#130400 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:21 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: ... All kusala moments are accompanied by alobha, but kusala moments are very rare. A moment of friendliness arises, with alobha. Very very rare. Most friendliness is with attachment. > > A moment of understanding realities, awareness of kusala as I post, of friendliness as I write. Awareness of kusala. > I think a out this. Probably with attachment. Akusala. > Fleeting moments of kusala in a day. If we try to make a practice out of them, it is all for nought. > > SN 1:1 is very very deep. All suttas are... Thanks for your response - I do appreciate your reflections on this above. In friendliness, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130401 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:37 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 13. philofillet Dear Group > >This made me think of Kuru where the outward conditions and the climate were most favorable for the development of the understanding of Dhamma. > The other day I met a Burmese Dhamma friend at crowded Shibuya station, where I once met Robert K. At that time I said to Robert that it must be kind of overwhelming, coming from the somewhat rural area in which he was living to the heart of Tokyo. All the same, just seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, he said. I told that to my Burmese friend as we walked to a lovely park. A lovely park with its fresh green leaves and quiet shady places certainly felt like a more suitable place to discuss Dhamma. But as for the development of the understanding of seeing and visible object, hearing and sound, it's difficult to understand why any one place is better than the other. If we are in a quiet place and think it is more suitable, there will just be desire for results, and self seeking control. An example of how it is difficult for people in this day and age with our greedy, results-oriented socially-conditioned accumulations to properly benefit from the Buddha's subtle guidance. The people of Kuru had very different accumulations, surely. Phil #130402 From: "philip" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:49 am Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 philofillet Hi Rob E Well, I've come to appreciate that you actually listen and try to understand what people are saying instead of just seeking to impose your own platform, thank you for that. But you see, I can't say it is kusala friendliness at this moment, there is lobha for someone posting in a way I approve of, in escape from dosa arising in response to ways of posting that I don't like. Or maybe there is kusala friendliness. We really can't know kusala from akusala in such a case and of course it is not something to fret about. Just interesting to note that there is always a lot of akusala mixed in when we might assume behaviour is purely kusala. Phil #130403 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 9:52 am Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) t.sastri Hi Rob E., - I appreciate your questions. You are a researcher who always searches for better and deeper knowledge. >RE: If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. If that's what it is, I have no idea why anyone would want to translate it as "own-being" which has so many more implications - something of one's "own" has the connotation of a self; while "being" has the connotation of an entity, so I think that translation really mystifies the idea of that "essence." I wonder how sabhava literally translates...? T: Yes, the "own-being" translation (by whom?) does imply an entity. A quick review of two Pali dictionaries shows the following meanings: bhava: becoming; the state of existence. bhaava: condition; nature; becoming. 'atta-bhaava': "personalized existence", "selfhood", "personal identity", "self state", or just "this body". {Tep: This shows that 'self' is not a bad four-letter word that is hated by some DSG members.} sabhaava : nature; condition; disposition; reality. [A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera Dictionary] sabhaavadhamma : principle of nature. sabhaava : 1. state (of mind), nature, condition.2. character, disposition, behaviour . 3. truth, reality, ... [PTS Dictionary] .......... >> T: ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. >RE: They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? T: I think sabhaava of any dhamma (a conditioned or unconditioned "nature"/reality) is intact. Jasmin flowers have their unique aroma, unchanged over millions of years (although there has been no jasmin tree that is older than a few decades). A sabhaava is inherent in the sabhaavadhamma or nature it represents. The Suttas talk about non-self sabhava-dhammas all the time, but no Arahants called them ultimate. .......... >RE: One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? T: I'd say all characteristics together define sabhaava of a dhamma. Sarah has often informed me that there are 28 rupas or "material phenomena" (as listed in the CMI book, for example). A visible object -- say body of a man-- is an aggregate of several "rupas" such as the four great essentials (dahatus, elements, properties), eye-sensitivity - body-sensitivity, visible form, sound, smell, tangibility (hardness), masculinity . [This example probably will invite criticism from the experts.] ............ >RE: Feeling has the characteristic of being felt, which is unique to it, but it also has characteristics of being contacted, being conscious of being felt, as there is no feeling without consciousness of feeling, etc. Maybe those are more secondary. For physical dhammas - rupas - such as hardness or the elements, it seems they have more co-equal characteristics on the physical level, but maybe there is just one major one and the others are subsidiary...? T: The importance ranking will depend on individual preference, I think. To my understanding the four great essentials are the major ones. ............ >RE: Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, .. T: Take my thoughts as strawman (for the experts to throw darts at), if you will. Thanks for the willingness to accompany this plankton in the lonely, vast ocean! Let's be brave, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E., - > > > > Thank you again for giving me an opportunity to contemplate both the Dhamma and the dhammas. > > > > >RE: I have always had the feeling that sabhava is not really defined... ...to me it seems very much like a sneaking idea of a 'self' or 'soul' quality ... something to hold onto... > > #130404 From: "Christine" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 10:57 am Subject: WiPitaka - Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies- WiPitaka (Prof. Richard Gombrich) christine_fo... Hello all, Not sure if this has been posted on DSG before - over at DhammaWheel, member seekingheartwood has posted this message re Pali translations: ''As some of you know, retired Oxford professor Richard Gombrich volunteers his time going around the world to teach people how to translate Pali. The latest out growth of this efforts, with the Oxford Center for Buddhist Studies, is the WiPitaka: http://www.ocbs.org/wipitaka If you get a free moment, please check it out.'' with metta Chris #130405 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 2, 2013 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Pt, > > > But the discussion is about wrong practice and the wrong view that is > > behind it. > > There is a difference in understanding between the concept of natural > > development in daily life and that of formal practice. > The latter is a > > denial of the former. > > Ok, but isn't the denial of your making? I mean, you designate the two > concepts as opposite, hence the denial. Others might not designate > them like that. