we read about 4 kinds of realities, paramattha dhammas, in the Pali canon: - citta - cetasika - rupa - nibbana These are real and exist. Anything else is a concept which means it's not real and doesn't exist - it is only thought about, conceptualised. As Sukin said, a rose or any part of it is a concept and doesn't exist. ... > The Ultimate Nature of ALL phenoemena is its Emptiness of its Inherent Existence. ... All dhammas, that is all realities, are anatta. Anatta means empty of a self. It doesn't mean empty of "inherent existence". Even nibbana has sabbava, inherent nature. If not, it could never be experienced. Metta Sarah ====== #129246 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:13 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > >R: What is the best translation for dukkha in this context? Unsatisfactoriness? > > ... > > S: Whether it's "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" (which I tend to prefer) or anything else, it is the understanding of dhammas and the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory, that is important. > --------------------------- > HCW: > Sarah, did you mean "MISunderstanding"? And, Sarah, if there are conditions for dhammas being dukkha - primarily moha and tanha - in what sense is that unsatisfactoriness inherent? Is it not, instead, extrinsic/adventitious? > --------------------------- S: It was clumsily written on my part. I meant it is the understanding that is important, i.e the understanding of a) dhammas and b) the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory. In other words, the dukkha nature of dhammas is understood to be the impermanence of conditioned realities. Therefore the conditions for such dhammas to be dukkha is the arising and falling away of them. This is why they are inherently unsatisfactory even in the case of the Buddha and arahats who have no more moha or tanha arising. Let's discuss on... Metta Sarah ==== #129247 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:19 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 7. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Virtue surpasses the achievement of beauty, for it makes one beat tiful even to one's enemies, and it cannot be vanquished by the adversities of ageing and sickness. As the foundation for distinguished states of happiness, virtue surpasses such distinguished dwellings as palaces, mansions, etc., and such distinguished social positions as that of a king, prince, or general. Because it promotes one's highest welfare and follows one to the world beyond, virtue surpasses kinsmen and friends, even those who are close and affectionate. "Again, in accomplishing the difficult task of self-protection, virtue is superior to troops of elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry, as well as to such devices as mantras, spells, and blessings, for it depends on oneself, does not depend on others, and has a great sphere of influence. Hence it is said: "Dhamma protects the one who lives by Dhamma" (Thag.303). "When one reflects in this way upon the numerous noble qualities of virtue, one's unfulfilled achievement of virtue will become fulfilled, and one's unpurified virtue will become purified. **** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129248 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:39 pm Subject: Re: Avijja Sutta : Ignorance is the leader. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > The Lord Buddha pointed that ignorance is the leader of all defilement. In the opposite, clear knowing or right understanding or vijja or panna is the leader of all wholesome. The Lord also pointed out that when ignorance arises what will follow it. > > It is very interesting always that after ignorance arises, lack of conscience and concern (ahiriga and anodtappa) follow. Then comes wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech....... wrong effort and wrong mindfulness and then wrong concentration. ... S: Ignorance is the 'leader' of what is unwholesome and 'understanding' of what is wholesome. We shouldn't think that such mental states arises sequentially, however. For example, whenever ignorance arises, ahiri and anottappa (lack of conscience and concern) arise with it, as do states such as wrong concentration. Others, such as wrong view and wrong speech may or may not arise. ... > > Very important to know that when one starts with ignorance, at last one ends up with wrong concentration (mijja samathi). ... S: Together. ... > > Even during that way, everything is wrong. Wrong resolve and wrong effort are in my interest. In conventional life, we always resolve and make effort to do something with ignorance except during the time of give dhanna and not exploiting others. ... S: As we know, viirya cetasika (effort) arises with all cittas other than seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching in the sense plane cittas. So, even when there is no conventional idea of resolve, such as in deep sleep or after seeing and hearing in sense-door cittas, there is effort, viriya. Usually, akusala as you stress. ... > > But when we study dhamma of the Lord Buddha and realise how danger of defilement and the benefit of wholesomeness. We start to resolve and make effort toward kusala. Even we try to be mindful and concentrate to develop panna. And certainly, everyone who make effort to do or to practice vipatsana or samatha and expect to throw off all defilement, always assure that he make right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. ... S: Whenver there is trying to be mindful and to concentrate to develop panna or there is "make effort to do or to practice vipatsana or samatha", there is ignorance, no understanding at all, because there is an idea of self behind such ideas of "trying to do" or have particular states arise. It is clinging to kusala for oneself. ... > > The very crucial point is how can we aware that we do not start to do or practice something for development of panna with ignorance because we are full of it as usual. ... S: There is no "we" to be aware. Only panna, right understanding, can understand the present dhammas as dhammas, not self at all. As soon as there is any trying to be aware or trying to know, it's ignorance again. It too can be known as a conditioned dhamma at such times. ... > Is this the starting scenario we must investigate closely? ... S: The "starting scenario" is always the presently appearing dhamma. No "we" to do anything or to investigate. Understanding more about presently appearing dhammas, naturally, rather than thinking in terms of 'situations', trying to 'match' different states, is always the "start". Like seeing now, visible object now..... ... > To me, it seems that ignorance is everywhere, every moment. Even a little move, it is ignorance. No clear knowing at all. ... S: It's true, as you say, that ignorance arises most of the time. Good to appreciate this. However, other realities are appearing now that can be known, such as visible object, sound, pleasant feeling, hardness, like, dislike. If we say 'there's just ignorance, so no use', it is just more ignorance being accumulated. The subtle middle path of understanding! Let's discuss this more. Metta Sarah ==== #129249 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > In Rajchaburi, Than Acharn said "Choose to do something is only thinking". ... S: With or without wrong understanding. ... >I consider more on this quote. It is exactly what it is. We've chosen or decided to do something but what happens, whether according to what we chose or not, is different. What happens is reality which arises according to set of conditions not choosing. > > Then who can choose? ... S: No one at all. As you say, just realities arising according to various conditions. AN VII, 67 Mental Development (1) (Bodhi transl) “Monks, although a monk who does not apply himself to the meditative development of his mind may wish, "Oh, that my mind might be freed from the taints by non-clinging!", yet his mind will not be freed. For what reason? "Because he has not developed his mind," one has to say. Not developed it in what? In the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right kinds of striving, the four bases of success, the five spiritual faculties, the five spiritual powers, the seven factors of enlightenment and the Noble Eightfold Path.” Also, from "Nava Sutta" (The Ship): "Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her â€" 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' â€" still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. "In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development â€" 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' â€" still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html Metta Sarah ====== #129250 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:06 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > >R: What is the best translation for dukkha in this context? Unsatisfactoriness? > > > ... > > > S: Whether it's "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" (which I tend to prefer) or anything else, it is the understanding of dhammas and the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory, that is important. > > --------------------------- > > HCW: > > Sarah, did you mean "MISunderstanding"? And, Sarah, if there are conditions for dhammas being dukkha - primarily moha and tanha - in what sense is that unsatisfactoriness inherent? Is it not, instead, extrinsic/adventitious? > > --------------------------- > > S: It was clumsily written on my part. I meant it is the understanding that is important, i.e the understanding of a) dhammas and b) the impermanence of those dhammas which make them inherently unsatisfactory. In other words, the dukkha nature of dhammas is understood to be the impermanence of conditioned realities. ------------------------------- HCW: Thsnkd for the clarification, Sarah. :-) -------------------------------- > > Therefore the conditions for such dhammas to be dukkha is the arising and falling away of them. -------------------------------- HCW: Yes, that IS a condition, although the cessation of a painful dhamma goes quite in the opposite direction. Also, there are other conditions that also play into the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned phenomena, including their uncontrolability and the tendency for beings to want MORE of a pleasant dhamma, never being satisfied; i.e., the craving for more and more pleasurable sensation. --------------------------------- This is why they are inherently unsatisfactory even in the case of the Buddha and arahats who have no more moha or tanha arising. --------------------------------- HCW: I have no doubt that all conditioned dhammas are conditions for suffering (i.e., mental pain/dissatisfaction) of some degree, but not without the presence of tanha. So it is the *inherence* of dukkha that I question. Much depends on exactly what 'inherent' means. If one means by it merely "being a feature of something," then every quality of everything, even if dependent on extrinsic conditions, is "inherent". I think it is important to emphasize that unsatisfactoriness and suffering can be put to an end. The Buddha taught dukkha and the end of dukkha, and care should be taken in speaking of dukkha as "inherent" in all conditioned phenomena, even though it is true in the sense of all conditioned dhammas being among conditions for dissatisfaction. ---------------------------------- > > Let's discuss on... > > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129251 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon Feb 18, 2013 2:11 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: No one would doubt the central importance of panna, either in its own right or as a support for other path factors. But the idea that panna is the whole of the path > .... > S: I haven't seen this said.... I think the impression may have been given that the development of right understanding will automatically create all the other necessary conditions for enlightenment - I guess that's along the lines of dry insight where all path factors arise due to panna. I may misunderstand how this works [I'm almost sure that I do] but what I often see is the idea that other aspects of the path [such as the sometime-debated arising of right understanding while working as a butcher and killing chickens] are not important to observe and that panna will wipe out all faults and trump all other akusala regardless of what one does or says. > >and takes precedence over all other path factors is not borne out by these quotes, as far as I can tell. > ... > S: I think the quotes show: > > 1) it is panna, right understanding which eradicates defilements > > 2) other 'right' factors follow right understanding. Without right understanding, no other 'rights' at all. This idea of "following" is pretty linear. My sense of the path is that the factors develop together, and that they support each other. Could one develop a high level of panna while killing chickens for a living? I guess it's theoretically possible, but seems doubtful to me. If one were in the throes of adulteress lust and going back to satisfy sexual desire continuously, would high-level insight develop in that situaton? Again, it's possible for panna to take any object, but it still seems to me that some level of defilements has to be controlled before a great deal of panna can accumulate and develop. Do you think this is not true? Is there an example of people living completely outside of the mundane "dictates" of the path and suddenly developing extremely high wisdom without first living a more kusala lifestyle? It seems to me that the path factors on the mundane level are mutually supportive of development of understanding, and that panna by itself cannot "lift" all the other factors if they are really in a deep, dark place. I am happy to hear you contradict this if you think it's not the case. Certainly would be more hopeful for me, and probably for a lot of other people if we can develop panna in the midst of greed, lust, anger and jealousy. > Similarly, it is wrong understanding which leads to the development of all wrong factors and it is this wrong understanding which is the greatest hindrance to the development of the path: > > AN, Bk of 10s, 104 'The Seed' (PTS transl): > > " 'Monks, for a man, a person, who has wrong view, wrong thinking, speech, > action, living, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wrong knowledge and > wrong release, whatsoever bodily action is carried to completion and > fulfillment according to that view, whatsoever action of speech, of mind, > whatsoever intention, aspiration, resolve, whatsoever activities of mind > (directed thereto) there may be - all those states conduce to what is > unpleasant, not delightful, not charming, not profitable, to what is > painful. What is the cause of that? Monks, the view is bad. > ... > S: The opposite is given. When there is right view, all the other 'rights' > follow. Well that is not a scenario I would disagree with. But you still hae to ask, what causes right view to develop to the point where it lifts up other factors? Will it happen in the middle of someone who is drunk, screaming, yelling and getting into fist-fights? Or do the basics of the path have to arise together to support even an interest in right understanding? > In this way, we see that it is right view/understanding which takes 'precedence' and is the 'leader' of the path. And how does it come to be? I don't think we would even have these kinds of discussions if a certain amount of balance and interest hadn't developed first. Even for basic pariyatti there can't be no progress in the defilements, can there? > >R: Neither do they establish that it is not necessary or important to develop the other mundane path factors in their own right in order to fully create the conditions for the path. > ... > S: There cannot even be the beginning of development of other mundane path factors without the development of right understanding. > > For example, without intellectual right understanding (pariyatti), there is not even any right consideration of what is right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration and so on - the pre-cursor of the development of the path with direct understanding and associated path factors. I can see a scenario, for instance, where a person could develop a certain degree of samatha first, perhaps through meditation, and that the calm and centeredness that developed would lead to the arising of mindfulness. But I guess you might not agree with that. We were recently talking about I think the Samadhi sutta where the Buddha talks about the different orders in which the factors can arise - for some samatha first then vipassana, and for others vice versa. This is the kind of thing I am thinking about as I think the main path factors can support the development of the others from different angles, depending on the temperament and accumulations. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #129252 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. jagkrit2012 Dear Sarah > >JJ: Then who can choose? > ... > S: No one at all. As you say, just realities arising according to various conditions. > > AN VII, 67 Mental Development (1) (Bodhi transl) > > “Monks, although a monk who does not apply himself to the meditative > development of his mind may wish, "Oh, that my mind might be > freed from the taints by non-clinging!", yet his mind will not be freed. > For what reason? "Because he has not developed his mind," > one has to say. Not developed it in what? In the four foundations of > mindfulness, the four right kinds of striving, the four bases of > success, the five spiritual faculties, the five spiritual powers, > the seven factors of enlightenment and the Noble Eightfold Path.” > > Also, from "Nava Sutta" (The Ship): > > "Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her â€" 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' â€" still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. > > "In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development â€" 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' â€" still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html JJ: Thank you very much for your referring of above suttas. This shows that wish is wish. What we wish happens only because of right condition. However, it can't be helped not to wish but when wish arises I could learn and understand it more and not expect too much from that wish. Anumodhana Jagkrit #129253 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 11:01 am Subject: Formal practice? (was, Re: Seeing = Visible object) jonoabb Hi Rob E (129132) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > Here are some segments that I think refer to meditation and/or meditation preparation: > =============== J: Well the point we were looking at was your reference to "preliminary exercises that would lead to the development of jhana". But you don't identify any specific such preliminary exercises. In fact you conclude by saying that whether an exercise is preliminary or not "is secondary to" the purposeful intent to develop awareness or samatha through formal meditation practices. Sounds like a classic bait and switch to me :-)) Anyway, I'm happy to talk about purposeful intent/formal practice. > =============== > RE: > "...he should sit down comfortably in a secluded place and > apprehend the sign in earth that is either made up or not made up." > > So he is instructed to once again purposely sit down [control freak that he is] in a secluded place, and "apprehend the sign," another "formal meditation practice." > =============== J: Context again. The paragraph from which you are quoting begins like this: "When a bhikkhu has thus severed the lesser impediments, then, on his return from his alms round after his meal and after he has got rid of drowsiness due to the meal, he should sit down comfortably in a secluded place ... " This refers back to the outline given in para 28 of Ch III where it says: " "But mundane concentration should be developed by one who has taken his stand on virtue that is quite purified in the way already stated. He should sever any of the ten impediments that he may have. He should then approach the good friend, the giver of a meditation subject, and he should apprehend from among the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament. After that he should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and go to live in one that is favourable. Then he should sever the lesser impediments and not overlook any of the directions for development. This is in brief." The passage we are now looking at is part of the 'directions for development' stage. By this stage, if not before he even thought about severing the ten impediments, the bhikkhu would be accustomed to sitting down comfortably in a secluded place as part of his daily routine. All that is being described here is what has long become a normal daily activity for him. > =============== > RE: It's like...a formal meditation session! > =============== J: Well it has the seated posture in common with a 'formal meditation session' :-)). But in a formal mediation session one is doing certain things with the idea that that will lead to the development of awareness/jhana. That is not the case with the bhikkhus being described in this section of the Vism. Of course, any activity, including sitting, is by definition deliberate. The question we're discussing, however, is whether by following the course of specific deliberate activities mentioned in the texts there can be the development of samatha (or alternatively whether without following a course of specific deliberate activities mentioned in the texts the development of samatha is not possible). > =============== > RE: > "22. For this is said: 4 "One who is learning the earth kasióa apprehends the sign in earth that is either made up or not made up...He sees to it that that sign is well apprehended, well attended to, well defined. > > "He sees to it" - more control. > =============== J: Not control, but the development to a stage where it can be said that the sign is "well apprehended", etc. > =============== > RE: > "Having done that, and seeing its advantages and > perceiving it as a treasure, building up respect for it, making it dear to him, he anchors his mind to that object..." > > "He anchors his mind to the object" - more formal meditation practice with purposeful intent to fix the mind on the object. > =============== J: According to the commentary (from which you quote in your post), the words `He anchors his mind' mean: "by bringing his own mind to access jhana he anchors it, keeps it from other objects". So this is a reference to an actual level of attainment. BTW, I'd be interested to know what you make of the reference to "seeing its advantages and perceiving it as a treasure, building up respect for it, making it dear to him" which you quoted above. > =============== > RE: > "Secluded from sense desires … he enters upon and dwells in > the first jhána …" > > And of course, it inevitably leads to jhana, like all the other Buddhist practices. > =============== J: You seem to read the text at paragraphs 21 and 22 of Ch IV as an instruction for a practice that can take a person from 'zero' to jhana? A mere 15 lines of text! Sounds easy; perhaps you should give it a try :-)) I think a close reading of the texts shows that what on a superficial reading may seem like a specific physical act to be done is in fact an already-developed habit, and what may seem like a mental exercise to be undertaken is in fact a reference to a level of attainment. Jon #129254 From: Tam Bach Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology tambach Dear Alex, all, A: Sankhara-dukkha: It is hard to maintain a body and to make a living. ------------- Tam B: Did a Buddha need to appear for this to be known? ------------- A: Or more subtly, even most peaceful state of consciousness is not 100% peaceful. Total cessation of ALL consciousness and all aggregates is the most peaceful (peaceful as lack of all disturbance). It is NOT felt peace which does contain degree of very subtle agitation. -------------- Tam B: What is the most peaceful state of consciousness? How do you know it is not 100% peaceful? What are aggregates? Aren't they not dhammas? What contains subtle agitation? -------------- A: Dear Tam, IMHO you are making an issue out of non-issue. There is no evidence that early suttas or the Buddha ever taught about paramattha dhammas. It is scholastic development which Indians really loved. Tam B:  Well, in the suttas, the Buddha talked abundantly about the five aggregates, the twelve ayatanas,  the sense bases, the element of consciousness etc....These are all paramatha dhammas, to be known and understood as they are, now. Their characteristics have never changed. Metta, Tam B #129255 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:20 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) szmicio Dear Nina, > As to paramattha > dhammas, no need to name anything that appears, but just develop a > little bit more understanding of what appears now, such as visible > object or seeing. No need to name these or think about them. There > are different characteristics and gradually these can be understood. L: This is very good reminder. But how this is with tangible objects? For example I usually can name it as tangble object, but I dont know whether this is hard or soft. Is it all right, to notice just a tangile object? Best wishes Lukas #129256 From: "Tony H" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:27 am Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... tony.humphreys >T: Just because something isn't 'real' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. >S: As far as we understand the Buddha to be saying and the testing out of what is said to be so, that which is real exists and that which is not real doesn't exist. T: Things have two modes of existence. Ultimate and Conventional. Conventionally they appear to our minds and function as such. Thats ALL they are, an appearance to our mind. Ultimately they lack any self, essence or inherent existence. >S: Even nibbana has sabbava, inherent nature. If not, it could never be experienced. T: The only reason we experience these things is because the lack inherent existence....if they were not we would never be able to experience them. Please can you give me an example of any phenomena at all anywhere that can be reduced to an essence or self. What are these things that you say truly exist? Where are they when they're not in my mind? Can you show me one 'partless' thing? If you can then you have identified an inherently existent phenomena. This has yet to be done, anywhere, ever ;) This is because the ultimate nature of all phenomena (thats ALL phenomena without exception) is that it lacks any real existence. Whatever you discuss, identify, experience (ad nauseum) exists in dependence upon your mind. No mind, no object. Rupa is an illusion based upon our lapsing into either of the two extremes - usually the extreme of existence (ie. that things really do exist in the way that they appear). When we label something we give it life as it were, we then believe it to have existence beyond its name and our experience. If you follow through my previous post in terms of looking for the 'rose' its evident that one minute the rose is there (appears to my mind = conventional truth) then upon deeper investigation the rose cannot be found in its part or out of its parts (no inherent existence = Ultimate Truth). Put all the 'bits' together then the rose (re)appears to my mind. Apply this logic to ALL phenomena and again, its evident that reality is merely an appearance to mind lacking any existence other than a name and its conventional appearance. So, running the risk of us returning to the starting blocks re this debte, can you show me ANYTHING at all that possess an irreduceable quality that exists in and of itself independently. If this debate is to work then speaking of the Dhamms being 'real' will have to be qualified logically. Or simpler still offer a refutation of the above stance by presenting a demonstrable alternative. With Metta, Tony... #129257 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Dear Tam, all, >A: Sankhara-dukkha: It is hard to maintain a body and to make a >living. >------------- > Tam B: Did a Buddha need to appear for this to be known? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. But sometimes it takes a genius to point out things that we overlook. A lot of things that sutta say was taught in other traditions. Biggest difference between the Dhamma and other teachings is... the practice... >Tam B: What is the most peaceful state of consciousness? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mundane: Base of neither perception nor non-perception. Aryan: Arahattaphala samapatti. But the best is parinibbana (it is NOT state of consciousness). >How do you know it is not 100% peaceful? All states of consciousness contain at least some degree of agitation, movement, change, unsatisfactoriness. >Tam B:  Well, in the suttas, the Buddha talked abundantly about >the five aggregates, the twelve ayatanas,  the sense bases, the >element of consciousness etc.... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. But He never taught that they are somehow more ultimate. It is later interpretation about "ultimate vs conventional". Just like people, cars and trees are given in experience, in the same way aggregates, etc, are given in experience. In fact people, cars and trees are more "real" than abstract qualities that never found apart such as vedana, sanna, and vinnana. With best wishes, Alex #129258 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology ptaus1 Hi Alex, Sorry for butting in on this topic yet again, but it just occurred to me how the un/real dichotomy could be better explained. It's sort of a pet project of mine now so please bear with me. > Right. But He never taught that they are somehow more ultimate. > It is later interpretation about "ultimate vs conventional". > > Just like people, cars and trees are given in experience, in the same way aggregates, etc, are given in experience. > > > In fact people, cars and trees are more "real" than abstract qualities that never found apart such as vedana, sanna, and vinnana. Perhaps rather than saying "real", maybe it could all make more sense if it's said "really important" instead. E.g. imo, knowing that cars, trees, etc, are anatta or anicca isn't really important for ending dukkha. But, knowing that the feeling, or perception, or anger, that is experienced in this moment is anatta or anicca - that is something that is really important for ending dukkha. Hence why I think many here insist on reality of dhammas and unreality of other conventional things (for the purposes of ending dukkha) - only knowing right now that feeling or perception or whatever other dhamma experienced now is anicca and anatta, that's what actually ends dukkha, and in that sense, these things (dhammas) are real (really important) when it comes to ending dukkha. Everything else just isn't real (really important) when it comes to ending dukkha, and that includes cars, trees, etc. Ok, no more on this for a while, I promise. Best wishes pt #129259 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:19 am Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... upasaka_howard Hi, Tony - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > >T: Just because something isn't 'real' doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > > >S: As far as we understand the Buddha to be saying and the testing out of what is said to be so, that which is real exists and that which is not real doesn't exist. > > T: Things have two modes of existence. Ultimate and Conventional. Conventionally they appear to our minds and function as such. Thats ALL they are, an appearance to our mind. Ultimately they lack any self, essence or inherent existence. > > >S: Even nibbana has sabbava, inherent nature. If not, it could never be experienced. > T: The only reason we experience these things is because the lack inherent existence....if they were not we would never be able to experience them. > > Please can you give me an example of any phenomena at all anywhere that can be reduced to an essence or self. What are these things that you say truly exist? Where are they when they're not in my mind? Can you show me one 'partless' thing? If you can then you have identified an inherently existent phenomena. This has yet to be done, anywhere, ever ;) This is because the ultimate nature of all phenomena (thats ALL phenomena without exception) is that it lacks any real existence. > > Whatever you discuss, identify, experience (ad nauseum) exists in dependence upon your mind. No mind, no object. Rupa is an illusion based upon our lapsing into either of the two extremes - usually the extreme of existence (ie. that things really do exist in the way that they appear). > > When we label something we give it life as it were, we then believe it to have existence beyond its name and our experience. > > If you follow through my previous post in terms of looking for the 'rose' its evident that one minute the rose is there (appears to my mind = conventional truth) then upon deeper investigation the rose cannot be found in its part or out of its parts (no inherent existence = Ultimate Truth). Put all the 'bits' together then the rose (re)appears to my mind. Apply this logic to ALL phenomena and again, its evident that reality is merely an appearance to mind lacking any existence other than a name and its conventional appearance. > > So, running the risk of us returning to the starting blocks re this debte, can you show me ANYTHING at all that possess an irreduceable quality that exists in and of itself independently. > > If this debate is to work then speaking of the Dhamms being 'real' will have to be qualified logically. Or simpler still offer a refutation of the above stance by presenting a demonstrable alternative. > > With Metta, > > Tony... > ============================= Tony, what we call a rose is a mental concoction based on a collection of simpler, interconnected phenomena, but viewed mistakenly as a single entity. What is at issue here as far as this group of Theravadins is concerned is simple phenomena such as an instance of what we call warmth. The view here, which I, BTW, do not share, is that any instance of warmth is an irreducible entity which is not "just" content of consciousness, but an entity existing in and of itself (as regards being experienced). However, this is somewhat contradicted by both sutta and commentary that include both describing rupas as having three stages of arising, changing-while-standing, and fading. and also seem to describe phenomena as mere content of consciousness. Two teachings of the Buddha that are part of the Pali canon and which, IMO, diverge from this "own being" view are the following: 1) "Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible.These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned." (From the Sankhata Sutta), and 2) "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. When hearing... When sensing... When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." (From the Kalaka Sutta) With metta, Howard /In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself./ (From the Bahiya Sutta) #129260 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:48 am Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... ptaus1 Hi Tony, Hope you don't mind me butting in. I get the impression you are missing one important bit in the posts by Jon, Ken and others regarding the rose example, perhaps because the issue is absent from the Prasangika explanation of how things work, so it's just not registering, though I've no clue about Prasangika or course: > Tony: If you follow through my previous post in terms of looking for the 'rose' its evident that one minute the rose is there (appears to my mind = conventional truth) then upon deeper investigation the rose cannot be found in its part or out of its parts (no inherent existence = Ultimate Truth). Put all the 'bits' together then the rose (re)appears to my mind. pt: I think you identify here two main components of cognition (if that's the right word) - appearance of the rose to the mind, and then analysis of the rose by the mind into its parts. However, theravadin theory of cognition lists another few steps that happen before the rose actually appears to the mind (and then gets analized into parts). The most important preceding step that was mentioned, but I don't get the impression you registered it, is when the "visual data" (a material dhamma) arises together with eye-sense (also a material dhamma), and they contact sense-consciousness (a mental dhamma). Importantly, at this point the rose still hasn't appeared to the mind even though there's "visual data". Once I was explained that visual data is something like all the light that's collected at the eye at one instance. No roses, cars and other things appear to the mind yet, but "visual data", eye-sense, and sense-consciousness - all these are dhammas, realities, and understanding that these are anatta (at the moment when they arise) - that is insight that leads to ending of dukkha. Only on later steps in the process of cognition does the visual data (or rather, the "processed" visual data by sense-consciousness) then come into contact with mind-consciousness (a different kind of consciousness /dhamma), which is when the rose gets "picked out" from the visual data, so to speak, and at this point there is the appearance of a rose to the mind (and then further later (much later) on does the analysis into parts happen in the mind). Understanding that this mind-consciousness (a mental dhamma) that thinks about a rose or its parts, or the perception (a mental dhamma) which picks out a rose out of visual data, or thinking (a mental dhamma) which keeps thinking about the parts of roses - understanding that these dhammas as they arise are anatta is what leads to ending of dukkha. It is not the analysis of rose into its parts that leads to the ending of dukkha, because roses and parts are just ideas (not dhammas). Really, there's no difference in thinking that rose has parts and thinking that a rose has indivisible essence - it's all just thinking. Understanding that thinking now is anatta though can be insight. Sorry if you already know all this and I'm just preaching to the choir. Best wishes pt #129261 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:57 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is >experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something >that is really important for >ending dukkha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped? With best wishes, Alex #129262 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology kenhowardau Hi Alex, ---- >> Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something that is really important for >ending dukkha. >> > Alex: Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped? ------- KH: You, Alex, do *not* know that. You deny the existence of conditioned namas and rupas (which the Dhamma says are anatta). Instead, you claim that permanent beings (people) and permanent things (cars and trees) are anatta. So there is no ending of dukkha for you. :-) Some of us do understand, at an elementary, intellectual level, that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta and all dhammas are anatta. I suppose it follows, therefore, that we know the cessation of dukkha – at that same, elementary, intellectual level. Lucky us! Ken H #129263 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:38 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 8. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "If, due to their cumulative force, states antithetical to virtue such as aversion should arise from time to time, the aspirant should reflect: "Did you not make the resolution to win full enlightenment? One defective in virtue cannot even succeed in mundane affairs, much less in supramundane matters. "You should reach the peak of virtue, for virtue is the foundation for supreme enlightenment, the foremost of all achievements. You should always be well behaved, safeguarding your virtue perfectly, more carefully than a hen safeguarding its eggs. Further, by teaching the Dhamma you should help beings to enter and reach maturity in the three vehicles. "But the word of a morally dubious man is no more reliable than the remedy of a doctor who does not consider what is suitable for his patients. How can I be trustworthy, so that I can help beings to enter and reach maturity in the three vehicles? "I must be pure in character and in virtue. How can I acquire the distinguished attainments such as the jhanas, etc., so that I will be capable of helping others and of fulfilling the prefection of wisdom, etc.? The distinguished attainments such as the jhanas, etc., are not possible without purification of virtue. Therefore virtue should be made perfectly pure." **** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129264 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:41 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > I asked A. Paderm, one of Thai dhamma learned person who participates in Thai DSG website. He gave interesting comment and I translate as follow: ... S: I appreciated the emphasis on the following point: > Everyone usually thinks that the supernatural potential is unbelievable but the Buddha said that capacity of illustrating supernatural phenomenon by him or others was just normal and indeed not remarkable because this faculty could be developed by the right cause. Nevertheless, this faculty can not eradicate any defilement. > > But to see the realities as they are at this moment is much more remarkable because the vipassana nana which is very very difficult to attain has developed. That is the great wisdom the Buddha had taught to understand the noble truths which is the way to be freed from samsara and dukka. Because vipassana nana can eventually eradicate all defilement and ignorance, it, therefore, is so extraordinary. ... S: Thanks for translating and sharing. As said, it is the direct understanding of realities and the attainment of insights up to enlightenment that is truly remarkable. Metta Sarah ===== #129265 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:03 pm Subject: Re: The Two Extremes...Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S: Yes, but the need to understand what? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 4NT, for example. .... S: Starting with the 1st NT - what is this? ... > > >A:Dhamma is about cessatom of suffering, as since suffering is felt >in the mind, Dhamma is psychology in that sense. Dhamma IS the best >psychology, no question about that! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > S: What do you mean by suffering? The cessation of what? .. >A: Suffering = Dukkha as 1st NT. It is cessation of that. ... S: Is seeing now dukkha? Is hearing dukkha? What is dukkha? .... > >S:We are discussing reality now. There is seeing now, there is >visible object now, there is thinking. Ideas about keyboards are >just ideas, just concepts. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >A: And these ideas are helpful. Imagine living where you see colors only but don't recognize shapes and objects. Is that your goal? > > One will die from starvation if one totally loses conceptualization. ... S: There is no suggestion of "losing conceptualization". The suggestion is that we don't need a Buddha to teach us how to conceptualize or to recognize colours and shapes. We're all experts at this already. .... > >S:No problem with that - but they are not realities which can be >directly known at this moment. Knowing all the fine details about >keyboards will not help one iota on the path to liberation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >A: We need to know and realize 4NT. ... S: I'm still waiting for you to explain what the 1st NT is. Just to say "dukkha" is meaningless. What is dukkha? Dukkha of what? > >S:Yes, like now, without concepts, we could not communicate. >However, concepts can never be realities. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Concepts are real in the sense that we can know them and communicate using them. ... S: Concepts are thought about. They do not have characteristics that can be directly known as anicca and dukkha. They are not objects of insight. Metta Sarah ===== #129266 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:34 pm Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is >experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something >that is really important for >ending dukkha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped? My take is that we know this, but just intellectually. As in, panna, sati and other factors of enlightenment (bojjhangas) are not yet sharp enough to actually know (directly) that feeling (as and when it arises) is anatta, for example. I guess you'd agree that there's a difference between understanding something intellectually and understanding it directly. However, the intellectual understanding at least makes it possible to appreciate rare moments of direct understanding when they do arise in the future. I gather that this is how panna, sati and other bojjhangas actually become sharper over time - basically by appreciating them when they arise. In contrast, it seems that no matter how much one thinks about cars, trees, etc, uses these object, works with them , etc, still none of this seems to have any bearing on ending of dukkha. So it seems panna, sati and other factors can only get sharper (thus leading to ending of dukkha) in connection with dhammas. That seems to be the domain of enlightenment, not cars, trees, etc, which is why the real importance (or reality) of dhammas is stressed for ending of dukkha. My take anyway on what people here seem to be saying. Best wishes pt #129267 From: "Tony H" Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... tony.humphreys Hi Pt, PT: > Understanding that this mind-consciousness (a mental dhamma) that thinks about a rose or its parts, or the perception (a mental dhamma) which picks out a rose out of visual data, or thinking (a mental dhamma) which keeps thinking about the parts of roses - understanding that these dhammas as they arise are anatta is what leads to ending of dukkha. It is not the analysis of rose into its parts that leads to the ending of dukkha, because roses and parts are just ideas (not dhammas). Really, there's no difference in thinking that rose has parts and thinking that a rose has indivisible essence - it's all just thinking. Understanding that thinking now is anatta though can be insight. Sorry if you already know all this and I'm just preaching to the choir. TH: I think this is what I have been saying. Either way, amidst everything you have described above......there is still no rose other than the appearance to the mind. Its unfindable. But you're right, I may well have missed something here or its been lost in translation. There is no duality in terms of realities and non-realities (if we share the same undertanding of 'realities' that is?). There is only appearance to mind. Tony... #129268 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alex) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > ---- > >> Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is > experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something that is really important for >ending dukkha. > >> > > > Alex: Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped? > ------- > > KH: You, Alex, do *not* know that. You deny the existence of conditioned namas and rupas (which the Dhamma says are anatta). -------------------------------- HCW: So far as I know, Alex does NOT deny namas and rupas. --------------------------------- Instead, you claim that permanent beings (people) and permanent things (cars and trees) are anatta. --------------------------------- HCW: And so far as I know, Alex does NOT consider people, cars, and trees to be permanent. --------------------------------- > > So there is no ending of dukkha for you. :-) -------------------------------- HCW: And, Ken, since you have what you consider to be right view, has dukkha ended for YOU? Are you close? ---------------------------------- > > Some of us do understand, at an elementary, intellectual level, that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta and all dhammas are anatta. I suppose it follows, therefore, that we know the cessation of dukkha – at that same, elementary, intellectual level. --------------------------------- HCW: Why do you suppose that you and some others are unique in such an intellectual understanding? Ken, is this not a form of conceit? ---------------------------------- > > Lucky us! > > Ken H > =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129269 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 19-feb-2013, om 10:20 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > As to paramattha > > dhammas, no need to name anything that appears, but just develop a > > little bit more understanding of what appears now, such as visible > > object or seeing. No need to name these or think about them. There > > are different characteristics and gradually these can be understood. > > L: This is very good reminder. But how this is with tangible > objects? For example I usually can name it as tangble object, but I > dont know whether this is hard or soft. Is it all right, to notice > just a tangile object? > ------ > N: It has a characteristic and it does not matter whether it is > very hard or very soft or just a little. No need to think of it or > to name it, or to name it tangible object, it just appears through > the bodysense for an extremely short moment. It seems that it stays > for a while but that is not so. > As Acharn said, even hardness we take for my body or mine, when there is an idea of somewhere. Awareness begins but pa~n~naa is not strong enough to let go of the idea of mine or self. ------ Nina. #129270 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:24 am Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Alex), ------- <. . .> HCW: So far as I know, Alex does NOT deny namas and rupas. ------- KH: When a Dhamma student acknowledges the existence of namas and rupas he is able to see how the entire universe could be *just* namas and rupas. Therefore, he appreciates being told that the Dhamma is descriptive, not prescriptive. The majority of today's Buddhists, however, are in denial. Even if they have been fortunate enough to have heard the `descriptive not prescriptive' explanation (which most of them have never heard) they still cling to prescriptive explanations. So it is not just Alex who denies namas and rupas, it is almost every Buddhist on the planet. One notable inclusion is John Bullitt, the founder of Access to Insight. He has explained that the Abhidhamma is an "interesting theory but not conducive to meditation" and therefore not translated on Access to Insight. (!) There are many other famous modern-day Buddhist authors and translators who have belittled the Abhidhamma, suggesting it was a "later addition" to the Tipitaka. What they are really suggesting is that we do not need to see the universe purely in terms of namas and rupas, over which there is no control. --------------------------------- <. . .> > HCW: And so far as I know, Alex does NOT consider people, cars, and trees to be permanent. --------------------------------- KH: I was using "permanent" in the way it is used in the Tipitaka. Anything (apart from nibbana) that is thought to exist for more than one moment of nama or rupa is called permanent. ---------- <. . .> >> KH: Some of us do understand, at an elementary, intellectual level, that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta and all dhammas are anatta. I suppose it follows, therefore, that we know the cessation of dukkha – at that same, elementary, intellectual level. >> > HCW: Why do you suppose that you and some others are unique in such an intellectual understanding? Ken, is this not a form of conceit? ------------ KH: I don't consider it conceit within the meaning of "mana." Mana is a fleeting conditioned dhamma. The idea of Ken H writing an email is a concept, not a dhamma. No doubt there were many moments of mana while the email was notionally being written, but there were other dhammas too. Ken H #129271 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:48 am Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Hello Pt, all, >Pt:My take is that we know this, but just intellectually. >...I guess you'd agree that there's a difference between >understanding something intellectually and understanding it >directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the difference? Either one knows or one does not know. As for experience: If absolutely all mundane dhammas are anicca dukkha and anatta, then we cannot not experience it. >Pt:In contrast, it seems that no matter how much one thinks about >cars, trees, etc, uses these object, works with them , etc, still >none of this seems to have any bearing on ending of dukkha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting thing is that the story about the Buddha is that He saw a sick man, an old man, and dead man which shocked Him. It was, what you call, conventional truth, that really shocked Him. On the eve of His awakening first two truths were "conventional", and D.O. also contains "conventional" elements. Personally I find the idea that by somehow analyzing a phenomenon in its constituent part to make it ultimate is a bit problematic. We can never experience ONLY vedana, or sanna, or vinnana. They ALL happen together. They never occur apart. It is impossible abstraction to define them separately. With best wishes, Alex #129272 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >KH:You, Alex, do *not* know that. You deny the existence of >conditioned namas and rupas (which the Dhamma says are anatta). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nama and rupa are. >KH:Instead, you claim that permanent beings (people) and permanent >things (cars and trees) are anatta. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are impermanent. I've never claimed the above. I don't know where you've got it. With best wishes, Alex #129273 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:17 am Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology ptaus1 Hi Alex, > >Pt:My take is that we know this, but just intellectually. > >...I guess you'd agree that there's a difference between >understanding something intellectually and understanding it >directly. > > A: What is the difference? Either one knows or one does not know. pt: Well, there are 4 stages of enlightenment, 17 stages of insight, etc. It seems natural to me that there would be differences in the level of understanding. So, intellectual understanding would be not nearly quite as deep, or on the same level, as direct understanding. > A: As for experience: If absolutely all mundane dhammas are anicca dukkha and anatta, then we cannot not experience it. pt: Not sure what you mean here. > >Pt:In contrast, it seems that no matter how much one thinks about >cars, trees, etc, uses these object, works with them , etc, still >none of this seems to have any bearing on ending of dukkha. > > A: Interesting thing is that the story about the Buddha is that He saw a sick man, an old man, and dead man which shocked Him. It was, what you call, conventional truth, that really shocked Him. pt: Possibly, but that still wasn't quite the same as insight that he later discovered and described mostly in reference to dhammas (aggregates, etc). > A: On the eve of His awakening first two truths were "conventional", and D.O. also contains "conventional" elements. pt: Not sure what you mean here. If you mean the 1NT translated as "there is suffering", it's a matter of understanding what does that really mean and does it refer to conventional issues or dhammas. As you're already discussing this with Sarah, I'll leave it for the two of you to discuss further. As for D.O. "conventional" elements, I don't know much about D.O. so I'll leave that as well if you don't mind. > A: Personally I find the idea that by somehow analyzing a phenomenon in its constituent part to make it ultimate is a bit problematic. We can never experience ONLY vedana, or sanna, or vinnana. They ALL happen together. They never occur apart. It is impossible abstraction to define them separately. pt: Don't know, somehow for me the "ultimate" bit is never about analysis or abstraction or separation, etc. It simply gives a different description of the process of insight. Apparently, in a moment of insight, for example, feeling (though arising together with perception and other aggregates) becomes a sole object of consciousness and at that moment wisdom (and mindfulness, perception, etc) discerns that feeling as not self (anatta, or anicca, or dukkha). So, it's just a manner of describing an occurrence, which you can just as well describe conventionally as - he was feeling good and then understood that feeling good is anatta. Whatever works. Kind of like you can describe a ball bouncing in words or with maths. Still the same thing, but some find the clarity and precision of maths speaks to them. Best wishes pt #129274 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:02 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... ptaus1 Hi Tony, > TH: I think this is what I have been saying. Either way, amidst everything you have described above......there is still no rose other than the appearance to the mind. Its unfindable. But you're right, I may well have missed something here or its been lost in translation. There is no duality in terms of realities and non-realities (if we share the same undertanding of 'realities' that is?). There is only appearance to mind. pt: There are certainly some similarities in what we are saying, but there are some important differences I think. It seems interesting to try to define them precisely, not in order to establish whether theravada is better than prasangika, but just to know what is the actual difference. And then again, it's just how I understand things, many thervadins don't see eye to eye on this anyway. 1. I think you are saying that rose is empty (anatta) because it can be analised into constituent parts and therefore cannot be found to exist apart from the mind. I would say something almost opposite - rose (an idea) cannot be found to exist because wisdom (panna) cannot discern it to actually have the characteristics of anatta (empty), anicca (impermanent), dukkha (suffering) and other particular characteristics (that differentiate perception from feeling for example). In other words, (non)existence of a rose has little to do with the domain of insight and ending dukkha because wisdom simply does not seem to operate in relation to ideas. 2. I think you are saying that "visual data", eye-sense, sense-consciousness and other dhammas are empty because they too can be analised into constituent parts like the idea of a rose. I again would say something quite different. Dhammas (unlike ideas) are found to exist because wisdom can discern their anatta characteristic (as well as the other above mentioned characteristics). Further, for whatever reason, due to how the process of cognition and wisdom operate, a dhamma is discerned by wisdom individually and dependently on other dhammas. In other words, insight and ending of dukkha have to do with understanding the characteristics of dhammas, rather than analising them into parts. Apologies if I misrepresent your position, I've tried to contrast our stands in reference to our differences on "emptiness" (anatta) and wisdom/insight - I think that's where our differences have the most significance. Best wishes pt #129275 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 12:09 pm Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology truth_aerator Hi Pt, all, >Pt:My take is that we know this, but just intellectually. >...I guess you'd agree that there's a difference between >understanding something intellectually and understanding it >directly. >> >A: What is the difference? Either one knows or one does not know. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >pt: Well, there are 4 stages of enlightenment, 17 stages of insight, >etc. It seems natural to me that there would be differences in the >level of understanding. So, intellectual understanding would be not >nearly quite as deep, or on the same level, as direct understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A:In what way exactly is there difference of understanding? Is it amount of theory, ex: where stream-enterer knows a little, once-returner knows quantitetively more, etc? Can a worldling known theoretically much more theory than Arhat? Of course. So it is not merely amount or quality of theoretic knowledge that counts. >A: As for experience: If absolutely all mundane dhammas are anicca >dukkha and anatta, then we cannot not experience it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >pt: Not sure what you mean here. A: It means that we *already* experience tilakkhana with every dhamma that arises because it is characteristic of arisen dhamma. We don't need to know about anicca in order for the arisen state to be anicca. Ignorance is not a protection. >A: On the eve of His awakening first two truths were "conventional", >and D.O. also contains "conventional" elements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >pt: Not sure what you mean here. If you mean the 1NT translated as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant tevijja, triple "knowledge" - not 4NT. 1st was recollection of his former lives. Conceptual. 2nd was seeing working of kamma on other beings and their rebirth in accordance with it. 3rd was seeing D.O. being born, aging, sickness, death, etc, all these are "conventional" things. With best wishes, Alex #129276 From: "Christine" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:22 pm Subject: Thread listing Suttas mentioning Abhidhamma christine_fo... Hello all, Some years ago, there was a thread on DSG listing Suttas mentioning the Abhidhamma. I haven't been able to locate it. Can anyone point me to it please? With metta, Chris #129277 From: "ptaus1" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 2:29 pm Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology ptaus1 Hi Alex, > A:In what way exactly is there difference of understanding? Is it amount of theory, ex: where stream-enterer knows a little, once-returner knows quantitetively more, etc? > Can a worldling known theoretically much more theory than Arhat? Of course. So it is not merely amount or quality of theoretic knowledge that counts. pt: Yes, so direct knowledge would be with arising of wisdom of some depth/sharpness, whereas intellectual/theoretical knowledge can be both with or without wisdom of some depth arising at the time. > A: It means that we *already* experience tilakkhana with every dhamma that arises because it is characteristic of arisen dhamma. We don't need to know about anicca in order for the arisen state to be anicca. Ignorance is not a protection. pt: You are now saying pretty much what Sarah is saying I think in that tilakkhana is always there for dhammas. I like to stress that akusala arises whenever there's no awareness of tilakkhana. If there was awareness about tilakkhana at an instance, there would be no room for akusala to arise. E.g. I might know in theory that the desire to drinking alcohol is probably akusala, but that won't stop it. On the other hand, when the desire to drink arises, and there's awareness that lobha is anatta, or anicca, etc, that might be enough for abstention. > A: I meant tevijja, triple "knowledge" - not 4NT. pt: Ah, sorry, got it now. > A: 1st was recollection of his former lives. Conceptual. > 2nd was seeing working of kamma on other beings and their rebirth in accordance with it. pt: But aren't the first two knowledges unrelated to bodhi? If memory serves, even puthujanas can develop the first two knowledges, both inside and outside a sasana. > 3rd was seeing D.O. being born, aging, sickness, death, etc, all these are "conventional" things. pt: D.O. is complex to me. It's further open to interpretation what was meant by the conventional terms. As I said, I'd leave this for now as I don't really know much. Best wishes pt #129278 From: "sarah" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Thread listing Suttas mentioning Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine" wrote: > Some years ago, there was a thread on DSG listing Suttas mentioning the Abhidhamma. I haven't been able to locate it. Can anyone point me to it please? ... S: I'm not sure which thread you are referring to, but suggest you look in 'Useful Posts" under: "Abhidhamma9 vs Suttanta, Nine Parts" also trying looking under: "Abhidhamma7 - its origins" Let me know if that helps. If not, I'll try again... Metta Sarah ====== #129279 From: "philip" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:29 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices philofillet Hello Annie Welcome to the group. The Buddha said that to be born in the human realm is the greatest thing, because it's only in this realm that we experience a bewildering mixture of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. (In harsher realms, there is only misery, and in the heavenly realm of the "devas" there is only bliss.) So it is only in this human realm that we have the opportunity to develop liberating wisdom. Do you know how rare it is to be reborn in the human realm? The Buddha uses a wonderful metaphor of a blind sea turtle swimming in the great seas (maybe wearing a pink swim cap!) who just happens to surface through an opening in a yoke floating on those great expansive seas. That, says the Buddha, is as likely to happen as it is for us to be born in this human realm. And having been blessed (though past good kamma) with this human realm birth, to have the opportunity to come across the Buddha's teaching is even rarer. So you are, in fact, a very rare and blessed person. (Sounds elitist, but the truth is there is a bit of wholesome elitism built into Buddhism.) And you have had the added good fortune to come across it through Sarah, who is in my opinion one of the people in the whole wide world who best understands the Dhamma. (Please encourage her to write a book about how she explains Dhamma to people she comes across in her daily life.) As you may have gathered by now, the Dhamma as explained by our teacher, Sujin Boriharnwanaket, goes against the grain of the nice sounding but incorrect pop Buddhism taught around the world. (And by pop Buddhism, I include Dhamma taught by very famous and popular monks.) I disagree on one point with Sarah. She says that she would have been better off never coming across that pop Buddhism if she hadn't met Ajahn (means respected teacher) Sujin. I disagree with that. I think it is good that many people come across that pop Buddhism. It is incorrect (the practices it teaches are rooted in subtle greed for feeling good about life through subtle greed rooted meditation) but I think it makes a lot of people happy and helps them to stop doing the worst kind of bad things. But only the true Dhamma can lead to liberation rather than just getting further caught up in self and subtle greed the way pop Buddhism leads people to do. My opinion is that if people have the accumulated understanding from this and past lives, they will see through the holes in the false pop Buddhism and move closer to the true Dhamma, and if they don't, well, it just won't click. And that is fine. Maybe in the next lifetime. You see, after the Buddha had his awakening under the Bodhi tree, he was tempted to *not* teach, because he could see with his infinite wisdom that the way of the world went against the Dhamma. The way of the world is lobha, which means greed, in all its many forms, from subtle to gross. The Dhamma is very very deep. To even begin to understand it we have to understand that bhavana (mental development) cannot come when mind states are rooted in lobha (greed) and ditthi (the subtle belief that there is a self that can control mind states.) This means that bhavana must be very very very gradual and the eradication of defilements must be very very gradual. (The Buddha uses the great metaphor of the handle of a carpenter's tool. You don't notice at the end of a day of using it that the handle has worn away a little, but it has. The development of wisdom and corresponding eradication of defilements must be like that, that gradual. And that most definitely goes against the way of the world. Personally, I'm a meditator, but I consider it breath yoga. It has proven neuroological benefits, and I find if I meditate in the morning, I have more emotional...space or something like that during the day. I think this is a physiological/neurological phenomenon rather than anything to do with Dhamma, but I think *everyone* should meditate for their health, as long as they can recognize that it is invariably rooted in lobha (greed) for emotional and physical wellbeing. Meditators like to deny this by saying oh, no problem, I can see the greed when it arises! That reminds me of a man who claims he knows how to stay dry because he has successfully towelled off while standing on a small island of ice fast melting in the sun in the middle of the sea. We are in the middle of a sea of lobha (greed) and the only way to get on dry land is by the very gradual development of understanding of present realities. (Paramattha dhammas.) Again, you are very fortunate to have met Sarah. And to have a chance to meet A. Sujin and other good Dhamma friends in Hanoi in March. As for the relationship pain, join the club. Whether the pain comes from losing someone now, or losing someone later, we always lose our loved ones. The Buddha taught very effectively on this point. One day a woman came to him weeping because her son had died and pleaded with the Buddha to bring him back. The Buddha told her he would do so if she brought him a mustard seed from a house where no one in the family had died. Of course she couldn't find such a house, and learned that she was not alone in suffering loss. Anyways, Sarah will have already given you wise guidance, I'm sure. I haven't written like this in a while, I don't participate here much anymore. Anyways, maybe we'll have a chance to meet someday in Thailand or Australia. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "annieaqua" wrote: > > Dear Community, > > My name is Annie and I am a friend of the beautiful Sarah who I swim with at Manly Beach, Sydney. > > I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. > > I have decided I am going to do what I have wanted to do for years and visit South East Asia, especially Vietnam and would like to come to Hanoi at the end of March. I am interested in being introduced to Buddhism and learning about Buddhist practices. > > I have much fear about this trip as I will be travelling on my own. I fear being lonely and not being about to manage my loneliness. I also know I have to be strong to attempt a trip like this and wonder if I can actually do it as I feel vulnerable at the moment. I find my anxieties often crippling and I would like to learn tools to manage it. > > I am hoping this trip will give me inner strength and self confidence. > > Thank you for the opportunity to share my story. > > Annie > #129280 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Notional Existence (for Alex) szmicio Thank you,Nina. Best wishes Lukas > ------ > > N: It has a characteristic and it does not matter whether it is > > very hard or very soft or just a little. No need to think of it or > > to name it, or to name it tangible object, it just appears through > > the bodysense for an extremely short moment. It seems that it stays > > for a while but that is not so. > > > As Acharn said, even hardness we take for my body or mine, when there > is an idea of somewhere. Awareness begins but pa~n~naa is not strong > enough to let go of the idea of mine or self. > ------ > Nina. #129281 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:09 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... jonoabb Hi Tony (and pt) Just to supplement pt's reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > > Hi Pt, > > TH: I think this is what I have been saying. Either way, amidst everything you have described above......there is still no rose other than the appearance to the mind. Its unfindable. But you're right, I may well have missed something here or its been lost in translation. > =============== J: Yes, I think you may have missed something being said here; most, if not all, of us would agree that, as you put it, there is no rose other than the appearance to the mind (in terms of the Pali Canon, this would be expressed as: there is an idea (or concept) of 'rose' but no dhamma as such). So we are all in agreement on the 'unfindability' of 'rose':-)). It says nothing about dhammas. > =============== TH: There is no duality in terms of realities and non-realities (if we share the same undertanding of 'realities' that is?). There is only appearance to mind. > =============== J: As regards what is meant by 'dhammas', in an earlier message to you I suggested that there is no component part to the hardness currently being experienced through the body door wherever there is contact with a chair or the ground. The characteristic of hardness is there, and there need not be the concept of 'chair' or 'ground' or 'person/me' in order for that characteristic to be known. So hardness is an example of a dhamma. Jon #129282 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:10 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 9. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Now comes the method of practising the perfection of virtue. Since the Great Man desires to adorn beings with the adornment of the virtue of the omniscient, at the beginning he must first purify his own virtue. "Herein, virtue is purified in four modes: (1) by the purification of one's inclinations (ajjhasayavisuddhi); (2) by the undertaking of precepts (samadana); (3) by non-transgression (avitikkamana); and (4) by making amends for transgressions (patipakatikarana). "For someone who is dominated by personal ideals is naturally disgusted with evil through the purity of his own inclinations and purifies his conduct by arousing his inward sense of shame. Someone else, who is dominated by a consideration for the world, afraid of evil, purifies his conduct by receiving precepts from another person and by arousing his sense of moral dread. "Both establish themselves in virtue through non-transgression. But if, due to forgetfulness, they sometimes break a precept, then through their sense of shame and moral dread, respectively, they quickly make amends for it by the proper means of rehabilitation." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129283 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > >S: Therefore the conditions for such dhammas to be dukkha is the arising and falling away of them. > -------------------------------- > HCW: > Yes, that IS a condition, although the cessation of a painful dhamma goes quite in the opposite direction. .... S: And conditioned dhammas (except lokuttara dhammas) can be the object of clinging. This includes what you refer to as "painful dhamma". Because all conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, they are unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. ... >Also, there are other conditions that also play into the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned phenomena, including their uncontrolability and the tendency for beings to want MORE of a pleasant dhamma, never being satisfied; i.e., the craving for more and more pleasurable sensation. ... S: Yes, they arise and fall away and are uncontrollable. Ignorance and craving do not see dhammas for what they are. > --------------------------------- >S: This is why they are inherently unsatisfactory even in the case of the Buddha and arahats who have no more moha or tanha arising. > --------------------------------- > HCW: > I have no doubt that all conditioned dhammas are conditions for suffering (i.e., mental pain/dissatisfaction) of some degree, but not without the presence of tanha. So it is the *inherence* of dukkha that I question. Much depends on exactly what 'inherent' means. If one means by it merely "being a feature of something," then every quality of everything, even if dependent on extrinsic conditions, is "inherent". .... S: The rupas taken for the Buddha's body also arose and fell away and were therefore dukkha - after all, "sabbe sankhara anicca....dukkha......" This is what is meant by "inherent characteristics". However, those rupas were only "upadana khandha", i.e. khandhas or dhammas as objects of clinging for those who clung to them, not for the Buddha or arahats. .... >H: I think it is important to emphasize that unsatisfactoriness and suffering can be put to an end. The Buddha taught dukkha and the end of dukkha, and care should be taken in speaking of dukkha as "inherent" in all conditioned phenomena, even though it is true in the sense of all conditioned dhammas being among conditions for dissatisfaction. > ---------------------------------- ... S: So, we've discussed why all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, why the cause of dukkha, of the rounds of samsara, is attachment. The only way that dukkhas will ever "be put to an end" is through the end of becoming, the cessation of conditioned dhammas. This is through the realisation of nibbana (the 3rd Noble Truth) through the development of the 8fold path. Let me know if you disagree. Metta Sarah ===== #129284 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > I think the impression may have been given that the development of right understanding will automatically create all the other necessary conditions for enlightenment - I guess that's along the lines of dry insight where all path factors arise due to panna. ... S: Whether it is dry insight or enlightenment with jhanas as basis, it is always right understanding which is the 'leader', the chief factor of the path, accompanied by the other path factors. ... >I may misunderstand how this works [I'm almost sure that I do] but what I often see is the idea that other aspects of the path [such as the sometime-debated arising of right understanding while working as a butcher and killing chickens] are not important to observe and that panna will wipe out all faults and trump all other akusala regardless of what one does or says. .... S: I think you're in danger here in falling into the trap of thinking about various situations and scenarios rather than considering the arising of the path as being momentary - momentary when there is the right understanding of a dhamma, regardless of time and place and situation. It is the development of such momentary mundane path factors that leads to the momentary enlightenment when defilements are eradicated according to the level. This is the reason that we read in the texts about enlightenment occurring, for those who had developed such great wisdom, in all sorts of unexpected situations and times, such as whilst cutting a throat, burning the curry, jumping off a cliff, semi-delirious on a sick-bed and so on. ... > > S: I think the quotes show: > > > > 1) it is panna, right understanding which eradicates defilements > > > > 2) other 'right' factors follow right understanding. Without right understanding, no other 'rights' at all. > > This idea of "following" is pretty linear. My sense of the path is that the factors develop together, and that they support each other. ... S: Yes, they develop together. Understanding is still the leader. ... >Could one develop a high level of panna while killing chickens for a living? I guess it's theoretically possible, but seems doubtful to me. If one were in the throes of adulteress lust and going back to satisfy sexual desire continuously, would high-level insight develop in that situaton? ... S: Panna will lead to greater purity of sila (as shown in the series on sila as a perfection which I've been quoting). This means that when understanding and the other perfections are developed with it, there will be less and less inclination to kill or harm others in anyway. It is panna which will see more and more clearly the harm of even minor transgressions, let alone the major ones you mention. ... >Again, it's possible for panna to take any object, but it still seems to me that some level of defilements has to be controlled before a great deal of panna can accumulate and develop. Do you think this is not true? Is there an example of people living completely outside of the mundane "dictates" of the path and suddenly developing extremely high wisdom without first living a more kusala lifestyle? ... S: I would say that it is understanding that realises the harm of such a lifestyle, no matter what level or kind of understanding this is. If it is restraint because one has been ordered to follow rules at school or at home, for example, it's a very temporary restraint. Metta Sarah ==== #129285 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: Re: Emptiness and Analytical practice jonoabb Hi Ken and Tony (129110) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Tony, > > ------- > >>Tony H: Seeing how things DO exist (i.e. as conventional appearances to the mind in dependence upon their aggregates etc...) also reveals how things don't exist (i.e. their emptiness and illusory nature as dependent related phenomena, mere appearances to the mind. > >> > > > J: In the suttas the Buddha declares that the idea that things do exist and the idea that things don't exist are both views that are not taught by him. > > > So it is not the function of understanding to see "how things exist" or "don't exist", but rather to see the conditioned, and momentary, nature of dhammas. > -------- > > KH: Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that was the answer Tony needed to hear. I am sure it is perfectly valid with regard to concepts, but Tony's problem (if I may call it that) is that he thinks dhammas have no existence outside the mind. In other words, he sees them as concepts. > > The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist (see Useful Posts under "Exists & does not Exist, Emptiness"). > =============== J: Right. The Buddha has clearly said that dhammas do exist -- see SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? "Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." However, when I made my comment about the idea that things do or don't exist, I had in mind the sutta SN12:15: "'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations ... So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness... So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html In his post Tony had talked about the importance of seeing how things do or don't exist. I read him as suggesting that nothing actually exists in any meaningful sense of that word; all is just an appearance to the mind (Tony may like to comment on that). Jon #129286 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reminder. sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html > > JJ: Thank you very much for your referring of above suttas. This shows that wish is wish. What we wish happens only because of right condition. However, it can't be helped not to wish but when wish arises I could learn and understand it more and not expect too much from that wish. ... S: Yes, well summarised:-) Wishing is just lobha! Metta Sarah ==== #129287 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:11 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... sarahprocter... Hi Tony, Before I start, please add a "Hi Sarah" or equivalent at the start of your posts so we know who you're addressing. I thought the following was to Sukin, but just realised it was to me! Thanks in advance). ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > T: Things have two modes of existence. Ultimate and Conventional. Conventionally they appear to our minds and function as such. Thats ALL they are, an appearance to our mind. Ultimately they lack any self, essence or inherent existence. .... S: Most of us don't accept that what you summarise here is correct or the Buddha's teaching. First of all, what is meant by 'things'? If we are talking about roses as 'things' then they are merely conventional designations thought about and spoken. Yes, just "appearance to our mind" if you like. On the other hand, if we are talking about sounds as 'things', then they are realities. Regardless of whether they are thought about or not, they can be heard even now as we speak. The sounds have particular 'inherent' characteristics and like all other dhammas lack any self or atta. ... > > >S: Even nibbana has sabbava, inherent nature. If not, it could never be experienced. > T: The only reason we experience these things is because the lack inherent existence....if they were not we would never be able to experience them. ... S: It's the other way round - if realities, dhammas, including nibbana, had no inherent nature, it would not be possible for them to be experience. By the way, as we keep stressing, it is never 'we' that experience anything, it is citta and cetasikas. In the case of nibbana, it is the lokuttara (supramundane) cittas and cetasikas. ... > Please can you give me an example of any phenomena at all anywhere that can be reduced to an essence or self. ... S: Of course not - there is no atta, no self anywhere to be found. There has been no suggestion (by me) that anything "can be reduced to an essence or self". ... >What are these things that you say truly exist? ... S: Seeing and visible object, for example. ... >Where are they when they're not in my mind? .... S: When seeing arises, it experiences visible object. There's no other citta, no other mind, no thought of anything at such a moment. ... >Can you show me one 'partless' thing? If you can then you have identified an inherently existent phenomena. ... S: Seeing consciousness is just seeing consciousness. There are no 'parts' to it. It's just a citta. I've no idea what you mean by 'an inherently existent phenomena'. Seeing is a reality, a dhamma which arises, experiences its object - visible object - and then falls away. It's anatta, not self. ... >This has yet to be done, anywhere, ever ;) This is because the ultimate nature of all phenomena (thats ALL phenomena without exception) is that it lacks any real existence. ... S: The Buddha taught that realities, namas and rupas do exist, can be directly realised and this is the way out of samsara. If it were not so, there'd be no way out. Now it can be proved directly that seeing is real, it exists, visible object is real, hearing is real, sound is real: SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." Metta Sarah ===== #129288 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:13 pm Subject: Re:Dhamma is best psychology jonoabb Hi Alex and pt --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > ... > > A: I meant tevijja, triple "knowledge" - not 4NT. > > pt: Ah, sorry, got it now. > > > A: 1st was recollection of his former lives. Conceptual. > > 2nd was seeing working of kamma on other beings and their rebirth in accordance with it. > > pt: But aren't the first two knowledges unrelated to bodhi? If memory serves, even puthujanas can develop the first two knowledges, both inside and outside a sasana. > =============== J: Alex, I think pt is quite correct here in saying that the first 2 vijjas are not a prerequisite for enlightenment. See the entry for 'abhinna' in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary (where it also explains that the te-vijja are one and the same as the 4th to 6th abhinnas): ***************************************************** "The 6 'higher powers', or supernormal knowledge's, consist of: - 5 mundane (lokiya) powers attainable through the utmost perfection in mental concentration (samaadhi) and - one supermundane (lokuttara) power attainable through penetrating insight (vipassanaa), i.e. extinction of all cankers (aasavakkhaya), in other words, realization of Arahatship or Holiness. They are: (4) remembrance of former existences (pubbe-nivaasaanussati), (5) divine eye (dibba-cakkhu), (6) extinction of all cankers (aasavakkhaya). The stereotype text met with in all the 4 Sutta-collections is as follows: (6) "Through the extinction of all cankers (aasavakkhaya) even in this very life he enters into the possession of deliverance of mind, deliverance through wisdom, after having himself understood and realized it.'' 4-6 appear frequently under the name of the 'threefold (higher) knowledge' (te-vijjaa). They are, however, not a necessary condition for the attainment of sainthood (arahatta), i.e. of the sixth abhinnaa. ***************************************************** http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/abhinna.htm Jon #129289 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:Dhamma is best psychology jonoabb Hi Alex (and pt) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Pt, all, > > >Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is >experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something >that is really important for >ending dukkha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped? > =============== J: Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant). Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained. Jon #129290 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visit Hanoi , live in the present. annieaqua Thank you for the message Nina. I am encouraged to hear you have travelled on your own and love it. The past is the past I agree and it is just stories we tell ourselves. I am trying to challenge some of the beliefs I hold about my past and the type of person I believe I am. Being introduced to this group is of great value for me. I look forward to reading about your trip. Annie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Annie, > Op 15-feb-2013, om 7:57 heeft annieaqua het volgende geschreven: > > > > I feel very stuck at the moment after just recently coming out of a > > 6 year relationship. I am feeling overwhelmed with sadness and > > grief and wonder how I will ever feel differently. > > > ------- > N: As Sarah said, others feel similar emotions. I lost my husband in > September after sixty years of marriage. > I decided to take a trip to Thailand alone (I am almost 85) and I did. > ------- <...> #129291 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Dear Tam, Thank you for your kind offer to meet with the group in Hanoi. I now will be arriving on 11th April. I do hope we can meet up and I very much look forward to it. Annie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Annie, > > The majority of our group will be in Hanoi at the end of March, and will be happy to meet and spend some time with you. You can send me an e-mail when you know which day you  will arrive to Hanoi, so that we can arrange some meeting together. <...> #129292 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Dear Jagkrit Thank you for your words. I do believe I am trying to avoid the unpleasant emotions and feelings that arise from the constant stories I am telling myself. Stories from my past, fears of the future. I shut down and "give up" rather than facing them. I am terribly hard on myself and know this is something I need to work on. I will look at the discussions and recordings on the DSG as you recommend. I am at the beginning of my journey I feel but am hopeful. Annie. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Annie > > Welcome to Community, Annie. Here you can find a group of friend who love to discussion and share topics of realities. > > Even though the page called dhamma study group but the dhamma of the Lord Buddha is only about realities or truths. And these realities are absolute realities, nothing is more real than these. <...> #129293 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Hello Phil Thank you for your enlightening words. Your explanations are really interesting and it has got me thinking about so many things. I love the turtle metaphor and picturing it with a pink cap. I am interested in the comparison to pop Buddhism and would like to understand this more. Also meditation and the reasons behind it. I would like to have some more time with Sarah and look forward to discussing some of the points you wrote about. Annie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > > Hello Annie > > Welcome to the group. > > The Buddha said that to be born in the human realm is the greatest thing, because it's only in this realm that we experience a bewildering mixture of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. (In harsher realms, there is only misery, and in the heavenly realm of the "devas" there is only bliss.) So it is only in this human realm that we have the opportunity to develop liberating wisdom. Do you know how rare it is to be reborn in the human realm? The Buddha uses a wonderful metaphor of a blind sea turtle swimming in the great seas (maybe wearing a pink swim cap!) who just happens to surface through an opening in a yoke floating on those great expansive seas. That, says the Buddha, is as likely to happen as it is for us to be born in this human realm. And having been blessed (though past good kamma) with this human realm birth, to have the opportunity to come across the Buddha's teaching is even rarer. <....> #129294 From: "annieaqua" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:13 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Dear Sarah Thank you for introducing me to the DSG. I receive the emails and most of them are a little over my head at this stage, however I am following some and am interested in what you say about attachment to ones emotions and that nothing lasts for an instant. I also would like to explore the idea of we all being alone in our experiences, feelings, thoughts and the understanding of 'realities' in life. I am very encouraged of the idea of meeting some group members in Hanoi and look forward to the opportunity. Metta :) Annie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Annie, (Tam B & all Vietnamese friends), > > I'm so glad you've taken this 'plunge' and joined DSG (this group)! You've given a very honest introduction and I'm sure our Vietnamese friends will be delighted to meet you and assist when you reach Hanoi! <...> #129295 From: "Tony H" Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:36 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... tony.humphreys Hi Sarah :) S: Of course not - there is no atta, no self anywhere to be found. There has been no suggestion (by me) that anything "can be reduced to an essence or self". Thats it then. We agree. Nothing can be reduced to an essence or self. Including sounds or Dhammas (I am still unsure what you mean by Dhammas as it seems to imply something exclusive and outside the logic I am applying - which it is not). Sounds are not part-less as you say. They are a collection of a myriad of dependent related phenomena that are (as you say above) are irreducible - ie Empty of any inherent existence, or ability to exist utterly independently - though this is how they appear. It seems to me that we agree for 90% of what we discuss and that you're happy to apply the Prasangika logic to a certain point but it feels like there is a resistance to apply the same logic to all other phenomena including Dhammas. You have, when asked, described sounds as truly existent. Sounds is in fact often used as the most obvious demonstration of something that appears to exist (truly) but is in fact as illusory and empty as anything else. Where does the sound occur, in the ear, in the ear consciousness, in the mind or in the bell? It exists in all and none simultaneously. Though this is not how it appears. It appears to be inherently existent, existing from its own side utterly independent from any other phenomena. With regards to what the Buddha taught, remember that he taught what was required to be taught at the time. Its not unheard of for his initial teachings on for example Emptiness to be taken further. Nargajuna for instance. This doesn't contradict the Buddhas teachings but maybe takes them a step further. Just my thoughts. I am not that precious about a particular tradition to not move on if I find it can be refuted. To date I have not heard or been able to establish a viable refutation of the Prasangika view. Tony... #129296 From: philip Coristine Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:04 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices philofillet Hi Annie I'm glad you enjoyed the punk swim cap. Sarah shared a youtube clip of swimming friends sharing a bay with a giant whale, I seem to remember people wearing pink swim caps. As a good introduction to the true Dhamma, I would recommend Nina's Buddhism in Daily Life, if it is still available, or for something a little tougher, her Abhidhamma in Daily Life, which is recognized around the world as one of the best primers on Abhidhamma, the Buddha's most profound teaching. (B in D L also contains lots of Abhidhamma.) For pop Buddhism, my introduction came through Thich Nhat Hahn's "Heart of the Buddha's Teaching." Through that book (which is of the Mahayana tradition of East Asia, not the Theravada tradition whuch is discussed here) you can see both the emotional healing power and lobha rooted shortcomings of pop Buddhism. Reading collections of suttas (the Buddha's discourses) without an appreciation of Abhidhamma to help one grasp their subtlety is another very commmon way lobha works its way in popular Buddhism, as you will come to see if you hang around (to be honest, most people don't) long enough.... Phil #129297 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:39 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - > S: So, we've discussed why all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, why the cause of dukkha, of the rounds of samsara, is attachment. The only way that dukkhas will ever "be put to an end" is through the end of becoming, the cessation of conditioned dhammas. This is through the realisation of nibbana (the 3rd Noble Truth) through the development of the 8fold path. > > Let me know if you disagree. ----------------------------------- HCW: I do disagree. In pointing out that attachment is the cause of dukkha, you have demolished your own position. The 2nd noble truth gives the reason for conditioned dhammas being dukkha, namely tanha. Without tanha, they no longer condition dissatisfaction, let alone more extreme suffering, and so: 1) I do not consider their being dukkha as intrinsic, and 2) I see no need at all for conditioned dhammas to not arise but only for defilements to be uprooted. It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful. ----------------------------------- > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129298 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:50 am Subject: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi all, I have a question about Mahayana Buddhism. We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. My question is: does the Mahayana school as a whole subscribe to that theory? Or does it belong only to a minority offshoot? Ken H #129299 From: "thomaslaw03" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:01 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. thomaslaw03 Ken H, There are many Mahayana schools, but I think the Mahayana's "Heart Sutra" may be useful for your questions? Thomas Law --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about Mahayana Buddhism. We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." > > I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. > > My question is: does the Mahayana school as a whole subscribe to that theory? Or does it belong only to a minority offshoot? > > Ken H > #129300 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices sarahprocter... Dear Annie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "annieaqua" wrote: > Thank you for introducing me to the DSG. I receive the emails and most of them are a little over my head at this stage, however I am following some and am interested in what you say about attachment to ones emotions and that nothing lasts for an instant. .... S: Just leave the messages that are "over your head" and ask questions about those topics of interest. Usually, most of the day, we cling to our feelings and emotions. We'd all like to have pleasant feelings all the time, but any kind of feeling, whether pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, doesn't last at all. So this means that the problem in life is not the lack of pleasant feelings or the amount of unpleasant feelings, but the clinging and strong attachment to ourselves and our feelings. We find ourselves very important and are taught that we should love and value ourselves more. On the contrary, there is no shortage of self-love and the more self-love there is, the more unhappiness and disappointment when life doesn't turn out as we'd like it to. And what is life? Actually, it's just moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking about the objects experienced. Is the Self seeing? Is it hearing? Or is it just an illusion? At any moments of understanding what life really is now, at any moments of consideration for others rather than self-love, there is no problem in life, no unhappiness at all. ... >I also would like to explore the idea of we all being alone in our experiences, feelings, thoughts and the understanding of 'realities' in life. ... S: Yes, no matter whether we live with a Partner or on our own, no matter whether we're in Hanoi or Australia with friends or not, we actually live alone with the present experience. At a moment of seeing what is visual and then thinking about it, there are just those experiences, no people in them at all. In the Buddhist Teachings we learn that the partner in life is attachment and that this is the partner that causes all our problems. Sometimes we might think that our problems are caused by other people or jobs or situations of one kind or other, but actually, all the problems really come down to attachment and ignorance. You mentioned difficulties many people face with anxiety and depression. We learn that these are kinds of aversion, not liking, not accepting life now as it is. No one likes such states because of the unpleasant feelings, but no one minds about the attachment and pleasant feelings which lead to the anxieties and depressions. So often, we find ourselves lost in the stories about past and future and just forget that now, the realities are simply the seeing of what is visual, the hearing of sounds and thinking about such experiences. The ideas thought about in our imagination are not real. This is why we look at the actual realities more and more. There is a section in the 'files' (to be found on the home-page) called 'Useful Posts'. If you open this and click on 'n' and scroll down to "New", you will find specially kept messages from the archives for those new to DSG and new to Buddhism. Do take a look. Also, if you click on this link: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ then click on the audio, you will find some audio discussions with our teacher (often mentioned here) which I'd highly recommend. Try going down to the secion: 'Editing in Progress' and click on 'Poland' for example, as there are some good discussions for newcomers there. I would recommend the following as a good introduction to Buddhism: http://archive.org/details/TheBuddhasPath You should be able to also find "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" at the same site which Phil recommended. They are written by Nina who you have replied to here. After Monday, let me know which day you can join me for breakfast and a chat and I'll also see if I have a suitable book to give/lend you. Metta Sarah p.s. delighted that you'll also be visiting Hanoi and our good friends there who have a keen interest in the Dhamma. (The Dhamma refers to the teachings of the Buddha. Each time I write, I'll add one new Pali word. Pali is the language that the original Buddhist teachings were taught in.) ===== #129301 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Just to say that I think you wrote some very helpful comments to Annie and other newcomers here. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > The Buddha said that to be born in the human realm is the greatest thing, because it's only in this realm that we experience a bewildering mixture of pleasant and unpleasant experiences. (In harsher realms, there is only misery, and in the heavenly realm of the "devas" there is only bliss.) So it is only in this human realm that we have the opportunity to develop liberating wisdom. Do you know how rare it is to be reborn in the human realm? The Buddha uses a wonderful metaphor of a blind sea turtle swimming in the great seas (maybe wearing a pink swim cap!) who just happens to surface through an opening in a yoke floating on those great expansive seas. ... S: Thanks for sharing your good writing skills. Did you listen to all the KK 2012 recordings? Metta Sarah p.s. we just started on the Jan 2013 recordings, but basically had to halt them whilst entertaining my mother. ===== #129302 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). "Herein, this is the method by which virtue as avoidance should be practised. A bodhisattva should have such a heart of sympathy for all beings that he does not feel any resentment towards anyone, even in a dream. Because he is dedicated to helping others, he would no more misappropriate the belongings of others than he would take hold of a poisonous watersnake. "If he is a monk, he should live remote from unchastity, abstaining from the seven bonds of sexuality (A.iv,54-56), not to speak of adultery. "If he is a householder, he should never arouse even an evil thought of lust for the wives of others. When he speaks, his statements should be truthful, beneficial, and endearing, and his talk measured, timely, and concerned with the Dhamma. His mind should always be devoid of covetousness, ill-will, and perverted views. He should possess the knowledge of the ownership of kamma and have settled faith and affection for recluses and brahmins who are faring and practising rightly. *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== > #129303 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:56 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Good to discuss Dhamma again with you:) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > S: So, we've discussed why all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, why the cause of dukkha, of the rounds of samsara, is attachment. The only way that dukkhas will ever "be put to an end" is through the end of becoming, the cessation of conditioned dhammas. This is through the realisation of nibbana (the 3rd Noble Truth) through the development of the 8fold path. > > > > Let me know if you disagree. > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > I do disagree. In pointing out that attachment is the cause of dukkha, you have demolished your own position. The 2nd noble truth gives the reason for conditioned dhammas being dukkha, namely tanha. ... S: As Jon wrote in another recent post: "Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant). "Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained." S: So tankha is the condition or cause ofr life in samsara and thereby for the arising of all conditioned realities. It is the cause of becoming, for the arising of dhammas. The reason the dhammas are dukkha is because they fall away as soon as they've arisen. ... >Without tanha, they no longer condition dissatisfaction, let alone more extreme suffering, .... S: Yes, for the arahat, no more tanha, no more dissatisfaction, no more mental suffering, but still "sabbe sankhara dukkha" - there are no more perversions of any kind. What is dukkha (all conditioned dhammas) are no longer taken for sukha at all. "By the 4th path-knowledge (arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68)." http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vipallaasa.htm .... > and so: 1) I do not consider their being dukkha as intrinsic, .... S: How do you understand "sabbe sankhara dukkha"? ... >and 2) I see no need at all for conditioned dhammas to not arise but only for defilements to be uprooted. .... S: When arahathood has been attained, the job is done. Do you agree that if all defilements are eradicated, at the end of the arahat's life, at parinibbana, there are no more conditions for dhammas to arise? .... > It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful. ... S: Craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated because all the perversions of view, memory and consciousness have been eradicated. There is no more illusion of any kind that the impermanent is permanent, the non-self is self, the foul is beautiful or what is dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) is sukha (happy). I believe that what you refer to as dukkha is the first kind of dukkha - dukkha dukkha, i.e. unpleasant mental and bodily states - rather than sankhara dukkha, the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas, of all khandhas as referred to in the 1st NT. Metta Sarah ===== #129304 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:02 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object jonoabb Hi Howard (and Sarah) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > ... > HCW: > The 2nd noble truth gives the reason for conditioned dhammas being dukkha, namely tanha. Without tanha, they no longer condition dissatisfaction, let alone more extreme suffering, and so: 1) I do not consider their being dukkha as intrinsic, and 2) I see no need at all for conditioned dhammas to not arise but only for defilements to be uprooted. It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful. > =============== J: I have copied at the end of this message the entries from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary for the terms "dukkha" and "dhukhatta". I believe these reflect the orthodox Pali Canon teaching. Note particularly the following: "As the first of the Four Noble Truths and the second of the three characteristics of existence, the term dukkha … refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena … 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings" and "[T]he suffering inherent in the formations (sankhaara-dukkhataa), … refers to the oppressive nature of all formations of existence (i.e. all conditioned phenomena), due to their continual arising and passing away … " Regarding your comment, "The 2nd noble truth gives the reason for conditioned dhammas being dukkha, namely tanha … ", the 2nd noble truth (i.e., tanha) is the *cause of* (not 'reason for') dukkha. Tanha is the cause of dukkha because it is the condition for rebirth in samsara. Once tanha has been eradicated, the conditions for further rebirth cease to exist. Jon From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: ************************************************** dukkha (1) 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental (s. vedana). (2) 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths and the second of the three characteristics of existence, the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under (1), but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed. dukkhata (abstr. noun fr. dukkha): 'the state of suffering', painfulness, unpleasantness, the unsatisfactoriness of existence. "There are three kinds of suffering: (1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhataa), (2) the suffering inherent in the formations (sankhaara-dukkhataa), (3) the suffering in change (viparinaama-dukkhataa)". (1) is the bodily or mental feeling of pain as actually felt. (2) refers to the oppressive nature of all formations of existence (i.e. all conditioned phenomena), due to their continual arising and passing away; this includes also experiences associated with neutral feeling. (3) refers to bodily and mental pleasant feelings, "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (Vis.M. XIV, 34f). ************************************************** #129305 From: "sarah" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:13 pm Subject: Re: (Sukin) - and everyone else... sarahprocter... Hi Tony:) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tony H" wrote: > S: Of course not - there is no atta, no self anywhere to be found. There has been no suggestion (by me) that anything "can be reduced to an essence or self". > >T: Thats it then. We agree. Nothing can be reduced to an essence or self. Including sounds or Dhammas (I am still unsure what you mean by Dhammas as it seems to imply something exclusive and outside the logic I am applying - which it is not). ... S: Dhammas are realities which can be directly known. Hardness touched now is a dhamma, a reality. It has a characteristic which can be directly known when touched, but it is not atta or self. Just as when you first studied Mahayana Teachings, you had to put aside your background knowledge of psychology to listen to what was said, I'd now respectfully suggest that you need to put aside your ideas of logic which you've studied in detail to listen to what we are saying as taught in the Pali canon. ... > Sounds are not part-less as you say. ... S: Did I say that? ... >They are a collection of a myriad of dependent related phenomena that are (as you say above) are irreducible - ie Empty of any inherent existence, or ability to exist utterly independently - though this is how they appear. ... S: I think this is thinking logically as you're used to doing again. I don't think it is what I'm saying at all. Now there is hearing of sound. Sound is just the reality which is heard. It has a characteristic that can be directly known. When it is known, even intellectually in the beginning, there is no idea of myriad anything. .... > It seems to me that we agree for 90% of what we discuss and that you're happy to apply the Prasangika logic to a certain point but it feels like there is a resistance to apply the same logic to all other phenomena including Dhammas. ... S: I think you're pretty optimisitc with your % and that there's a lot more to discuss. i'm not really interested in applying any logic. I'm just interested in the understanding of realities, dhammas, which can be directly known now, such as visible object, sound or hearing. .... > > You have, when asked, described sounds as truly existent. Sounds is in fact often used as the most obvious demonstration of something that appears to exist (truly) but is in fact as illusory and empty as anything else. Where does the sound occur, in the ear, in the ear consciousness, in the mind or in the bell? It exists in all and none simultaneously. Though this is not how it appears. It appears to be inherently existent, existing from its own side utterly independent from any other phenomena. ..... S: Now there is hearing of sound. Sound is real and can be directly known now without any of this thinking about where and what and how. If it were not possible to directly know realities, it would only be possible to think about concepts. Impossible then to become enlightened as the Buddha taught. .... > > With regards to what the Buddha taught, remember that he taught what was required to be taught at the time. Its not unheard of for his initial teachings on for example Emptiness to be taken further. Nargajuna for instance. This doesn't contradict the Buddhas teachings but maybe takes them a step further. Just my thoughts. ... S: Or a big step backwards imho. ... > > I am not that precious about a particular tradition to not move on if I find it can be refuted. To date I have not heard or been able to establish a viable refutation of the Prasangika view. ... S: As suggested, maybe try putting it aside as an experiment and just listening to what we are saying here for a while:) Glad to continue our discussions and of course, no offence of any kind intended. Metta Sarah ===== #129306 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:49 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Sarah, > "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). L: As to varitta siila i understand that, but caritta siila is still not clear to me. I found that definition on internet: Best wishes Lukas #129307 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio This is a quote: p.s some techical issues to be solved, with posting.. Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). > > L: As to varitta siila i understand that, but caritta siila is still not clear to me. > > I found that definition on internet: > > > > Best wishes > Lukas > #129308 From: "Lukas" Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio again. The quotation seems still not to appear. http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Caritta-sila Lukas > "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). #129309 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) to Htoo. htoonaing... Dear Nina, Thanks for your reminder about pa~n~naa. ----------------------- Nina: Dear Htoo, thank you for your post. The subject is so complex, isn't it? As you say, you have written begore about the theory. and now the real walking. That must start at the reality appearing now and that can be understood by pa~n~naa without using words. Such an amount of listening and considering is necessary before that kind of pa~n~naa can arise. We are always warned by Acharn Sujin: do not expect anything, we cannot do anything because pa~n~naa arises when the conditions are right. No self, no self. Nina. ------------------------- Htoo: Bhaavetiiti bhaavanaa. Developing the mind while ripening pa~n~naa always directs to the very present. The very present for example for me now when I am typing is that screen is seen, words are seen, hands are typing and nothing stand still. So also is thinking. When develop then there is doing. This doing is kammanta. Sammaa-kammanta. It is led by right thinking and right understanding. They are pa~n~naa-maggangaa. Again developing has to be associated with samaadhi-maggangaa such as right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Just thinking sitting, just thinking standing and just thinking walking or just thinking lying is not developing. Expectation always associates with wanting something. But when there is strong chanda but no lobha it is the right expectation. The word expectation cannot explain the word chanda. This chanda is almost always mixed with lobha. Once someone wrote that on the last day of the Buddha. The Buddha became thirst because of illness. When the word 'thirst' is analysed someone thinks that thirst is asoociated with lobha. But for the Buddha it is not true. Without pa.tipatti there is no pa~n~naa. Pariyatti is at the level of sutamaya-~naana or may be cintaamaya ~naana. But never bhaavanamaya ~naana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #129310 From: "htoonaing@..." Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:07 pm Subject: Vipassanaa _002 (DT 889 ) htoonaing... Dear Dhamma Friends, Vipassanaa is the highest activity that buddhists have to practised. Someone who admits himself or herself as a buddhist has to follow what the Buddha taught. In summary the Buddha taught siila, samaadhi and panna. Siila-sikkhaa, samaadhi-sikkhaa, and pannaa-sikkhaa or 1. moral training, 2. concentration training, and 3. wisdon training. For bikkhuu there are 227 basic rules to follow. For lay people there are at least 5 rules or precepts. Not to kill, not to steal, not to misuse sensual things, not to lie and not to intoxicate self. There are different level of siila. Here siila will not be discussed again. At least those who are practising vipassanaa have to hold firmly siila that is the virati cetasikas along with the volition of not doing wrong things (cetanaa). Here again siila is associated with panna. Because one has to understand what is right and what is wrong. But this is not the panna that I am talking up on. Vipassanaa panna is different from this panna which is already high enough because without the Buddha's dhamma no one can know right or wrong things in exact term. 5 precepts is like our eyes. When we sleep 5 precept sleep. As long as we are awake 5 precepts have to be awake. To this level vipassanaa is possible to be practised. The journey has to pass through the forest entangled with many bushes and networks of forest things and matters. After clearing the forest there reaches the foot of the mountain. Siila and samaadhi are still in the forest. When the foot of the mountain is seen it is just the beginning of the vipassanaa tract. Vipassanaa bridge lay-ship and saint-ship. The end of the vipassanaa-path is the door of nibbana. It is gotrabhu naana. Beyond the gate gotrabhu there is path-consciousness and after that is fruition-consciousness. May you be well and happy, With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #129311 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:41 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. dhammasaro Good friend Ken H, et al FWIW, I agree with good friend Thomas Law. In addition, the Mahayana Tradition is rich with many schools/sects/new religions which all have their own special sutra(s) [Sanskrit]. May I suggest a question directed toward a specific Mahayana school/sect/new religion? peace... yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <................rest deleted by Chuck.........................> #129312 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:47 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a question about Mahayana Buddhism. We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. ------------------------------ HCW: Who says that? ------------------------------ They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." ---------------------------- HCW: What do you think "the soul" is thought of as being defined other than as a permanent core of identity within the ever-changing stream of phenomena that is thought of as a person? Even in Mahayana, the notion of "no self" pertains primarily to the alleged soul, but it also applies to all dhammas. -------------------------------- > > I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. --------------------------------- HCW: You assume incorrectly. And why *assume* when you can directly check? But you have to actually take a look-see. ---------------------------------- > > My question is: does the Mahayana school as a whole subscribe to that theory? Or does it belong only to a minority offshoot? > > Ken H > ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129313 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:01 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > Good to discuss Dhamma again with you:) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > S: So, we've discussed why all conditioned dhammas are dukkha, why the cause of dukkha, of the rounds of samsara, is attachment. The only way that dukkhas will ever "be put to an end" is through the end of becoming, the cessation of conditioned dhammas. This is through the realisation of nibbana (the 3rd Noble Truth) through the development of the 8fold path. > > > > > > Let me know if you disagree. > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I do disagree. In pointing out that attachment is the cause of dukkha, you have demolished your own position. The 2nd noble truth gives the reason for conditioned dhammas being dukkha, namely tanha. > ... > S: As Jon wrote in another recent post: "Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant). ------------------------------------ HCW: What does it mean for there to be dukkha FOR the arahant? ------------------------------------ > > "Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained." ------------------------------------- HCW: If one experiences no dissatisfaction, why should one care whether dhammas are not sources of satisfaction? --------------------------------------- > > S: So tankha is the condition or cause ofr life in samsara and thereby for the arising of all conditioned realities. It is the cause of becoming, for the arising of dhammas. The reason the dhammas are dukkha is because they fall away as soon as they've arisen. > ... > >Without tanha, they no longer condition dissatisfaction, let alone more extreme suffering, > .... > S: Yes, for the arahat, no more tanha, no more dissatisfaction, no more mental suffering, but still "sabbe sankhara dukkha" ---------------------------------- HCW: Who cares? All that means is that conditioned phenomena are among the conditions for dissatisfaction. But without avijja and tanha, they are insufficient conditions. --------------------------------- - there are no more perversions of any kind. What is dukkha (all conditioned dhammas) are no longer taken for sukha at all. > > "By the 4th path-knowledge (arahatta) are eliminated the perversions of perception and consciousness that the painful is pleasant" (Vis.M. XXII, 68)." > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vipallaasa.htm > .... > > and so: 1) I do not consider their being dukkha as intrinsic, > .... > S: How do you understand "sabbe sankhara dukkha"? > ... > >and 2) I see no need at all for conditioned dhammas to not arise but only for defilements to be uprooted. > .... > S: When arahathood has been attained, the job is done. Do you agree that if all defilements are eradicated, at the end of the arahat's life, at parinibbana, there are no more conditions for dhammas to arise? ----------------------------- HCW: I agree that when all defilements have been eradicated, there are, right then and there, no sufficient conditions for dissatisfaction to arise, and it will not ever arise. It is then irrelevant whether conditioned dhammas arise or not. ------------------------------- > .... > > It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful. > ... > S: Craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated because all the perversions of view, memory and consciousness have been eradicated. ----------------------------- HCW: So? ------------------------------- There is no more illusion of any kind that the impermanent is permanent, the non-self is self, the foul is beautiful or what is dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) is sukha (happy). ------------------------------ HCW: Yes. So? ----------------------------- > > I believe that what you refer to as dukkha is the first kind of dukkha - dukkha dukkha, i.e. unpleasant mental and bodily states - rather than sankhara dukkha, the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned dhammas, of all khandhas as referred to in the 1st NT. > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #129314 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:41 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Thomas, -- > T: There are many Mahayana schools, but I think the Mahayana's "Heart Sutra" may be useful for your questions? -- KH: Thanks, I will look for it some time, but I am interested in the meanings people give to texts rather than the texts themselves. The way I understand a Mahayana sutta may be quite different from the way a Mahayana student understands it. Ken H #129315 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:23 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ---- >> KH: We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. >> > HCW: Who says that? ---- KH: What do *you* mean when you say something is not self? Do you mean it lacks an eternal soul? Or do you mean it lacks its own identity (that it does not exist in and of itself)? Those are two very different meanings aren't they? I have no doubt that Tony, for one, adopts the former meaning. And I suspect you do too. --------- >> KH: They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." >> > HCW: What do you think "the soul" is thought of as being defined other than as a permanent core of identity within the ever-changing stream of phenomena that is thought of as a person? ---------- KH: I think the word "permanent" is the key there. I agree every conditioned dhamma lacks permanence. But I don't agree that a dhamma's trillionth-of-a-second, absolute existence constitutes permanence. ---------------- > HCW: Even in Mahayana, the notion of "no self" pertains primarily to the alleged soul, but it also applies to all dhammas. ----------------- KH: That is what I suspected: in Mahayana the eternal soul is regarded in the same way everything else is regarded. It is no less real than (for example) consciousness. ---------- >> KH: I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. >> > HCW: You assume incorrectly. And why *assume* when you can directly check? But you have to actually take a look-see. ---------- KH: I was hoping someone would tell me rather than expect me to look for myself. What does the Mahayana school mean by anatta? Does it mean all dhammas are devoid of a permanent soul. Or does it mean there are ultimately no conditioned dhammas? Ken H #129316 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:35 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Tony), In my previous post I got my formers and latters mixed up. I wrote "I have no doubt that Tony, for one, adopts the former meaning. And I suspect you do too." What I meant was you adopt the latter. (You think anatta means no "own being.") Sorry about that. :-) Ken H #129317 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:41 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. jonoabb Hi Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > again. The quotation seems still not to appear. > > > > http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Caritta-sila > =============== Here is the relevant passage from Vism (Ch II): **************************** 25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? 1. Firstly all this virtue is of one kind by reason of its own characteristic of composing. 2. It is of two kinds as keeping and avoiding. ... 26. 1. Herein, in the section dealing with that of one kind, the meaning should be understood as already stated. 2. In the section dealing with that of two kinds: fulfilling a training precept announced by the Blessed One thus: "This should be done" is keeping; not doing what is prohibited by him thus: "This should not be done" is avoiding. Herein, the word meaning is this: they keep (caranti) within that, they proceed as people who fulfil the virtues, thus it is keeping (caaritta); they preserve, they protect, they avoid, thus it is avoiding. Herein, keeping is accomplished by faith and energy; avoiding, by faith and mindfulness. This is how it is of two kinds as keeping and avoiding. **************************** Jon #129318 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:34 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 11. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Because he abstains from unwholesome states and from the unwholesome courses of kamma leading to the four planes of misery and the suffering of the round, and because he is established in the wholesome courses of kamma leading to heaven and liberation, through the purity of his end and the purity of his means the Great Man's wishes for the welfare and happiness of beings succeed immediately, exactly in the way they are formed, and his paramis reach fulfilment, for such is his nature. "Since he desists from injuring others, he gives the gift of fearlessness to all beings. He perfects the meditation on loving-kindness without trouble, and enjoys the eleven benefits of loving-kindness (A.v,342). He is healthy and robust, attains longevity, abundant happiness, and distinguished characteristics, and eradicates the mental impression of hatred." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129319 From: "sarah" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > >S: "Virtue is twofold as avoidance (varitta) and performance (caritta). > > L: As to varitta siila i understand that, but caritta siila is still not clear to me. > > I found that definition on internet: > > .....'morality consisting in performance and morality consisting in avoidance,' means;the performance of those moral rules which the Blessed one has ordained to be followed, and the avoidance of those things that the Blessed One has rejected as not to be followed; Vis.M III.> ... S: Siila means manners or behaviour. Varitta siila, abstention of unwholesome behaviour when there is an opportunity. The right speech, action and livelihood factors of the 8fold path are examples of variitta siila. For example, when there is the opportunity for harsh speech, there is the abstention - varitta siila. Caritta siila refers to the performance of wholesome manners and behaviour. For example, when one helps someone with a task such as crossing the road, lifting a bag or keying in computer data with kusala citas, it is caritta siila. As we have discussed before, so many opportunities for both kinds of siila in a day. When there is an understanding of realities as anatta, both kinds of siila can be performed with right understanding. Metta Sarah ===== #129320 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Jon, > **************************** > 25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? > 1. Firstly all this virtue is of one kind by reason of its own characteristic of composing. L: What is characteristic of composing? Composing of what exactly? I always thought that first of all siila is avoidance or refraining, like virati cetasikas? I wonder why is it composing. this is not clear to me. > 2. It is of two kinds as keeping and avoiding. ... > > 26. 1. Herein, in the section dealing with that of one kind, the meaning should be understood as already stated. > > 2. In the section dealing with that of two kinds: fulfilling a training precept announced by the Blessed One thus: "This should be done" is keeping; not doing what is prohibited by him thus: "This should not be done" is avoiding. Herein, the word meaning is this: they keep (caranti) within that, they proceed as people who fulfil the virtues, thus it is keeping (caaritta); they preserve, they protect, they avoid, thus it is avoiding. Herein, keeping is accomplished by faith and energy; avoiding, by faith and mindfulness. This is how it is of two kinds as keeping and avoiding. L: How this refers to 4 efforts? Can you recall 4 efforts, like this pahana etc,? Why keeping is done with faith and effort and avoiding by faith and mindfulness? Not the opossite way? Best wishes Lukas #129321 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:04 pm Subject: A question on upadana khandhas szmicio Dear friends, This is a question from DGT: Q: Achaan Sujin mentioned two meanings of upadana khanda : 1. as object of clinging, like you said; 2. as result of clinging. Without clinging, there would not be the five khanda. I think it means, as long as there are the five khanda, there is suffering- the first and second Noble Truth. L: Can u help with this. Best wishes Lukas #129322 From: "annieaqua" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:39 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices annieaqua Dear Sarah Thank you for this. I feel I have much to explore now and no doubt will have some more questions soon. I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction and have already started looking at some the files and links. Annie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > S: Just leave the messages that are "over your head" and ask questions about those topics of interest. > > Usually, most of the day, we cling to our feelings and emotions. We'd all like to have pleasant feelings all the time, but any kind of feeling, whether pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, doesn't last at all. > > So this means that the problem in life is not the lack of pleasant feelings or the amount of unpleasant feelings, but the clinging and strong attachment to ourselves and our feelings. We find ourselves very important and are taught that we should love and value ourselves more. > > On the contrary, there is no shortage of self-love and the more self-love there is, the more unhappiness and disappointment when life doesn't turn out as we'd like it to. <....> #129323 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:55 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > ---- > >> KH: We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. > >> > > > HCW: Who says that? > ---- > > KH: What do *you* mean when you say something is not self? Do you mean it lacks an eternal soul? Or do you mean it lacks its own identity (that it does not exist in and of itself)? > > Those are two very different meanings aren't they? --------------------------------- HCW: No, they are not different. A fixed, unchanging identity/core in a so-called being is exactly what a "soul" would be. No matter how one looks, there is none to be found, but only arising, changing, and ceasing phenomena. ------------------------------- > > I have no doubt that Tony, for one, adopts the former meaning. And I suspect you do too. > > --------- > >> KH: They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." > >> > > > HCW: What do you think "the soul" is thought of as being defined other than as a permanent core of identity within the ever-changing stream of phenomena that is thought of as a person? > ---------- > > KH: I think the word "permanent" is the key there. I agree every conditioned dhamma lacks permanence. But I don't agree that a dhamma's trillionth-of-a-second, absolute existence constitutes permanence. > > ---------------- > > HCW: Even in Mahayana, the notion of "no self" pertains primarily to the alleged soul, but it also applies to all dhammas. > ----------------- > > KH: That is what I suspected: in Mahayana the eternal soul is regarded in the same way everything else is regarded. It is no less real than (for example) consciousness. ------------------------------ HCW: You have an interesting way of putting it. I, OTOH, would say that there is no soul/core of identity to be found in any being, and ALSO not in any of the phenomena you like to call "realities". The Buddha only refers to nibbana as a "reality," rejecting such usage for anything else. ----------------------------- > > ---------- > >> KH: I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. > >> > > > HCW: You assume incorrectly. And why *assume* when you can directly check? But you have to actually take a look-see. > ---------- > > KH: I was hoping someone would tell me rather than expect me to look for myself. ------------------------------ HCW: Yeah, we all prefer that! ;-)) ------------------------------- > > What does the Mahayana school mean by anatta? Does it mean all dhammas are devoid of a permanent soul. Or does it mean there are ultimately no conditioned dhammas? ------------------------------ HCW: Asked and answered. (BTW, there is no "Mahayana school," but a number of Mahayana schools. ----------------------------- > > Ken H > ========================== With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) ___________ /Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./ (From the Phena Sutta) ___________ /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. ... He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta ) #129324 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vipassanaa (DT 888 ) to Htoo. nilovg Dear Htoo, Op 23-feb-2013, om 9:44 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven: > > When develop then there is doing. This doing is kammanta. Sammaa- > kammanta. It is led by right thinking and right understanding. They > are pa~n~naa-maggangaa. Again developing has to be associated with > samaadhi-maggangaa such as right effort, right mindfulness and > right concentration. Just thinking sitting, just thinking standing > and just thinking walking or just thinking lying is not developing. > ------ N As you say, just thinking sitting, etc. is no developing. It is thinking about a whole situatiuon instead of being aware of naama and ruupa one at a time. Sitting is a whole situation, it is not ruupa. While sitting there can be mindfulness of naama such as feeling and ruupa such as hardness, when they appear. ------- > > H: Expectation always associates with wanting something. But when > there is strong chanda but no lobha it is the right expectation. > The word expectation cannot explain the word chanda. This chanda is > almost always mixed with lobha. > ------- N: Yes, people confuse lobha and chanda. Chanda can be akusala or kusala. -------- > > H: Without pa.tipatti there is no pa~n~naa. > ------ N: There is pa~n~naa of different levels. Intellectual understanding stemming from listening to the Dhamma is pa~n~naa but not direct understanding of realities. Through pa.tipatti, awareness and understanding of characteristics of realities that appear, direct understanding is developed. -------- > Htoo: Bhaavetiiti bhaavanaa. Developing the mind while ripening > pa~n~naa always directs to the very present. > > The very present for example for me now when I am typing is that > screen is seen, words are seen, hands are typing and nothing stand > still. So also is thinking. > ------- N: Quite right, pa~n~naa understands the present object. Then you write about examples, wanting to show that nothing stands still. I think that you know the difference between awareness and thinking of a situation, but your words here could be misunderstood. You also write in this post: ' Just thinking sitting, just thinking standing and just thinking walking or just thinking lying is not developing.' Thus, you understand that developing direct understanding is not thinking. Since I know that people find it difficult to understand the difference I shall elaborate a little on this subject. Thinking is a reality, no self thinks but citta. We do not see the screen but we can think of it after seeing what is visible. A screen does not impinge on the eyesense, it is not visible object. It is a whole, a collection of things, a concept. However, without seeing visible object we could not think of a screen or words on the screen. Visible object and seeing fall away very rapidly, but so long as the arising and falling away of naama and ruupa has not been directly understood, it seems that they stay. Because of sa~n~naa we think of a screen. Hands are typing: this is thinking of a whole situation, because the rupas we take for a hand have fallen away as soon as we think of them. Where is the hand? ------ Nina. #129325 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Siila 10. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 24-feb-2013, om 9:21 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: Quote: In the section dealing with that of two kinds: fulfilling a training precept announced by the Blessed One thus: "This should be done" is keeping; not doing what is prohibited by him thus: "This should not be done" is avoiding. Herein, the word meaning is this: they keep (caranti) within that, they proceed as people who fulfil the virtues, thus it is keeping (caaritta); they preserve, they protect, they avoid, thus it is avoiding. Herein, keeping is accomplished by faith and energy; avoiding, by faith and mindfulness. This is how it is of two kinds as keeping and avoiding. > L: How this refers to 4 efforts? Can you recall 4 efforts, like > this pahana etc,? > Why keeping is done with faith and effort and avoiding by faith and > mindfulness? Not the opossite way? ------- N:Keeping, carana, this is the performing of all kinds of kusala and the development of right understanding. We need confidence in kusala, saddhaa, for this. Also viriya, an effort should be made, but not by a self. Laziness, thinking of your own pleasure and comfort is not helpful for kusala carana. Sankhaarakkhandha works it way, all kinds of sobhana cetasikas are needed, but here especially saddhaa and viriya are mentioned. Avoiding: faith and sati. Again, confidence in kusala is always needed. Mindfulness: not being forgetful, letting slip what is beneficial. When one is slack, not mindful, paying no attention to kusala, one can so easily tell a lie, or slander or commit other akusala kamma. ------- Nina. #129326 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:56 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Howard, --- <. . .> > HCW: No, they are not different. A fixed, unchanging identity/core in a so-called being is exactly what a "soul" would be. --- KH: A "fixed unchanging identity/core" would be no problem at all *if* it lasted for just one fleeting moment. The universe would be exactly the way the Buddha described it; nothing would continue on from one moment to the next. Therefore the soul that is denied by the Buddha's doctrine of anatta must be the other kind of soul – the one that continues on. ------------- > HCW: No matter how one looks, there is none to be found, but only arising, changing, and ceasing phenomena. ------------- KH: Yes, exactly, but why do you and several hundred million other Buddhists insist there are no absolutely real phenomena? I asked Tony the same question to no avail. It's probably none of my business, but I would like to know why so many people reject the theory of paramattha dhammas. Admittedly most Buddhists are unaware of paramattha dhammas, but I am talking about those have heard it properly explained. If they are looking for the teaching of the Buddha, why would they reject this interpretation tn preference for others? ---------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: That is what I suspected: in Mahayana the eternal soul is regarded in the same way everything else is regarded. It is no less real than (for example) consciousness. >> > HCW: You have an interesting way of putting it. ----------------------------- KH: Thanks but, as you know, that is my diplomatic way of putting it. :-) What I really believe is that there is only one Dhamma, and any variation from that Dhamma "must" involve atta belief. When the Mahayana schools talk about "no own being" instead of "no persisting being" I think they are leaving the way open for atta belief. And I suspect that is why Mahayana is so popular. ------------ > HCW: I, OTOH, would say that there is no soul/core of identity to be found in any being, and ALSO not in any of the phenomena you like to call "realities". The Buddha only refers to nibbana as a "reality," rejecting such usage for anything else. ------------ KH: Does nibbana also lack own being? Ken H #129327 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:49 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 12. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "So too, because he desists from taking what is not given, his possessions cannot be confiscated by thieves, etc. He is unsuspicious to others, dear and agreeable, trustworthy, unattached to prosperity and success, inclined to relinquishing, and he eradicates the mental impression of greed. By desisting from unchastity he becomes unexcitable, peaceful in body and mind, dear and agreeable, unsuspicious to beings. A good report circulates concerning him. He is without lust or attachment to women, is devoted to renunciation, achieves distinguished I; characteristics and eradicates the mental impression of greed." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129328 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:14 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Nina, This is more clearer. caritta siila all goodness, all kusala, but than what is the difference between siila and all kinds of kusala. I mean if siila is all, than what is dana for example? is dana also a siila? siila,dana,bhavana no difference? Best wishes Lukas > N:Keeping, carana, this is the performing of all kinds of kusala and > the development of right understanding. We need confidence in kusala, > saddhaa, for this. Also viriya, an effort should be made, but not by > a self. Laziness, thinking of your own pleasure and comfort is not > helpful for kusala carana. Sankhaarakkhandha works it way, all kinds > of sobhana cetasikas are needed, but here especially saddhaa and > viriya are mentioned. > Avoiding: faith and sati. Again, confidence in kusala is always > needed. Mindfulness: not being forgetful, letting slip what is > beneficial. When one is slack, not mindful, paying no attention to > kusala, one can so easily tell a lie, or slander or commit other > akusala kamma. #129329 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. jonoabb Hi Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > > **************************** > > 25. (v) Now, here is the answer to the question, HOW MANY KINDS OF VIRTUE ARE THERE? > > 1. Firstly all this virtue is of one kind by reason of its own characteristic of composing. > > L: What is characteristic of composing? Composing of what exactly? > =============== J: Here's what the Vism says about sila as composing: ********************************************* 19. (ii) IN WHAT SENSE IS IT VIRTUE? It is virtue (siila) in the sense of composing (siilana). What is this composing? It is either a coordinating (samaadhaana), meaning noninconsistency of bodily action, etc., due to virtuousness; or it is an upholding (upadhaara.na), meaning a state of basis (aadhaara) owing to its serving as foundation for profitable states. ********************************************* This is further explained as follows: ********************************************* 20. (iii) Now, WHAT ARE ITS CHARACTERISTIC, FUNCTION, MANIFESTATION, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE? Here: The characteristic of it is composing Even when analyzed in various ways, As visibility is of visible data Even when analyzed in various ways. Just as visibleness is the characteristic of the visible-data base even when analyzed into the various categories of blue, yellow, etc., because even when analyzed into these categories it does not exceed visible-ness, so also this same composing, described above as the coordinating of bodily action, etc., and as the foundation of profitable states, is the characteristic of virtue even when analyzed into the various categories of volition, etc., because even when analyzed into these categories it does not exceed the state of coordination and foundation. ********************************************* > =============== I always thought that first of all siila is avoidance or refraining, like virati cetasikas? I wonder why is it composing. this is not clear to me. > =============== J: Different ways of describing/considering sila. Jon #129330 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. jonoabb Hi again Lukas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Lukas > ... > > L: What is characteristic of composing? Composing of what exactly? > > =============== > > J: Here's what the Vism says about sila as composing: > > ********************************************* > 19. (ii) IN WHAT SENSE IS IT VIRTUE? > It is virtue (siila) in the sense of composing (siilana). > What is this composing? > It is either a coordinating (samaadhaana), meaning noninconsistency of bodily action, etc., due to virtuousness; or it is an upholding (upadhaara.na), meaning a state of basis (aadhaara) owing to its serving as foundation for profitable states. > ********************************************* > > This is further explained as follows: > > ********************************************* > 20. (iii) Now, WHAT ARE ITS CHARACTERISTIC, FUNCTION, MANIFESTATION, AND PROXIMATE CAUSE? > > Here: > The characteristic of it is composing > Even when analyzed in various ways, > As visibility is of visible data > Even when analyzed in various ways. > > Just as visibleness is the characteristic of the visible-data base even when analyzed into the various categories of blue, yellow, etc., because even when analyzed into these categories it does not exceed visible-ness, so also this same composing, described above as the coordinating of bodily action, etc., and as the foundation of profitable states, is the characteristic of virtue even when analyzed into the various categories of volition, etc., because even when analyzed into these categories it does not exceed the state of coordination and foundation. > ********************************************* > > =============== J: A further explanation of 'composing' as used in para 19 of Vism Ch I (quoted in my earlier message) is given at para 141: "141. And here there is no state called abandoning other than the mere non-arising of the killing of living things, etc., as stated. "But the abandoning of a given [unprofitable state] upholds a given profitable state in the sense of providing a foundation for it, and concentrates it by preventing wavering, so it is called "virtue" (siila) in the sense of composing (siilana), reckoned as upholding and concentrating as stated earlier (§19)." So it seems that sila composes other kusala states in the sense of upholding and concentrating them. Jon PS A typo in my first message in this thread (Msg #129317): The Vism reference is Ch I (not Ch II). #129331 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: On Siila 10. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 25-feb-2013, om 8:14 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven: > > This is more clearer. caritta siila all goodness, all kusala, but > than what is the difference between siila and all kinds of kusala. > I mean if siila is all, than what is dana for example? is dana also > a siila? > siila,dana,bhavana no difference? > -------- Siila is action through body and speech. Kusala siila: wholesome action through body and speech. Also daana is included. Siila also includes jhaana, satipa.t.thaana, insight, even the attainment of the stages of enlightenment up to arahatship. See Visuddhimagga, Ch I, 140, 141. Thus, it is also mental. This shows that classifications are not rigid, they show different aspects in different contexts. ----- Nina. #129332 From: "Lukas" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:26 pm Subject: Re: Theravda Poland Foundation szmicio Hi Ken H, > I was very sorry to see that web page. It seems Poland will follow the >rest of the world, turning the Buddha's teaching into a self-help >meditation industry. L: In Poland, while Than Ajahn was in Mazury, in the facility that vipassana meditation courses had been led before, I told her about that and how the practice looks like. I was expecting a complex answer. She seemed to be not interested to answer at all. She just told about people who do meditation: "They are led by they own thinking" "They follow they own thinking". In my opinion we shall leave this for them. Best wishes Lukas #129333 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:49 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - > > KH: Does nibbana also lack own being? > > Ken H > ============================== A good question! If when the Buddhas teaches "Sabbe dhamma anatta," by "dhamma" he includes nibbana, then I would say the Buddha considers that nibbana lacks own being. I consider nibbana to be the one and only reality, with all else being mere appearance, and so I would say that it DOES have own being. This may be a non-Dhammic position on my part. I don't know. With metta, Howard /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance./ (From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta) #129334 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:26 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. truth_aerator Hello Howard, all, >============================== >HCW:If when the Buddhas teaches "Sabbe dhamma >anatta," by "dhamma" he >includes nibbana, then I would say the Buddha considers that nibbana >lacks own being. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is uncertain. "All phenomena (sabbe dhamma) are rooted in desire" Nibbana is not rooted in desire. "All phenomena have Nibbana as their final end." AN10.58 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html With best wishes, Alex #129335 From: sprlrt@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:09 am Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sprlrt Dear Lukas and all, I think that when there's kamma (i.e. cetana cetasika arising either as kusala or akusala) involving speech or action there is also siila; and that caritta refers only to kusala cetana involved in speech or action, varitta only to kusala cetana when there's no speech or action. As Sarah mentioned Vsm explains kusala siila in great details; on akusala siila see MN 78, Samanamundika sutta, and also Patisambhidamagga. Alberto #129336 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 3:43 am Subject: Re: A question on upadana khandhas sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & Vietnamese friends, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > Q: Achaan Sujin mentioned two meanings of upadana khanda : 1. as object of clinging, like you said; 2. as result of clinging. Without clinging, there would not be the five khanda. I think it means, as long as there are the five khanda, there is suffering- the first and second Noble Truth. > > L: Can u help with this. .... S: These are the 2 meanings: 1. As object of clinging. Any conditioned reality (apart from lokuttara dhammas) can be object of clinging. When a reality, a khandha, is not the object of clinging, it is not upadana khandha. Note: even the khandhas of the arahat can be upadana khandha when clung to by others. 2. As a result of clinging means as a result of kamma. Without clinging, no birth, no continuation of samsara. Any khandhas which are a result of kamma of therefore upadana khandha in this sense. These include kammaja rupas, such as the sense bases and also vipaka cittas and cetasikas, beginning with patisandhi citta (birth consciousness). Note: this applies to the kammaja rupas and vipaka cittas of the arahat too. More detail and quotes can be found in 'Useful Posts' under "khandhas - upadana". Metta Sarah ====== #129337 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:53 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - Thanks for this - it's very interesting to me. With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello Howard, all, > > >============================== > >HCW:If when the Buddhas teaches "Sabbe dhamma >anatta," by "dhamma" he >includes nibbana, then I would say the Buddha considers that nibbana >lacks own being. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is uncertain. > > "All phenomena (sabbe dhamma) are rooted in desire" > > Nibbana is not rooted in desire. > > "All phenomena have Nibbana as their final end." AN10.58 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html > > With best wishes, > Alex > #129338 From: "philip" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:53 pm Subject: Re: Visit Hanoi introduce Buddhist practices philofillet Hi Sarah > S: Thanks for sharing your good writing skills. Demonstrating writing skills is ok in a sense when it is about basic conepts of Dhamma, but listening to a person who can help us to understand paramattha dhammas is infinitely more valuable. Annie is fortunate to be able to associate with you. If there are conditions for her to pay attention. (I don't mean that in a derogative way, Annie. It is just that very few people today have the accumulated conditions to listen patiently to the true Dhamma, so in the pursuit of pleasant results they go running after easy, self-supporting interpretations of suttas. This is not a matter of Annie, or Sarah, or Phil or anyone else. It is about paramattha dhammas performing functions in a way that is beyond our control. We have to understand that.) > > Did you listen to all the KK 2012 recordings? Not all of them yet. But I really like the exchange between Jessica and Ajahn at the beginning of the last session. Phil #129339 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Alberto, This makes a sense. I am interested to know, how this carita and varita siila refers to virati cetasikas, that abstain from, as a cetasikas. Can they also appear while no refraining like carita-siila? Acharn often says not all the time siila. The same Buddha sometimes he praise 8-fold Path sometimes 5-fold Path without siila included. I think cetana is very important in siila, cause sometimes people translate samma-sankappa as a cetana, but this is not so. But to say cetana is there, this is better to say with siila I think Best wishes Lukas > I think that when there's kamma (i.e. cetana cetasika arising either as kusala or akusala) involving speech or action there is also siila; and that caritta refers only to kusala cetana involved in speech or action, varitta only to kusala cetana when there's no speech or action. > As Sarah mentioned Vsm explains kusala siila in great details; on akusala siila see MN 78, Samanamundika sutta, and also Patisambhidamagga. #129340 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:40 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 13. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "By desisting from false speech his word comes to be authoritative for others. He is regarded as reliable and trustworthy, one whose statements are always accepted. He is dear and agreeable to deities. His mouth gives off a sweet fragrance and his bodily and vocal conduct are protected. He achieves distinguished characteristics and eradicates the mental impression of defilements. By desisting from slander he obtains a retinue and a following that cannot be divided by the attacks of others. He possesses unbreakable faith in the true Dhamma. He is a firm friend, as exceedingly dear to beings as though they were acquainted with him in the last existence. And he is devoted to non-defilement. By desisting from harsh speech he becomes dear and agreeable to beings, pleasant in character, sweet in speech, held in esteem. And he develops a voice endowed with eight factors. By desisting from idle chatter he becomes dear and agreeable to beings, revered, held in esteem. His statements are accepted and his talk measured. He acquires great influence and power, and becomes skilful in answering the questions of others with the ingenuity that creates opportunities (to benefit others). And when he reaches the plane of Buddhahood, he becomes capable of answering the numerous questions of beings, speaking numerous languages all with a single reply. with a single reply." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129341 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:45 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > I am interested to know, how this carita and varita siila refers to virati cetasikas, that abstain from, as a cetasikas. Can they also appear while no refraining like carita-siila? Acharn often says not all the time siila. The same Buddha sometimes he praise 8-fold Path sometimes 5-fold Path without siila included. ... S: The virati cetasikas as path factors only arise at those moments when there is the opportunity to abstain from wrong speech, action and livelihood. For the arahat, no virati cetasikas, because no possibility or inclination for anything wrong. Metta Sarah ==== #129342 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:49 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Sarah, > S: The virati cetasikas as path factors only arise at those moments when there is the opportunity to abstain from wrong speech, action and livelihood. For the arahat, no virati cetasikas, because no possibility or inclination for anything wrong. L: But acctually I am interested in siila with Path moments, both mundane and supramundane. Best wishes Lukas #129343 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:19 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > S: The virati cetasikas as path factors only arise at those moments when there is the opportunity to abstain from wrong speech, action and livelihood. For the arahat, no virati cetasikas, because no possibility or inclination for anything wrong. > > L: But acctually I am interested in siila with Path moments, both mundane and supramundane. ... S: At mundane path moments, 5 or 6 path factors arise. If no virati cetasikas arise, only 5 path factors. If a virati cetasika arises (only one at a time), there are 6 path factors. At supramundane path moments, 8 path factors arise. All 3 virati cetasikas arise with the other path factors and when the magga cittas arise, the defilements are eradicated according to the level. For example, at the moment of sotapatti-magga, wrong view and the tendency to break the 5 precepts are eradicated. So after this, no more virati (abstention) from killing or stealing, for example. Metta Sarah ==== #129344 From: sprlrt@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:02 am Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sprlrt Dear Lukas, > I am interested to know, how this carita and varita siila > refers to virati cetasikas, that abstain from, as a > cetasikas. Can they also appear while no refraining like > carita-siila? Acharn often says not all the time siila. The > same Buddha sometimes he praise 8-fold Path sometimes 5-fold > Path without siila included. I think that the three virati cetasikas, sammmavaca, sammakammmanta and sammajiva, the three path factors, when they arise they do so together with pa~n~na (sammaditthi) and the other factors, and then it is adhisila, which knows the dangers of akusala and avoids it, naturally, as one would normally avoid stepping on a banana peel, when it's on one's way. Alberto #129345 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:57 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. szmicio Dear Alberto, > I think that the three virati cetasikas, sammmavaca, sammakammmanta and sammajiva, the three path factors, when they arise they do so together with pa~n~na (sammaditthi) and the other factors, and then it is adhisila, which knows the dangers of akusala and avoids it, naturally, as one would normally avoid stepping on a banana peel, when it's on one's way. L: But how this happens without words, I mean the function and the characteristic of virati cetasika? Best wishes Lukas #129346 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:07 pm Subject: An extract szmicio Dear friends, Here is an extract from Dhamma talk: Acharn:seeing arising and seeing sees but acctually how come to be seeing? No self, No body. While one is fast asleep no one there at all. No friend, no possesion, no name, no world. But how come sound appearing? See, it indicates anattaness, when there is right time for hearing to hear whatever sound is there it has to arise..by conditions. And than goes away instantly. Unknowingly from birth to death. So it's not understanding reality at all. There is always thinking, about realities or about subject, different subject like medicine, and architecture and history. But not the understanding any reality at all. But one has to be born and die. For sure. Because acctually there is no one who is born, and no one who dies. But this is a conditioned reality. No one can stop it. The arising and falling away of a reality. What about at this moment of seeing. It is so real, because whatever is seen is seen, now...We dont need to say this is nama, which sees and the ruupa is seen. Not necessery at all. That is not the way. But the way to understand is that when there is seeing right now, there is seeing. What does it sees? What is seen? The thing that is seen is not the seeing. So there is beginning of understanding, the nature of reality. Best wishes Lukas #129347 From: "sarah" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:45 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 13. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Through his freedom from covetousness he gains what he wishes and obtains whatever excellent possessions he needs. He is honoured by powerful khattiyas. He can never be vanquished by his adversaries, is never defective in his faculties, and becomes the peerless individual. " Through his freedom from ill-will he gains a pleasant appearance. He is esteemed by others, and because he delights in the welfare of beings, he automatically inspires their confidence. He becomes lofty in character, abides in loving-kindness, and acquires great influence and power." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129348 From: sprlrt@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:30 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 10. sprlrt Dear Lukas, L: But how this happens without words, I mean the function and the characteristic of virati cetasika? A: Here is Nina's post on Visuddhimagga and its tiika explaining virati cetasikas, which I've found helpful. Alberto *********************** dsg #44823 From: nina Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:56am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 154, 155, and Tiika. nilovg ... Text Vis. 155: (xxxiv)-(xxxvi) 'Abstinence from bodily misconduct': the compound kaayaduccaritavirati resolves as kaayaduccaritato virati; so also with the other two. But as regards characteristic, etc., these three have the characteristic of non-transgression in the respective fields of bodily conduct, etc.; ------------------ N: The Tiika elaborates on the objects of transgression as being someone elseąs life, wealth or spouse. It is misconduct to take the life, possessions or spouse of someone else. -------------------- Text Vis.: they have the characteristic of not treading there, is what is said. -------------------- N: Abstinence from wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood do not tread ot trespass on each otherąs field. Thus, when there is abstinence from wrong speech, there is not at the same time abstinence from wrong action. Each citta has only one object at a time. The three abstinences are also called right speech, right action and right livelihood. ------------------ Text Vis.: Their function is to draw back from the fields of bodily misconduct, and so on. They are manifested as the not doing of these things. Their proximate causes are the special qualities of faith, conscience, shame, fewness of wishes, and so on. They should be regarded as the mind's averseness from evil-doing. ---------------- N: When one of the abstinences arises with mahaa-kusala citta, there are also confidence in wholesomeness, shame of akusala and fear of blame, and many other sobhana cetasikas. When there is fewness of wishes, one does not think of oneąs own gain or well-being, and this is also a proximate cause for abstention from evil. -------------------- The Tiika explains the difference between abstention from evil, virati, and shame and fear of blame, hiri and ottappa. Hiri and ottappa do not commit evil because of disgust (jigucchana). The Visuddhimagga Ch XIV, 142, states about hiri and ottappa: Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:39 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. Ken H.: > > I have a question about Mahayana Buddhism. We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. I do not think this reflects any of the schools of Mahayana, although I am not a scholar. The closest that Mahayana comes to establishing a stable enlightened "self" is in the concept of Tathagatagharba, or Buddha-nature, and a/this is only accepted in certain schools, and b/it does not constitute a soul, but a potential to attain enlightenment. Some however have turned it into a sort of enlightened identity that is not subject to change, but it is not a major strain in Mahayana. > They say it means everything lacks its "own being" or there is nothing that exists "in and of itself." > > > > I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. This is not correct. Almost all of Mahayana thoroughly embraces anatta. However, enlightenment is emphasized more than cessation, and they are distinguished from each other. Obviously, the Buddha lived, walked and spoke for many years after enlightenment, and in Mahayana, this state of enlightenment while still functioning in the world is emphasized. The Bodhisattva postpones parinibbana in order to help others overcome illusion and end suffering. > > My question is: does the Mahayana school as a whole subscribe to that theory? Or does it belong only to a minority offshoot? It's a minority view, represented by Tathagatagharba, and only one sort of interpretation of even this concept. But it is possible to find schools or teachers who regard enlightenment as a sort of alternate identity after transcending the deluded self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Abhidhamma - The seed of awakening The Buddha-nature doctrine may be traced back, in part, to the abhidharmic debates over metaphysics. Those arose among the Nikaya schools as they attempted to reconcile various perceived problems. One problem is how to integrate the doctrine of anatta with the idea of karma and rebirth. The anatta-doctrine stipulates that there is no underlying self, while the idea of karma and rebirth seems to implicate an underlying essence that's being reborn. A solution to this problem was the proposition of the existence of karmic seeds. The karmic effects of the human deeds lay dormant, as seeds, until they germinate in this or a next life. Not an individual self, but these karmic seeds are the base for the generation of a following life. This concept of "seeds" was espoused by the Sautrantika in debate with the Sarvastivadins over the metaphysical status of phenomena (dharmas). It is a precursor to the alaya-vijńana, the store-consciousness of the Yogacara school which contains all these seeds.[11] Originally alaya-vijńana simply meant defiled consciousness: defiled by the workings of the five senses and the mind. It was also seen as the mula-vijńana, the base-consciousness or "stream of consciousness" from which awareness and perception spring.[12] According to Yogacara, awakening is the result of a seed that comes from outside the human psyche, namely by hearing the teaching.[8] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129350 From: "azita" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:15 pm Subject: Re: An extract gazita2002 Hallo Lucas, good reminders, Lucas. I was thinking about this earlier, and realize that if we don't have reminders about the anattaness of all things we forget very quickly and get caught up in all the concepts of our daily lives. Since returning to australia I have been quite busy with family, but now I have moved [again] to a friends house on an island, very beautiful and now have time for myself again. Even family are concepts in reality, but its almost impossible to remember that when there's a busy little one year old child hell bent on making everyone fall in love with her, she's very cute, my grand-daughter. The household life is certainly cluttered and dusty - because no one bothers to clean away the dust:) hopefully all is well for you, and thanks again for the reminders. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Here is an extract from Dhamma talk: > > Acharn:seeing arising and seeing sees but acctually how come to be seeing? No self, No body. While one is fast asleep no one there at all. No friend, no possesion, no name, no world. > But how come sound appearing? See, it indicates anattaness, when there is right time for hearing to hear whatever sound is there it has to arise..by conditions. And than goes away instantly. Unknowingly from birth to death. So it's not understanding reality at all. There is always thinking, about realities or about subject, different subject like medicine, and architecture and history. But not the understanding any reality at all. But one has to be born and die. For sure. Because acctually there is no one who is born, and no one who dies. But this is a conditioned reality. > > No one can stop it. The arising and falling away of a reality. > > What about at this moment of seeing. It is so real, because whatever is seen is seen, now...We dont need to say this is nama, which sees and the ruupa is seen. Not necessery at all. That is not the way. But the way to understand is that when there is seeing right now, there is seeing. What does it sees? What is seen? The thing that is seen is not the seeing. So there is beginning of understanding, the nature of reality. > > Best wishes > Lukas > #129351 From: "Lukas" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:36 pm Subject: Re: An extract szmicio Hi Azita, > good reminders, Lucas. I was thinking about this earlier, and realize that if we don't have reminders about the anattaness of all things we forget very quickly and get caught up in all the concepts of our daily lives. L: Everything is to be forgotten, quickly. Nothing lasts, it cannot stay even for a moment, it must fall away. Anicca, exactly according to the Buddha teachings. > Even family are concepts in reality, but its almost impossible to remember that when there's a busy little one year old child hell bent on making everyone fall in love with her, she's very cute, my grand-daughter. L: Attachement. To the feeling, I would say. Best wishes Lukas #129352 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 8:54 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. > > Ken H.: > > > I have a question about Mahayana Buddhism. We occasionally see people on DSG trying to tell us that anatta does not mean there is no eternal soul. > > I do not think this reflects any of the schools of Mahayana, Hi Robert E, Thanks for your help. I don't really need a scholar; I am mainly asking about the meaning Mahanyanists give to the word `self' in not-self (anatta). People often tell us it means `own identity.' Therefore (they tell us) when the Buddha said all dhammas were anatta, he meant all dhammas were devoid of their own identities. I can't think of anything more pointless or more ludicrous. Why would a Buddha say such a thing? But I shouldn't dwell on that. I don't want to ridicule Mahayana; I just want to know how widespread this interpretation of anatta is. -------------- > RE: The closest that Mahayana comes to establishing a stable enlightened "self" is in the concept of Tathagatagharba, <. . .> -------------- KH: Yes, I can well imagine they would not specifically identify anything as being an eternal soul. My concern is that they do not specifically deny the existence of it. ---------------------- >> KH: I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. >> > RE: This is not correct. ---------------------- KH: I hope it is not correct, but where do they say so? If their anatta doctrine only deals with the notion of identity, which of their doctrines deals with the notion of a soul? ----------------------------- > RE: Almost all of Mahayana thoroughly embraces anatta. However, enlightenment is emphasized more than cessation, and they are distinguished from each other. Obviously, the Buddha lived, walked and spoke for many years after enlightenment, and in Mahayana, this state of enlightenment while still functioning in the world is emphasized. The Bodhisattva postpones parinibbana in order to help others overcome illusion and end suffering. ----------------------------- KH: Yes, Chan Buddhism, for example, says all the Buddhas are marking time in Tusita Heaven. But that's not what I am talking about. I am looking for a Mahayana teaching that specifically denies there is a Buddha – or anything else – that continues on from past, to present, to future. ------------- <. . .> > RE: It's a minority view, represented by Tathagatagharba, and only one sort of interpretation of even this concept. But it is possible to find schools or teachers who regard enlightenment as a sort of alternate identity after transcending the deluded self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature ------------- KH: I have no doubt there are such heterodoxies. As I suggested to Howard, there is only one right way of understanding ultimate reality, and all variations on the original Buddhadhamma must inevitably involve atta belief. Ken H #129353 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > I think the impression may have been given that the development of right understanding will automatically create all the other necessary conditions for enlightenment - I guess that's along the lines of dry insight where all path factors arise due to panna. > ... > S: Whether it is dry insight or enlightenment with jhanas as basis, it is always right understanding which is the 'leader', the chief factor of the path, accompanied by the other path factors. I don't dismiss the importance of panna - just trying to sort out the dominoes and how they fall. It does make sense to me that without panna the essential ingredient is missing, but it still seems to me that other factors will also have positive effects, and maybe help create conditions for understanding to arise. While understanding may be the leader, does it always come first? Is panna the only source of panna? Isn't it possible that if right concentration and mindfulness are developed that this helps create conditions for panna to arise? It seems to me that it would. > >I may misunderstand how this works [I'm almost sure that I do] but what I often see is the idea that other aspects of the path [such as the sometime-debated arising of right understanding while working as a butcher and killing chickens] are not important to observe and that panna will wipe out all faults and trump all other akusala regardless of what one does or says. > .... > S: I think you're in danger here in falling into the trap of thinking about various situations and scenarios rather than considering the arising of the path as being momentary - momentary when there is the right understanding of a dhamma, regardless of time and place and situation. > > It is the development of such momentary mundane path factors that leads to the momentary enlightenment when defilements are eradicated according to the level. > > This is the reason that we read in the texts about enlightenment occurring, for those who had developed such great wisdom, in all sorts of unexpected situations and times, such as whilst cutting a throat, burning the curry, jumping off a cliff, semi-delirious on a sick-bed and so on. While panna arises in a moment, isn't it true that for panna to develop and for enlightenment to arise there has to be many many moments of development of the path factors that make it possible? While enlightenment may arise in a strange situation - even in the midst of a defilement as you illustrate above - the prior conditioning and accumulation for it must have taken place, awaiting the conditions that would allow them to lead to enlightenment in that moment? > > > S: I think the quotes show: > > > > > > 1) it is panna, right understanding which eradicates defilements > > > > > > 2) other 'right' factors follow right understanding. Without right understanding, no other 'rights' at all. > > > > This idea of "following" is pretty linear. My sense of the path is that the factors develop together, and that they support each other. > ... > S: Yes, they develop together. Understanding is still the leader. I find that a little confusing - they develop together but understanding is the leader. Does that mean that no other path factors develop the path unless panna comes first? In what sense then do they arise together, or develop with mutual support? > >Could one develop a high level of panna while killing chickens for a living? I guess it's theoretically possible, but seems doubtful to me. If one were in the throes of adulteress lust and going back to satisfy sexual desire continuously, would high-level insight develop in that situaton? > ... > S: Panna will lead to greater purity of sila (as shown in the series on sila as a perfection which I've been quoting). This means that when understanding and the other perfections are developed with it, there will be less and less inclination to kill or harm others in anyway. It is panna which will see more and more clearly the harm of even minor transgressions, let alone the major ones you mention. So would you think that one would have reached the point where they would have quit the "chicken-killing job" well before enlightenment might arise? > >Again, it's possible for panna to take any object, but it still seems to me that some level of defilements has to be controlled before a great deal of panna can accumulate and develop. Do you think this is not true? Is there an example of people living completely outside of the mundane "dictates" of the path and suddenly developing extremely high wisdom without first living a more kusala lifestyle? > ... > S: I would say that it is understanding that realises the harm of such a lifestyle, no matter what level or kind of understanding this is. If it is restraint because one has been ordered to follow rules at school or at home, for example, it's a very temporary restraint. I agree with this, but if one is living a peaceful life, guarding the senses, and many more moments of samatha are arising, does this have no effect on the development of the path? If the other path factors have no effect on the path without panna, in what sense are the path factors, and why are they important at all, if only panna creates the path and everything else falls into place automatically behind panna? Why would panna even value sila if it has no real effect on the path. Why not just go "panna" all the way, and forget about everything else? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129354 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 2:44 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > ---------------------- > >> KH: I assume they are saying the Buddha did not deny the existence of an eternal soul, he only denied the eternal soul had its own being. > >> > > > RE: This is not correct. > ---------------------- > > KH: I hope it is not correct, but where do they say so? If their anatta doctrine only deals with the notion of identity, which of their doctrines deals with the notion of a soul? What is the difference between a fixed or specific identity and a soul? I don't see any difference. If one has a specific identity such as "I am Robert" that is illusory. The idea that there is a soul but not an identity seems even weirder to me. All Buddhism understands anatta as "no self." No self means no self at all, of any kind. Not only does it rule out an eternal soul, it means that right now, there is not even a central figure in the midst of experience, just consciousness. This is spelled out in important Mahayana sutras such as the Lankavatara. There is no identity, and without an identity, there is no basis for a soul or any other form of identity to exist in or beyond the moment. ... > KH: Yes, Chan Buddhism, for example, says all the Buddhas are marking time in Tusita Heaven. But that's not what I am talking about. I am looking for a Mahayana teaching that specifically denies there is a Buddha – or anything else – that continues on from past, to present, to future. Well, there are all kinds of mystical ideas around about past, present and future Buddhas. I take them about as seriously as Theravadin suttas' references to cloud gods causing the weather. I don't think they have anything much to do with the actual teachings on the absence of any kind of substantial self or soul. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #129355 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 3:00 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > --- > <. . .> > > HCW: No, they are not different. A fixed, unchanging identity/core in a so-called being is exactly what a "soul" would be. > --- > > KH: A "fixed unchanging identity/core" would be no problem at all *if* it lasted for just one fleeting moment. The universe would be exactly the way the Buddha described it; nothing would continue on from one moment to the next. > > Therefore the soul that is denied by the Buddha's doctrine of anatta must be the other kind of soul – the one that continues on. That's nonsensical, Ken. "Momentariness" is not the ONLY criteria in the whole world that makes everything okay. There is absolutely NO substance to any kind of core or self to a "person" since a person is only a concept and doesn't exist at all, even in the moment. There is no soul or self, momentary or eternal - nothing. What would a momentary "Ken H." look like? It's ridiculous. I think you might want to re-think that one. Don't worry, denying a momentary soul also takes away any possibility of an eternal one. It's not either/or, it's just that there's no self, period. Nada. > ------------- > > HCW: No matter how one looks, there is none to be found, but only arising, changing, and ceasing phenomena. > ------------- > > KH: Yes, exactly, but why do you and several hundred million other Buddhists insist there are no absolutely real phenomena? Separate issue. To make anything substantial freezes a sense of absolute reality, and that denies the radical reality of anatta and anicca. For something to be "real as it is at this moment" means that it has to be frozen in time for a micro-moment. Even the process of a dhamma arising and falling away denies this kind of "frozen" reality. Even the momentary dhamma is not "frozen" during its moment of existence. It is either arising, functioning or falling away, so even in the "moment" there is no frozen moment in which there is a fixed identity. If you go into the description in commentary you will find that all the functions are active, there is no moment of stasis at all when you can say that "this is now fixed and real." It is real in the sense that it really takes place, that is all. And that's all that is necessary. There is no fixed "own-being" that stays the same for a moment. The dhamma with all its cetasikas are also responding to conditions and doing stuff for their entire little existence, they're not standing still "being" something at all. It's all empty, dude, in the sense that there is no underlying anything behind the action that activates and then expires the dhamma. > I asked Tony the same question to no avail. It's probably none of my business, but I would like to know why so many people reject the theory of paramattha dhammas. When you describe the actuality of how a dhamma arises and falls away, that is paramatha, but it's not a "thing" with a little "being" within it, it's just a "happening." If consciousness contacts a moment of "seeing" it has that momentary experience and then it falls away. That's it, and that's a paramatha dhamma. The arising and coordination of all the cetasikas may be complicated, and conditioning may be complicated, but the arising and falling away is momentary, empty and pure action. There's no static "thing" there that stands around and says "I'm a paramatha dhamma." It's a momentary event/experience. > Admittedly most Buddhists are unaware of paramattha dhammas, but I am talking about those have heard it properly explained. If they are looking for the teaching of the Buddha, why would they reject this interpretation in preference for others? When you start talking about "own-being" you are introducing a concept about the dhamma that is above and beyond what actually takes place. That is what becomes controversial, not the event itself. > ---------------------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: That is what I suspected: in Mahayana the eternal soul is regarded in the same way everything else is regarded. It is no less real than (for example) consciousness. > >> That's not true - there *is no* eternal soul - it's a fantasy. There *is* consciousness arising. They are not seen the same in Mahayana at all. Mahayana sees all existence as thoroughly empty, arising as phenomena but with nothing substantial behind it. If anything they emphasize the reality of consciousness above everything else. There is no "soul" or "God" in Mahayana. Generally speaking, you're barking up the wrong tree. > > HCW: You have an interesting way of putting it. > ----------------------------- > > KH: Thanks but, as you know, that is my diplomatic way of putting it. :-) > > What I really believe is that there is only one Dhamma, and any variation from that Dhamma "must" involve atta belief. Well the only thing you are neglecting is that your understanding of the "one Dhamma" may be deluded or incomplete in various ways. There's no room for smugness in the development of understanding. > When the Mahayana schools talk about "no own being" instead of "no persisting being" I think they are leaving the way open for atta belief. It's the opposite. "Own being" smacks of atta. It introduces an identity into arising phenomena instead of seeing them as just meaningless conditioned reality. > And I suspect that is why Mahayana is so popular. > > ------------ > > HCW: I, OTOH, would say that there is no soul/core of identity to be found in any being, and ALSO not in any of the phenomena you like to call "realities". The Buddha only refers to nibbana as a "reality," rejecting such usage for anything else. > ------------ > > KH: Does nibbana also lack own being? What is so great about "own being?" What do you think it means? It sounds a lot like "self" to me, and always has. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #129356 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------ <. . .> > RE: That's nonsensical, Ken. "Momentariness" is not the ONLY criteria in the whole world that makes everything okay. There is absolutely NO substance to any kind of core or self to a "person" since a person is only a concept and doesn't exist at all, even in the moment. ------ KH: Speaking of nonsense, how can you say a concept (something that doesn't really exist) lacks a core or self? A thing that doesn't exist (e.g., a person) cannot be defined in accordance with the Dhamma. The Dhamma does not hold a position on whether a person(for example) has a self or does not have a self. This is detailed in the suttas. Only realities can be described in accordance with the Dhamma, concepts can't. ------------------ > RE: There is no soul or self, momentary ----------------- KH: Soul and momentary are contradictory terms. ---------------------- > RE: or eternal - nothing. ---------------------- KH: Nothing exists? -------------------------------- > RE: What would a momentary "Ken H." look like? It's ridiculous. -------------------------------- KH: Please show me where I, or anyone else, have spoken of a momentary person. ----------------- > RE: I think you might want to re-think that one. Don't worry, denying a momentary soul also takes away any possibility of an eternal one. It's not either/or, it's just that there's no self, period. Nada. ----------------- KH: Well, that's exactly what I was questioning: does the belief `nothing exists in and of itself' deny an eternal soul? I don't think it does. I think it leaves the door open to atta belief. There must be something in the universe. Unless you can define that `something' precisely, and prove it is inherently devoid of self, then you have left the way open to atta belief. Ken H #129357 From: "sarah" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 6:09 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 15 sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "Through his freedom from wrong view he gains good companions. Even if he is threatened with a sharp sword, he will not perform an evil deed. Because he holds to the ownership of kamma, he does not believe in superstitious omens. His faith in the true Dhamma is established and firmly rooted. He has faith in the enlightenment of the Tathagatas, and no more delights in the diversity of outside creeds than a royal swan delights in a dung heap. "He is skilful in fully understanding the three characteristics (of impermanence, suffering, and non-self), and in the end gains the unobstructed knowledge of omniscience. Until he attains final enlightenment he becomes the foremost in whatever order of beings (he happens to be reborn in) and acquires the most excellent achievements. " Thus, esteeming virtue as the foundation for all achievements as the soil for the origination of all the Buddha-qualities, the beginning, footing, head, and chief of all the qualities issuing in Buddhahood -- and recognizing gain, honour, and fame as a foe in the guise of a friend, a bodhisattva should diligently and thoroughly perfect his virtue as a hen guards its eggs: through the power of mindfulness and clear comprehension in the control of bodily and vocal action, in the taming of the sense-faculties, in purification of livelihood, and in the use of the requisites. "This, firstly, is the method of practising virtue as avoidance." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129358 From: "philip" Date: Fri Mar 1, 2013 9:06 pm Subject: Re: An extract philofillet Hi Lukas Thanks for this, I will add it to the file full of transcriptions. In case there are any people here who like to listen to Ajahn Sujin but didn't know that there is a section in "Member Files" full of straight transcriptions of her explaining Dhamma, now you do. :) phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Here is an extract from Dhamma talk: > #129359 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 8:03 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ----- <. . .> > RE: What is the difference between a fixed or specific identity and a soul? ----- KH: Before the Buddha's time, there was no satisfactory answer to that question. Any object that was real would logically have been seen as existing for a period of time. And that period of time must either continue eternally or end in annihilation (of the object). There was no conceivable middle way. The difference only became apparent with the teaching of the Dhamma -- the way things are now in ultimate reality. When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet not have a soul. Ken H #129360 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 8:29 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > > RE: What is the difference between a fixed or specific identity and a soul? > ----- > > KH: Before the Buddha's time, there was no satisfactory answer to that question. Any object that was real would logically have been seen as existing for a period of time. And that period of time must either continue eternally or end in annihilation (of the object). > > There was no conceivable middle way. > > The difference only became apparent with the teaching of the Dhamma -- the way things are now in ultimate reality. > > When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet not have a soul. -------------------------------- HCW: As I view the matter, if anything *truly exists* at any moment and then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation! What else is annihilation? -------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================= With metta, Howard Coreless /He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./ (From the Uraga Sutta) #129361 From: "azita" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 11:29 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. gazita2002 hallo KenH and RobE have been reading about the stages of Vipassana: "Vipassana nana can only arise when the right conditions have been cultivated, that is satipatthana which studies, investigates and notices the characteristics of nama and rupa as they naturally appear in daily life over and over again, so that panna can become keener. Panna can only grow gradually and there is no other condition for its growth but the development of satipatthana in our ordinary daily lives. If panna does not precisely understand the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear thro the six doorways, the arising and falling away of nama and rupa cannot be realized. Then ignorance, doubt and wrong view about realities cannot be eradicated." Stages of Vipassana. Chapter30. Survery of Paramattha Dhammas Everything that appears in our daily lives can be known, gradually. Live for understanding, understanding anything that arises now. patience, courage and good cheer azita > > RE: What is the difference between a fixed or specific identity and a soul? > ----- > > KH: Before the Buddha's time, there was no satisfactory answer to that question. Any object that was real would logically have been seen as existing for a period of time. And that period of time must either continue eternally or end in annihilation (of the object). > > There was no conceivable middle way. > > The difference only became apparent with the teaching of the Dhamma -- the way things are now in ultimate reality. > > When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet not have a soul. > > Ken H > #129362 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. sukinderpal Hi Howard, Ken H, > > > > When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment > we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity > or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet > not have a soul. > -------------------------------- > HCW: > As I view the matter, if anything *truly exists* at any moment and > then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation! What else is > annihilation? > -------------------------------- > Conditioned existence. One condition for the arising of the present moment citta is the falling away of the previous citta, and the next citta is conditioned by the falling away of this one. Metta, Sukin #129363 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 12:40 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ------ > <. . .> > > RE: That's nonsensical, Ken. "Momentariness" is not the ONLY criteria in the whole world that makes everything okay. There is absolutely NO substance to any kind of core or self to a "person" since a person is only a concept and doesn't exist at all, even in the moment. > ------ > > KH: Speaking of nonsense, how can you say a concept (something that doesn't really exist) lacks a core or self? It's all just speech, Ken, it's a way of describing that of course a concept doesn't have anything, including anything you might attribute to it. I wouldn't get hung up on syntax. I think what I said is perfectly clear. There is no self of any kind, momentary or eternal or anything else. It is a false concept. It doesn't have or not have anything, anymore than a unicorn does or doesn't have a horn, since it doesn't exist. But it's also fine to say that a 'unicorn's horn is not real or existent,' since the 'unicorn' is not real or existent. There's nothing inconsistent about that. Neither the unicorn nor any horn of a unicorn exists. That's simple and clear enough. > A thing that doesn't exist (e.g., a person) cannot be defined in accordance with the Dhamma. The Dhamma does not hold a position on whether a person (for example) has a self or does not have a self. This is detailed in the suttas. Only realities can be described in accordance with the Dhamma, concepts can't. This is just ridiculous semantics. You can make a statement about a mistaken concept or fantasy without any confusion. You're just being difficult for no reason. You have said "there is no self" about a billion times. I'm just saying the same thing, and you're picking on the language, I don't know, just to be troublesome I guess. > ------------------ > > RE: There is no soul or self, momentary > ----------------- > > KH: Soul and momentary are contradictory terms. > > ---------------------- > > RE: or eternal - nothing. > ---------------------- > > KH: Nothing exists? Ken, why are you being so ridiculous? Do you not understand ordinary language? When someone says "no self of any kind - nothing" the 'nothing' applies to the subject, the self, not to "everything." Why don't you take each word by itself and give it a special assigned meaning that you make up, that would be fun. > > -------------------------------- > > RE: What would a momentary "Ken H." look like? It's ridiculous. > -------------------------------- > > KH: Please show me where I, or anyone else, have spoken of a momentary person. You, Ken H., distinguished between anatta referring to the "eternal kind of self" rather than to a "momentary self," and I am saying that both are ruled out by anatta. If you can't grasp that, I don't know what to say. Anatta means NO SELF, period. No momentary self, no eternal self, no personal self, no internal self, no self in the middle of consciousness, no ownership or control over phenomena, no ultimate self, no subtle self, no changing self, no self of any kind. There's no contest between a 'momentary self' and 'an eternal self' or between any other kind of self. There's merely no self of any kind at all. > ----------------- > > RE: I think you might want to re-think that one. Don't worry, denying a momentary soul also takes away any possibility of an eternal one. It's not either/or, it's just that there's no self, period. Nada. > ----------------- > > KH: Well, that's exactly what I was questioning: does the belief `nothing exists in and of itself' deny an eternal soul? > > I don't think it does. I think it leaves the door open to atta belief. Well that makes absolutely no self. If there is nothing that exists in and of itself, that is *against* the existence of any kind of self, not in support of it. There can't be a self in a universe where nothing has any kind of real existence. > There must be something in the universe. Really? What do you mean by that? Why must there be anything in the universe, other than constantly changing and shifting phenomena that arises according to conditions? > Unless you can define that `something' precisely, and prove it is inherently devoid of self, then you have left the way open to atta belief. I don't think you can define anything ultimately. Words do not do justice and never will to the actuality of arising phenomena, and K. Sujin has said as much any number of times. The protection against self-concept is knowing there is no self. Any other kind of protective concept won't deliver the real understanding of anatta. K. Sujin I believe has said that only direct experience will give you that understanding, not words, even Dhamma words, though they can point you in the right direction. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129364 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ----- > <. . .> > > RE: What is the difference between a fixed or specific identity and a soul? > ----- > > KH: Before the Buddha's time, there was no satisfactory answer to that question. Any object that was real would logically have been seen as existing for a period of time. And that period of time must either continue eternally or end in annihilation (of the object). > > There was no conceivable middle way. > > The difference only became apparent with the teaching of the Dhamma -- the way things are now in ultimate reality. > > When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet not have a soul. No they just have own-being, which is ridiculously similar to having a momentary soul which is then annihilated. Phenomena are real in the sense that they take place, then immediately fall away and cease to exist, on that we agree. As for them being "real," and having "own-being," that suggests that you think they have a kind of identity and this is exactly the kind of reality that we think we have as people - that we are born, live and die as a specific person. What is the difference between this and a dhamma having a specific identity defined by "own-being?" It's the same fallacy of assigning meaning and identity to momentary phenomena. The point is that dhammas are empty, meaningless and valueless, not that they are real and have own-being [self-identity by another name.] Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - #129365 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 12:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, Ken H, > > > > > > > > When we see how the entire universe can exist in the present moment > > we see how things can exist without being destined for either eternity > > or annihilation. That is, we can see how dhammas can be real and yet > > not have a soul. > > -------------------------------- > > HCW: > > As I view the matter, if anything *truly exists* at any moment and > > then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation! What else is > > annihilation? > > -------------------------------- > > > > Conditioned existence. > One condition for the arising of the present moment citta is the falling > away of the previous citta, and the next citta is conditioned by the > falling away of this one. Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their demise is indeed annihilation. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129366 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 12:53 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > > hallo KenH and RobE > > have been reading about the stages of Vipassana: > > "Vipassana nana can only arise when the right conditions have been cultivated, that is satipatthana which studies, investigates and notices the characteristics of nama and rupa as they naturally appear in daily life over and over again, so that panna can become keener. > > Panna can only grow gradually and there is no other condition for its growth but the development of satipatthana in our ordinary daily lives. > > If panna does not precisely understand the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear thro the six doorways, the arising and falling away of nama and rupa cannot be realized. Then ignorance, doubt and wrong view about realities cannot be eradicated." > Stages of Vipassana. Chapter30. Survery of Paramattha Dhammas > > Everything that appears in our daily lives can be known, gradually. Live for understanding, understanding anything that arises now. Good quote, good message - thank you. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #129367 From: Sukinder Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 1:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > > Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are > 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their > demise is indeed annihilation. > What do you mean by substantial entities? Must one always tie real with substantial? Can something not be conditioned and real at the same time? Metta, Sukin #129368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 2, 2013 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. nilovg Dear Azita and Rob E, Op 2-mrt-2013, om 2:53 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven: > If panna does not precisely understand the difference between the > characteristics of nama and rupa as they appear thro the six > doorways, the arising and falling away of nama and rupa cannot be > realized. Then ignorance, doubt and wrong view about realities > cannot be eradicated." > > Stages of Vipassana. Chapter30. Survery of Paramattha Dhammas > > > > Everything that appears in our daily lives can be known, > gradually. Live for understanding, understanding anything that > arises now. > > Good quote, good message - thank you. ------- N: I join Rob E. Even when wondering about the soul or identity, even such moments of thinking is real. Thinking has a characteristic and this can be investigated. Now. Nina. #129369 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> > RE: This is just ridiculous semantics. You can make a statement about a mistaken concept or fantasy without any confusion. You're just being difficult for no reason. You have said "there is no self" about a billion times. I'm just saying the same thing, and you're picking on the language, I don't know, just to be troublesome I guess. ---- KH: It's more than language. You wrote: "Momentariness" is not the ONLY criteria in the whole world that makes everything okay," and I have been arguing that no other model of the world would work. The Dhamma applies only to momentary phenomena. A person, for example, is not a momentary phenomenon, and to describe a person as anicca, dukkha or anatta would be of no help whatsoever. --------- <. . .> >> KH: Nothing exists? >> > RE: Ken, why are you being so ridiculous? Do you not understand ordinary language? > When someone says "no self of any kind - nothing" the 'nothing' applies to the subject, the self, not to "everything." Why don't you take each word by itself and give it a special assigned meaning that you make up, that would be fun. --------- KH: What about when you say `nothing exists in or of itself?' How is that different from `nothing exists?' It would help if you could give a simile. Is there a conventional example of something that exists but does not exist `in and of itself?' ----------------- <. . .> > RE: Anatta means NO SELF, period. No momentary self, no eternal self, no personal self, no internal self, no self in the middle of consciousness, no ownership or control over phenomena, no ultimate self, no subtle self, no changing self, no self of any kind. There's no contest between a 'momentary self' and 'an eternal self' or between any other kind of self. There's merely no self of any kind at all. ----------------- KH: Yes, it's true that there is not even a momentary self. But that doesn't mean there is not a momentary paramattha dhamma. I think I might have suggested on DSG many years ago that the five khandhas were kind of a momentary self. That didn't go over well. I won't suggest it again. :-) The main reason I won't suggest it again is I now believe the definition of self (atta) includes anything that is alleged to exist but is not a paramattha dhamma (not a citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbana). So it would be silly to call the five khandhas a momentary self. ------------------------- <. . .> >> KH: There must be something in the universe. > RE: Really? What do you mean by that? Why must there be anything in the universe, other than constantly changing and shifting phenomena that arises according to conditions? ------------------------- KH: The wording you use there is very similar to the wording in the Tipitaka, but the meaning is profoundly different. Nagarjuna caused a split in the sangha by claiming dhammas were devoid of `own being.' So it's not a trivial thing. Let's not pretend he was saying the same thing as the Pali Tipitika where it says dhammas are anatta. Ken H #129370 From: "Lukas" Date: Sun Mar 3, 2013 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. szmicio Hi Ken H, Let me add something. > A person, for example, is not a momentary phenomenon, and to describe a person as anicca, dukkha or anatta would be of no help whatsoever. L: I think this is why Buddha taught Noble Truths. The first one is The Five Khandhas of Upadana, the five khadndhas apt to be clung to are to be understood. Not a concept itself we cling to, but a realities. There is touch during the day, and tast and experiencings, different experiencings to be understood. Clinging to ruupas, vedanas, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. Here not a concept of this or that or of a person. If this is concept, I think, and not knowing anything on relities, this is not Noble at all. Just more and more ideas and clinging to the ideas. Not the Buddha teachings at all. Best wishes Lukas #129371 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 3, 2013 8:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. jonoabb Hi Rob E and Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sukin. > > > > HCW: > > > As I view the matter, if anything *truly exists* at any moment and > > > then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation! What else is > > > annihilation? > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > KH: Conditioned existence. > > One condition for the arising of the present moment citta is the falling > > away of the previous citta, and the next citta is conditioned by the > > falling away of this one. > > RE: Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their demise is indeed annihilation. > =============== J: Regarding Howard's "if anything *truly exists* at any moment and then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation!" and Rob E's "if [dhammas] are 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their demise is indeed annihilation", I wonder what point you are trying to make by using "annihilation" to describe the falling away of dhammas. In the texts it is said, in connection with the momentary 'existence' of dhammas, that "from nothing, then something, then nothing again" or words to similar effect. Now you may call it creation and annihilation if you like, but I don't believe this has anything to do with the (wrong view of) annihilationism spoken of by the Buddha (which is concerned with the belief as to what happens when a lifespan comes to an end). Jon #129372 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:36 am Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Lukas, Thanks for joining in. ------ <. . .> >> KH: A person, for example, is not a momentary phenomenon, and to describe a person as anicca, dukkha or anatta would be of no help whatsoever. >> > L: I think this is why Buddha taught Noble Truths. ----- KH: I agree. People already knew the kusala of detachment from concepts but, until the Buddha taught them, they didn't understand realities. ------------- > L: The first one is The Five Khandhas of Upadana, the five khadndhas apt to be clung to are to be understood. Not a concept itself we cling to, but a realities. There is touch during the day, and tast and experiencings, different experiencings to be understood. Clinging to ruupas, vedanas, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. Here not a concept of this or that or of a person. ------------- KH: And the emphasis is on understanding. So it's not about trying to experience more realities and fewer concepts. ---------------- > L: If this is concept, I think, and not knowing anything on relities, this is not Noble at all. Just more and more ideas and clinging to the ideas. Not the Buddha teachings at all. ------------------------ KH: At best it includes the kind of kusala that already existed before the Buddha taught. Ken H #129373 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:46 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 16. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "The practice of virtue as performance should be understood as follows: Herein, at the appropriate time, a bodhisattva practises salutation, rising up, respectful greetings, and courteous conduct towards good friends worthy of reverence. At the appropriate time he renders them service, and he waits upon them when they are sick. When he receives well-spoken advice he expresses his appreciation. He praises the noble qualities of the virtuous and patiently endures the abuse of antagonists. "He remembers help rendered to him by others, rejoices in their merits, dedicates his own merits to the supreme enlightenment, and always abides diligently in the practice of wholesome states. When he commits a transgression he acknowledges it as such and confesses it to his co-religionists. Afterwards he perfectly fulfils the right practice." *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== #129374 From: "sarah" Date: Mon Mar 4, 2013 7:55 pm Subject: Re: An extract sarahprocter... Hi Azita & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "azita" wrote: > good reminders, Lucas. I was thinking about this earlier, and realize that if we don't have reminders about the anattaness of all things we forget very quickly and get caught up in all the concepts of our daily lives. ... S: Yes, we all need to hear many reminders as you say - reminders about dhammas as anatta. ... > Since returning to australia I have been quite busy with family, but now I have moved [again] to a friends house on an island, very beautiful and now have time for myself again. .... S: Same, same... been very busy entertaining my mother.....now "time for myself again" - what it means is just more attachment, more "me" again..... ... > > Even family are concepts in reality, but its almost impossible to remember that when there's a busy little one year old child hell bent on making everyone fall in love with her, she's very cute, my grand-daughter. > The household life is certainly cluttered and dusty - because no one bothers to clean away the dust:) .... S: And really it's only panna, right understanding, that can do the cleaning up - the cleaning up of the kilesa, the defilements, no matter whether surrounded by cute grandchildren, alone on paradise island or in the forest in robes. ... > > hopefully all is well for you, and thanks again for the reminders. ... S: Agreed with your message to Lukas. Appreciate anyone's sharing of good reminders for us all. Apologies to all for not writing much recently and for slow replies - I just had little opportunity whilst travelling and whilst having to take care of my mother. We've also both been down with flu bugs, but all's well now! Metta Sarah ===== #129375 From: "antony272b2" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:36 am Subject: Question on List of Factors in Dependent Origination by Thanissaro Bhikkhu antony272b2 "...here is a list of these factors — enough to give a general sense of the shape of dependent co-arising, and to show how unwieldy it can seem. The factors will be explained in more detail in the body of the book. Here they are numbered starting with the most fundamental factor, ignorance, for ignorance is the most strategic factor in causing the other factors to contribute to stress. 1) Ignorance: not seeing things in terms of the four noble truths of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. 2) Fabrication: the process of intentionally shaping states of body and mind. These processes are of three sorts: a) bodily fabrication: the in-and-out breath**, b) verbal fabrication: directed thought and evaluation, and c) mental fabrication: feeling (feeling tones of pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain) and perception (the mental labels applied to the objects of the senses for the purpose of memory and recognition). 3) Consciousness at the six sense media: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect. 4) Name-and-form: mental and physical phenomena. Mental phenomena include: a) feeling, b) perception, c) intention, d) contact, and e) attention. Physical phenomena include the four great elements — the properties constituting the kinetic sense of the body — and any physical phenomenon derived from them: f) earth (solidity), g) water (liquidity), h) wind (energy and motion), and i) fire (warmth). 5) The six internal sense media: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect. 6) Contact at the six sense media. Contact happens when a sense organ meets with a sense object —for example, the eye meets with a form — conditioning an act of consciousness at that sense organ. The meeting of all three — the sense organ, the object, and the act of consciousness — counts as contact. 7) Feeling based on contact at the six sense media. 8) Craving for the objects of the six sense media. This craving can focus on any of the six sense media, and can take any of three forms: a) sensuality-craving (craving for sensual plans and resolves), b) becoming-craving (craving to assume an identity in a world of experience), and c) non-becoming-craving (craving for the end of an identity in a world of experience). 9) Clinging — passion and delight — focused on the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, fabrication, and consciousness. This clinging can take any of four forms: a) sensuality-clinging, b) view-clinging, c) habit-and-practice-clinging, and d) doctrine-of-self-clinging. 10) Becoming on any of three levels: a) the level of sensuality, b) the level of form, and c) the level of formlessness. 11) Birth: the actual assumption of an identity on any of these three levels. 12) The aging-and-death of that identity, with its attendant sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. Even a cursory glance over these twelve factors will show two of the major ways in which dependent co-arising is an unwieldy topic: (1) The factors seem to fit in different contexts and (2) many of the sub-factors are repeated at seemingly random intervals in the list." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/shapeofsuffering.pdf From: The Shape of Suffering: A Study of Dependent Co-arising by Thanissaro Bhikkhu ** Antony: According to Bhikkhu Bodhi bodily fabrication is more than just the in-and-out breath, that there are more than a dozen types of bodily fabrication (wholesome and unwholesome volition) in his Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (CMA). I don't have a copy of CMA at the moment. Could someone elaborate? Thanks / Antony. #129376 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Sukin. [And I'd like to call Howard's attention to this one too.] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are > > 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their > > demise is indeed annihilation. > > > > What do you mean by substantial entities? Must one always tie real with > substantial? Can something not be conditioned and real at the same time? I think that's an excellent question, but the answer might not be quite so pat as one would hope. I really think it would be worthwhile to discuss what "real" means. What I have in mind is that dhammas are "real" in the sense that they really do arise and fall away, but whether there is a "dhamma per se" that exists as a frozen entity in a moment of time, I would say 'no,' and I think the Abhidhamma -- as far as I have seen -- bears this out. The dhamma is an activity in a sense, not an object. It is never an x or a y per se, because it is always in a process of change. When it is arising, it is forming up, when it is functioning, it is doing what it was conditioned to do, and when it is falling away, it is dissolving until it no longer exists. Therefore there is never a moment that it is definable as an absolute this or that, it is changing continuously. It is this understanding of anicca on the most microscopic level that would lead one to say that there is never a moment when you can put your finger on a dhamma and say "it is exactly that." Therefore I would say it is not "real as a definable object," it is real "as an active formation and dissolution in process" that never stops to be defined. We can talk about the cetasikas that are involved and the processes involved - contact, or vitakkha, et al, but not at any moment say that the dhamma is frozen as "this." So I think we mistakenly think of dhammas as static objects like a table or chair that we can stop and look at, and it is not that. In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. Of what could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #129377 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Rob E and Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Sukin. > > > > > > HCW: > > > > As I view the matter, if anything *truly exists* at any moment and > > > > then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation! What else is > > > > annihilation? > > > > -------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > KH: Conditioned existence. > > > One condition for the arising of the present moment citta is the falling > > > away of the previous citta, and the next citta is conditioned by the > > > falling away of this one. > > > > RE: Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their demise is indeed annihilation. > > =============== > > J: Regarding Howard's "if anything *truly exists* at any moment and then does not at all exist, that is exactly annihilation!" and Rob E's "if [dhammas] are 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their demise is indeed annihilation", I wonder what point you are trying to make by using "annihilation" to describe the falling away of dhammas. > > In the texts it is said, in connection with the momentary 'existence' of dhammas, that "from nothing, then something, then nothing again" or words to similar effect. Now you may call it creation and annihilation if you like, but I don't believe this has anything to do with the (wrong view of) annihilationism spoken of by the Buddha (which is concerned with the belief as to what happens when a lifespan comes to an end). Annihilation is annihilation, whether it is macroscopic or microscopic. It is the belief that entities are real and thus available to be destroyed from which annihilationism is created. To say that the self is false but dhammas have "own-being" just transfers the entity-nature to a smaller playing-field. The view of dhammas that does not involve annihilationism is that they are not discrete entities, but part of a process of constant change. At a given moment we can identify a moment of seeing, but that is shorthand for a dynamic process in which a dhamma is arising, functioning and dissolving, and in which the dhamma is not the same from beginning to end. In that way it is not a "thing" that is annihilated, but a process that merely leads to the next one. "From nothing...to nothing" sounds like the opposite of conditioned to me. If something is conditioned it does not arise from nothing, but from conditioning. That seems very off-message to me. Perhaps you can help me understand how conditioned arising and ex nihilo creationism can coexist. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = #129378 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 12:31 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RE: This is just ridiculous semantics. You can make a statement about a mistaken concept or fantasy without any confusion. You're just being difficult for no reason. You have said "there is no self" about a billion times. I'm just saying the same thing, and you're picking on the language, I don't know, just to be troublesome I guess. > ---- > > KH: It's more than language. No, you merely did not understand what I said. I didn't say that anything exists beyond the momentary, though some arising moments are products of accumulation and development from moment to moment. What I said is that "merely being momentary" is not enough to make everything okay, if something is seen to be momentary but is a deluded view of what exists IN that moment. It needs to be momentary AND also be a correctly identified reality. The idea of a "momentary self" is ridiculous and that is what you were heading towards. > You wrote: "Momentariness" is not the ONLY criteria in the whole world that makes everything okay," and I have been arguing that no other model of the world would work. The Dhamma applies only to momentary phenomena. The Dhamma only applies to momentary phenomena but it doesn't apply to momentary unicorns, which don't exist just because you use the word "momentary." "Own-being" does not necessarily exist just because you put the magic "momentary" next to it. It needs to be defended in its own right. In other words, to use logical terms, "momentariness" is necessary but not sufficient to make something a reality. It's a prerequisite but does not guarantee that what you ar talking about is real. > A person, for example, is not a momentary phenomenon, and to describe a person as anicca, dukkha or anatta would be of no help whatsoever. It is equally ridiculous to talk about a momentary soul or self. And it is equally ridiculous to say that if one says that there is no momentary identity, that there could still be a non-momentary soul. Without identity, there is no soul or self. So that distinction is also beside the point. > --------- > <. . .> > >> KH: Nothing exists? > >> > > > RE: Ken, why are you being so ridiculous? Do you not understand ordinary language? > > When someone says "no self of any kind - nothing" the 'nothing' applies to the subject, the self, not to "everything." Why don't you take each word by itself and give it a special assigned meaning that you make up, that would be fun. > --------- > > KH: What about when you say `nothing exists in or of itself?' How is that different from `nothing exists?' > > It would help if you could give a simile. Is there a conventional example of something that exists but does not exist `in and of itself?' Could you remind me of the context? I don't want to give a simile for the wrong point. :-) > ----------------- > <. . .> > > RE: Anatta means NO SELF, period. No momentary self, no eternal self, no personal self, no internal self, no self in the middle of consciousness, no ownership or control over phenomena, no ultimate self, no subtle self, no changing self, no self of any kind. There's no contest between a 'momentary self' and 'an eternal self' or between any other kind of self. There's merely no self of any kind at all. > ----------------- > > KH: Yes, it's true that there is not even a momentary self. But that doesn't mean there is not a momentary paramattha dhamma. There is a momentary paramatha dhamma, but it doesn't have entity status, and is not static. It is in process from arising to falling away and is constantly changing until it no longer exists. > I think I might have suggested on DSG many years ago that the five khandhas were kind of a momentary self. That didn't go over well. I won't suggest it again. :-) > > The main reason I won't suggest it again is I now believe the definition of self (atta) includes anything that is alleged to exist but is not a paramattha dhamma (not a citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbana). So it would be silly to call the five khandhas a momentary self. It's only silly because it's confusing. The self is defined as something that has awareness and control and is sort of running things, or in charge of what arises and falls away. There really is no such thing like that even in the single moment. Dhammas rise and fall away due to conditions, not the influence of a self. > ------------------------- > <. . .> > >> KH: There must be something in the universe. > > > RE: Really? What do you mean by that? Why must there be anything in the universe, other than constantly changing and shifting phenomena that arises according to conditions? > ------------------------- > > KH: The wording you use there is very similar to the wording in the Tipitaka, but the meaning is profoundly different. > > Nagarjuna caused a split in the sangha by claiming dhammas were devoid of `own being.' So it's not a trivial thing. Let's not pretend he was saying the same thing as the Pali Tipitika where it says dhammas are anatta. Own-being bothers the hell out of me too, because to me it does suggest a momentary self. I'd like to find out what you really mean on a detailed level by own-being. So far, former discussions of this were not satisfying. If it means that the dhamma "is the way it is" that is fine, but if it means more than that there's a "self" problem coming into it, I fear. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #129379 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. sukinderpal Hi Rob E, > I think that's an excellent question, but the answer might not be > quite so pat as one would hope. I really think it would be worthwhile > to discuss what "real" means. What I have in mind is that dhammas are > "real" in the sense that they really do arise and fall away, but > whether there is a "dhamma per se" that exists as a frozen entity in a > moment of time, I would say 'no,' and I think the Abhidhamma -- as far > as I have seen -- bears this out. The dhamma is an activity in a > sense, not an object. It is never an x or a y per se, because it is > always in a process of change. When it is arising, it is forming up, > when it is functioning, it is doing what it was conditioned to do, and > when it is falling away, it is dissolving until it no longer exists. > Therefore there is never a moment that it is definable as an absolute > this or that, it is changing continuously. It is this understanding of > anicca on the most microscopic level that would lead one to say that > there is never a moment when you can put your finger on a dhamma and > say "it is exactly that." Therefore I would say it is not "real as a > definable object," it is real "as an active formation and dissolution > in process" that never stops to be defined. We can talk about the > cetasikas that are involved and the processes involved - contact, or > vitakkha, et al, but not at any moment say that the dhamma is frozen > as "this." So I think we mistakenly think of dhammas as static objects > like a table or chair that we can stop and look at, and it is not > that. In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because > the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. Of what > could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation? > Do you agree that for example, feeling has a characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause different from say, perception? Sukin #129380 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:44 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > S: As Jon wrote in another recent post: "Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant). > ------------------------------------ > HCW: > What does it mean for there to be dukkha FOR the arahant? > ------------------------------------ S: It means that whilst the arahat lives, all the khandhas, all the conditioned elements (taken for the arahat) continue to arise and fall away. Each of these elements is dukkha. .... > >S: "Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained." > ------------------------------------- > HCW: > If one experiences no dissatisfaction, why should one care whether dhammas are not sources of satisfaction? > --------------------------------------- S: That's the point. When attachment and ignorance have been eradicated, there is no more caring or searching for satisfaction, no more conditions for rebirth. The job is done. .... > > S: Yes, for the arahat, no more tanha, no more dissatisfaction, no more mental suffering, but still "sabbe sankhara dukkha" > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > Who cares? All that means is that conditioned phenomena are among the conditions for dissatisfaction. But without avijja and tanha, they are insufficient conditions. > --------------------------------- S: It's not a matter of caring, but of understanding the Truths. The first Noble Truth is that all conditioned dhammas are dukkha. The Truth is universal. .... > > S: When arahathood has been attained, the job is done. Do you agree that if all defilements are eradicated, at the end of the arahat's life, at parinibbana, there are no more conditions for dhammas to arise? > ----------------------------- > HCW: > I agree that when all defilements have been eradicated, there are, right then and there, no sufficient conditions for dissatisfaction to arise, and it will not ever arise. It is then irrelevant whether conditioned dhammas arise or not. > ------------------------------- S: Even for the anagami there are no more conditions for any dissatisfaction, however slight, to arise again. When attachment is finally eradicated, no more conditions for further birth. ... > > .... > > > It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful. > > ... > > S: Craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated because all the perversions of view, memory and consciousness have been eradicated. > ----------------------------- > HCW: > So? .... S: You continue to suggest that when there is no craving or aversion, such as during the arahat's life or now at moments when they don't arise, that there is no suffering. I'm pointing out that the deeper meaning of dukkha, sankhara dukkha, as taught by the Buddha and referred to in the 1st Noble Truth, applies to all conditioned dhammas. So even the khandhas of the arahat are dukkha. The arahat has no more illusion, unlike us, that the dhamma arising now is sukkha rather than dukkha. The nature of dukkha of all conditioned phenomena is completely understood. > ------------------------------- >>S: There is no more illusion of any kind that the impermanent is permanent, the non-self is self, the foul is beautiful or what is dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) is sukha (happy). > ------------------------------ > HCW: > Yes. So? > ----------------------------- S: So all conditioned dhammas are anicca, anatta, asubha and dukkha. ... Metta Sarah ===== #129381 From: Lukas Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 5:51 pm Subject: 3 gocaras szmicio Dear Sarah, I am going throught Poland Dhamma talks. I came across something is not yet clear too me. 3 gocaras. upanissaya gocara, araka gocara and upanibanda gocara. Can u pls explain what that means? Best wishes Lukas #129382 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:04 pm Subject: Re: The Twin Miracle (Yamaka Patihara) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > ....While understanding may be the leader, does it always come first? Is panna the only source of panna? Isn't it possible that if right concentration and mindfulness are developed that this helps create conditions for panna to arise? It seems to me that it would. .... S: Without panna, right understanding, how will there be any knowing whether it is right or wrong concentration, right or wrong mindfulness that is being developed? ... > > > >I may misunderstand how this works [I'm almost sure that I do] but what I often see is the idea that other aspects of the path [such as the sometime-debated arising of right understanding while working as a butcher and killing chickens] are not important to observe and that panna will wipe out all faults and trump all other akusala regardless of what one does or says. .... S: Without right understanding of dhammas, there is no path, there is no knowing about any reality, any truth. ... >R: While panna arises in a moment, isn't it true that for panna to develop and for enlightenment to arise there has to be many many moments of development of the path factors that make it possible? While enlightenment may arise in a strange situation - even in the midst of a defilement as you illustrate above - the prior conditioning and accumulation for it must have taken place, awaiting the conditions that would allow them to lead to enlightenment in that moment? ... S: Yes - over aeons and aeons..... ... > > S: Yes, they develop together. Understanding is still the leader. > >R: I find that a little confusing - they develop together but understanding is the leader. Does that mean that no other path factors develop the path unless panna comes first? In what sense then do they arise together, or develop with mutual support? .... S: No other path factors develop without panna. Yes, they arise together and mutually support each other. Panna is the predominant factor and the one responsible for the eradication of defilements. ... >R: So would you think that one would have reached the point where they would have quit the "chicken-killing job" well before enlightenment might arise? ... S: One would assume that sila, morality and good behaviour, would be so firm that this would be so. However, we also know that cittas arise and fall away very quickly and accumulations are such that we can never make rules about situations. Think of Angulimala, killing until just before enlightenment. Always exceptions that only a Buddha could thoroughly comprehend the possibilities. Better to think in terms of dhammas - cittas, cetasikas and rupas - rather than in terms of "chicken-killing jobs". ... > > S: I would say that it is understanding that realises the harm of such a lifestyle, no matter what level or kind of understanding this is. If it is restraint because one has been ordered to follow rules at school or at home, for example, it's a very temporary restraint. > >R: I agree with this, but if one is living a peaceful life, guarding the senses, and many more moments of samatha are arising, does this have no effect on the development of the path? If the other path factors have no effect on the path without panna, ... S: The point is that without panna which understands realities, there are no other path factors. Other path factors cannot arise without such panna. There is sati arising with every wholesome citta (actually with all sobhana cittas, even broader), there is samatha also arising with each of these. However, without samma ditthi (panna) of the path, they are not path factors and don't lead to the path. Before the Buddha's time, many people had attained jhanas and led very peaceful, good lives, but it never took them any closer to the path, because there was no understanding of the Noble Truths - no understanding of realities as anicca, dukkha and anatta. ... >R: ....in what sense are the path factors, and why are they important at all, if only panna creates the path and everything else falls into place automatically behind panna? ... S: It needs the support of the other factors. For example, samma ditthi (or panna) cannot understand any reality without the assistance of samma sankhappa which 'touches' or leads it to that object. ... >R: Why would panna even value sila if it has no real effect on the path. Why not just go "panna" all the way, and forget about everything else? ... S: Panna understands the value of all kinds of kusala and the importance of sila. With regard to the path, these are the 3 viratis (abstentions). If there is no abstaining from akusala, there is no development of right effort and other path factors. It is only panna which understands what is right and what is wrong at such moments, like now. Metta Sarah ==== #129383 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:12 pm Subject: Re: On Siila 17. sarahprocter... Dear Lukas & all, http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Acariya_Dhammapala_A_Treatise_on_the_Paramis.ht\ m "He is adroit and nimble in fulfilling his duties towards beings when these are conducive to their good. He serves as their companion. When beings are afflicted with the suffering of disease, etc., he prepares the appropriate remedy. He dispels the sorrow of those afflicted by the loss of wealth, etc.- Of a helpful disposition, he restrains with Dhamma those who need to be restrained, rehabilitates them from unwholesome ways, and establishes them in wholesome courses of conduct. He inspires with Dhamma those in need of inspiration. And when he hears about the loftiest, most difficult, inconceivably powerful deeds of the great bodhisattvas of the past, issuing in the ultimate welfare and happiness of beings, by means of which they reached perfect maturity in the requisites of enlightenment, he does not become agitated and alarmed, but reflects: "Those Great Beings were only human beings. "But by developing themselves through the orderly fulfilment of the training they attained the loftiest spiritual power and the highest perfection in the requisites of enlightenment. I, too, should practise the same training in virtue, etc. In that way I, too, will gradually fulfil the training and in the end attain the same state." Then, with unflagging energy preceded by this faith, he perfectly fulfils the training in virtue, etc. *** to be contd Metta Sarah ===== > #129384 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Question on List of Factors in Dependent Origination by Thanissaro Bhikkhu szmicio Hi Antony, > 2) Fabrication: the process of intentionally shaping states of body and mind. > These processes are of three sorts: > a) bodily fabrication: the in-and-out breath**, > b) verbal fabrication: directed thought and evaluation, and > c) mental fabrication: feeling (feeling tones of pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain) and perception (the mental labels applied to the objects of the senses for the purpose of memory and recognition). L: The paali is from Vibhangapaali, the second book of abhidhamma. On Dependent origination. Suttanta classification: Tattha katame avijjaapaccayaa sankhaaraa? (In this what is avijja conditions acitivities, sankhara?) Pu~n~naabhisankhaaro, apu~n~naabhisankhaaro, aane~njaabhisankhaaro, kaayasankhaaro, vacisankhaaro, cittasankhaaro. (Activity of merit, activity on non-merit, unshakable activity, Bodily activity, verbal activity, mental activity) Tattha katamo pu~n~naabhisankhaaro? Kusalaa cetanaa kaamaavacaraa ruupaavacaraa daanamayaa silamayaa bhaavanaamayaa – aya.m vuccati ‘‘pu~n~naabhisankhaaro’’. (Here what is activity of merit? Any intention that is kusala of level of sensous plane and form plane, included in dana, sila nd bhavana. This is called activity of merit) Tattha katamo apu~n~naabhisankhaaro? Akusalaa cetanaa kaamaavacaraa – aya.m vuccati ‘‘apu~n~naabhisankhaaro’’. (Here what is activity of non-merit? Any akusala intention of the level of sensous plane - This was told to be activities of non-merit) Tattha katamo aane~njaabhisankhaaro? Kusalaa cetanaa arupaavacaraa – aya.m vuccati ‘‘aane~njaabhisankhaaro’’. (Here what is unshakable activity? Any kusala intention of the formless plane - this was told to be unshakeable activity) Tattha katamo kaayasankhaaro? Kaayasa~ncetanaa kaayasankhaaro, vacisa~ncetana vacisankhaaro, manosa~ncetanaa cittasankhaaro. Ime vuccanti ‘‘avijjaapaccayaa sankhaaraa’’. (Here what is bodily activity? Any Bodily intentions are bodily activity, Any speech intentions are speech activity, any mind intentions are mental activity. This was told to be ignorance conditions sankhara or becouse of ignorance activities comes to be). L: I did this translation, but this may have mistakes. sankharas comes to be because of ignorance. Sankharas can be translated, as formations, kamma-formations, activities. This all that can produce result in form of vipaka. First 3 are activity of merit, of non-merit and unshakeable. This are any intentions that can produce its result of different level. First one is kamavacara plane and ruupavacaraplane, second ony kamavacaraplane and 3rd in arupavacaraplane. Than we have bodily activities or formations, that are any acts done by body. Speech activities, any kamma performed through speech and mind activity that are any kammas performed through mind, more subtle i think than speech and bodily kamma. This all refers to the intention cetana that can perform kamma, and have different result later one. I think we can tell 3 are said to bring result in different planes and 3 are just kammas performed through body, speech and mind. In all this is 6. ANy intentions that does not bring result are not included in activities, since they do not condition vi~n~nana(that is vipaka) later on. Best wishes Lukas #129385 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:45 pm Subject: Re: Question on List of Factors in Dependent Origination by Thanissaro Bhikkhu szmicio Hi again Antony, You can see that in the whole paticcasamupada, there is nowhere a Self, that do this or experience anything. There are merely different dhammas. Like kayasankhara, vacisankhara and cittasankhara. This 3 are just any vipakadhammadhamma(this dhammas that can bring a result in form of vipaka). You can see that what acts and perform different acts is just a kayasnkharas, vacisankharas and cittasankharas. Nowhere a Self. Just kayasankharas, a specific dhammas that perform deeds through body. Vaci sankaharas, dhammas that form a speech and perform deeds through speech that later bring result and mental sankharas that acts through berely mind. Nowhere a self, just dhammas, called formations, sankharas. The prevailing one is cetana sankhara khandha. Best wishes Lukas >L: ANy intentions that does not bring result are not included in activities, since they do not condition vi~n~nana(that is vipaka) later on. #129386 From: "Lukas" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Question on List of Factors in Dependent Origination by Thanissaro Bhikkhu szmicio Hi again Antony, In the Foundation, the last day, we had meeting with Than Ajahn. This was my last day. Tam and Mai were there also. And I asked weather kusala and akusala kammapatha. The deeds performed by body, speech and mind can be known, especiall the bad ones. Ajahn told yes, panna can know anything. And what is akusalakammapattha? she asked. This is intention, cetana she added. So nowhere a Self. Just different activities to be known. Best wishes Lukas > You can see that in the whole paticcasamupada, there is nowhere a Self, that do this or experience anything. There are merely different dhammas. Like kayasankhara, vacisankhara and cittasankhara. This 3 are just any vipakadhammadhamma(this dhammas that can bring a result in form of vipaka). You can see that what acts and perform different acts is just a kayasnkharas, vacisankharas and cittasankharas. Nowhere a Self. Just kayasankharas, a specific dhammas that perform deeds through body. Vaci sankaharas, dhammas that form a speech and perform deeds through speech that later bring result and mental sankharas that acts through berely mind. Nowhere a self, just dhammas, called formations, sankharas. The prevailing one is cetana sankhara khandha. #129387 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 6:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > RE: Annihilation is annihilation, whether it is macroscopic or microscopic. It is the belief that entities are real and thus available to be destroyed from which annihilationism is created. To say that the self is false but dhammas have "own-being" just transfers the entity-nature to a smaller playing-field. The view of dhammas that does not involve annihilationism is that they are not discrete entities, but part of a process of constant change. At a given moment we can identify a moment of seeing, but that is shorthand for a dynamic process in which a dhamma is arising, functioning and dissolving, and in which the dhamma is not the same from beginning to end. In that way it is not a "thing" that is annihilated, but a process that merely leads to the next one. > =============== J: The belief in annihilationism (Pali: ucchedavaada) is described in the Brahmajaala Sutta ('The All-embracing Net of Views') at DN1. In that sutta it says: ****************************** 84. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views? 85. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form; it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. … ****************************** As you can see, it refers to the annihilation of an existent being (e.g., a 'person') upon death. Nowhere in the texts does it say that the arising and falling away of dhammas has anything to do with this view. I see no reason why dhammas should not have an inherent characteristic in a sense that 'person', 'self' or 'thing' does not. In fact, the whole point of the teaching about dhammas is that they are 'real' in a sense that cannot be said of 'person', 'self' or 'thing'. > =============== > RE: > "From nothing...to nothing" sounds like the opposite of conditioned to me. If something is conditioned it does not arise from nothing, but from conditioning. That seems very off-message to me. Perhaps you can help me understand how conditioned arising and ex nihilo creationism can coexist. > =============== J: Your point is that conditioned arising is not consistent with the idea of dhammas as 'discrete entities' that arise and fall away completely. I'm afraid I don't see any necessary inconsistency. I have no difficulty with the (hypothetical) possibility that that's just the way things are. For example, when sound arises it appears to come out of nowhere. What's the problem with that? Jon #129388 From: "sarah" Date: Tue Mar 5, 2013 7:44 pm Subject: Re: 3 gocaras sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: > I am going throught Poland Dhamma talks. I came across something is not yet clear too me. 3 gocaras. upanissaya gocara, araka gocara and upanibanda gocara. Can u pls explain what that means? ... S: Thanks for asking. I only understand what has been explained to me by Ajahn Sujin, The details are in the Psm and commentary as I recall. As we're often reminded, there has to be really firm understanding of the 'right' object, the reality appearing now. What we think about and talk about now, such as seeing or visible object, will be the upanissaya gocara, the object (or arammana) for right understanding. By hearing and wise considering, there will be the development of understanding little by little, so the experiencing of the 'gocera' is accumulated and becomes a habit. So when we listen, instead of just accumulating more papanca, i.e. more craving, conceit and views whilst thinking about useless stories, there are conditions for more understanding of realities to develop. Whatever we think about just accumulates on and on - time to reflect and understand what really appears now. When there's kusala thinking of any kind, it 'protects', such as at moments of sila. This is a arakkha gocara and there is a protection from harmful thinking and behaviour at such times. Arakkha gocara includes all kinds of kusala. All kusala is a protection, a guarding from akusala. ("aarakkhaa" means protection). Upanissaya gocara leads to the development of satipatthana, unpanibhanda gocara. Upanibhandha gocara is patipatti, direct understanding of realities. ("upanibhandha" means tied closed to). Hope that helps a little. Glad to hear of your useful listening and reflections. Metta Sarah ===== #129389 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 2:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Sukin)- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sukin. [And I'd like to call Howard's attention to this one too.] > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E, > > > > > > > > Then they are conditioned phenomena, which is fine, but if they are > > > 'real and substantial' entities at the moment they exist, then their > > > demise is indeed annihilation. > > > > > > > What do you mean by substantial entities? Must one always tie real with > > substantial? Can something not be conditioned and real at the same time? > > I think that's an excellent question, but the answer might not be quite so pat as one would hope. I really think it would be worthwhile to discuss what "real" means. What I have in mind is that dhammas are "real" in the sense that they really do arise and fall away, but whether there is a "dhamma per se" that exists as a frozen entity in a moment of time, I would say 'no,' and I think the Abhidhamma -- as far as I have seen -- bears this out. The dhamma is an activity in a sense, not an object. It is never an x or a y per se, because it is always in a process of change. When it is arising, it is forming up, when it is functioning, it is doing what it was conditioned to do, and when it is falling away, it is dissolving until it no longer exists. Therefore there is never a moment that it is definable as an absolute this or that, it is changing continuously. It is this understanding of anicca on the most microscopic level that would lead one to say that there is never a moment when you can put your finger on a dhamma and say "it is exactly that." Therefore I would say it is not "real as a definable object," it is real "as an active formation and dissolution in process" that never stops to be defined. We can talk about the cetasikas that are involved and the processes involved - contact, or vitakkha, et al, but not at any moment say that the dhamma is frozen as "this." So I think we mistakenly think of dhammas as static objects like a table or chair that we can stop and look at, and it is not that. In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. Of what could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation? > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = > =============================== I agree with you, Robert. I also believe that this is Buddhadhamma, as is born out by the sutta quote I give below. With metta, Howard /Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible.These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) #129390 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 11:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Howard ------- >> RE: In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. Of what could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation? >> > H: I agree with you, Robert. I also believe that this is Buddhadhamma, as is born out by the sutta quote I give below. <. . .> /Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible.These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ (From the Sankhata Sutta) --------- KH: According to my Google search that is not a sutta, it is a Mahayana sutra. What us the meaning of 'change' in that sutra? Is it a translation of anicca? If so, then I think Theravada students would prefer the translation "impermanence while standing" or "impermanence while persisting." To my mind, impermanence while persisting means conditioned dhammas are real (they do persist for a sub-moment) and they bear the anicca characteristic. Ken H #129391 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Question on List of Factors in Dependent Origination by Thanissaro Bhikkhu ptaus1 Hi Anthony, > A: ... in his Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (CMA). I don't have a copy of CMA at the moment. Could someone elaborate? CMA can be read online on google books: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxopJgv85y4C&printsec=frontcover Best wishes pt #129392 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 5:31 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. ptaus1 Hi KenH, > /Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. > Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible.These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ > > (From the Sankhata Sutta) > --------- > > KH: According to my Google search that is not a sutta, it is a Mahayana sutra. It's probably an AN sutta, though in different translation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html Best wishes pt #129393 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 5:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Pt. > > KH: According to my Google search that is not a sutta, it is a Mahayana sutra. >> > Pt: It's probably an AN sutta, though in different translation: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.047.than.html > KH: You are right again, thank you. There goes the case for the prosecution! :-) Ken H #129394 From: Vince Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 6:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. cerovzt Robert wrote: > It is equally ridiculous to talk about a momentary soul or self. And it is equally > ridiculous to say that if one says that there is no momentary identity, that there could > still be a non-momentary soul. Without identity, there is no soul or self. So that > distinction is also beside the point. >[...] > There is a momentary paramatha dhamma, but it doesn't have entity status, and is not > static. It is in process from arising to falling away and is constantly changing until > it no longer exists. I think this can be related with existence of the Time to us. The Time arises to us because we conceive a self in ourselves and in the objects in some degree. At all, the Time is just the belief of the possibility of the arising of one thing before another one. If every moment is linked with -self then we should be aware of the present moment Without any conception of -self. Is there arising of Time? Vince. #129395 From: "ptaus1" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:12 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. ptaus1 Hi KenH, > KH: You are right again, thank you. There goes the case for the prosecution! :-) :)) Well, not necessarily. I still don't get the point that RobE and Howard are trying to make. The fact that something arises, changes and ceases in a conditioned way doesn't make it any less real to me. But then I have no clue, all this is just talk either way. How panna actually knows these things, and whether the description of that knowing is more adequately put as something "real" or something "unreal", who knows? Even in the suttas both descriptions are used - you often cite the Flowers sutta that uses "real" descriptions, Howard often cites that other sutta that uses the "unreal" description. So can both be used, or is it about the context, or is it down to translation, or we're just overthinking things? etc. I don't know. Best wishes pt #129396 From: "Lukas" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:10 pm Subject: Re: 3 gocaras szmicio Dear Sarah, Yes, this is helpful. Best wishes Lukas > As we're often reminded, there has to be really firm understanding of the 'right' > object, the reality appearing now. > > What we think about and talk about now, such as seeing or visible object, will be the upanissaya gocara, the object (or arammana) for right understanding. By hearing and wise considering, there will be the development of understanding little by little, so the experiencing of the 'gocera' is accumulated and becomes a habit. > > When there's kusala thinking of any kind, it 'protects', such as at moments of sila. This is a arakkha gocara and there is a protection from harmful thinking and behaviour at such times. Arakkha gocara includes all kinds of kusala. All kusala is a protection, a guarding from akusala. ("aarakkhaa" means protection). > > Upanissaya gocara leads to the development of satipatthana, unpanibhanda gocara. Upanibhandha gocara is patipatti, direct understanding of realities. ("upanibhandha" means tied closed to). #129397 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:56 pm Subject: Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Pt (Azita and Howard), ------- > Pt: How panna actually knows these things, and whether the description of that knowing is more adequately put as something "real" or something "unreal", who knows? ------- KH: You will remember Azita's contribution to this thread, reminding us that panna must know the difference between nama and rupa. If there is ultimately no nama and no rupa – if there is ultimately just something called change – then how can panna even begin to know that difference? ------------ > Pt: Even in the suttas both descriptions are used - you often cite the Flowers sutta that uses "real" descriptions, Howard often cites that other sutta that uses the "unreal" description. So can both be used, or is it about the context, or is it down to translation, or we're just overthinking things? etc. I don't know. ----------- KH: My usual response to Howard's "unreal" quote is to suggest that conditioned dhammas are unreal in the sense of "untrue" or "untrustworthy" etc. In the absence of panna they appear to be something that they are not. So they are unreal in that sense. However, I don't remember the other responses. So I don't remember the official, ancient-commentarial, explanation. Ken H #129398 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 1:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > ------- > >> RE: In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. > Of what could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation? > >> > > > H: I agree with you, Robert. I also believe that this is Buddhadhamma, as is born out by the sutta quote I give below. > > <. . .> > > /Monks, these three are conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned. > Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, change while remaining is discernible.These are three conditioned characteristics of what is conditioned./ > > (From the Sankhata Sutta) > --------- > > KH: According to my Google search that is not a sutta, it is a Mahayana sutra. ---------------------------- HCW: You are mistaken, Ken. It is AN 3.47. Moreover, the commentaries confirm the content. ----------------------------- > > What us the meaning of 'change' in that sutra? Is it a translation of anicca? If so, then I think Theravada students would prefer the translation "impermanence while standing" or "impermanence while persisting." > > To my mind, impermanence while persisting means conditioned dhammas are real (they do persist for a sub-moment) and they bear the anicca characteristic. ------------------------------- HCW: I think this is gobbledygook, Ken. (But I mean that in a good way! ;-)) ----------------------------- > > Ken H > ================================ With metta, Howard P. S. Leaving today on a trip to return late on 3/22 - so probably little communication from me during this period. #129399 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Mar 7, 2013 10:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana. kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> >> HCW: I think this is gobbledygook, Ken. (But I mean that in a good way! ;-)) ------ KH: Thank you (I think)! :-) My own explanations of the Abhidhamma might go astray at times, but the Abhidhamma itself is the antithesis of gobbledygook. The Abhidhamma describes a number of absolute realities which in turn explain every daily-life experience. Nothing could be clearer, more logical or more satisfactory than the Abhidhamma. Consider the other explanations of ultimate reality and try to name one that comes close to the Abhidhamma for clarity and logic. The various Creator God theories are easy to dismiss as gobbledygook, but so too are the non-Abhidhamma, formal-practice based, versions of the Buddhadhamma. As soon as anyone strays from the strict Abhidhamma explanation of the universe they are forced to fudge their logic. And so we are told there are no absolute realities in the conditioned world, there are just "ever changing phenomena." What exactly are those phenomena? Spell them out! Otherwise we remain lost in a pile of . . . concepts. Ken H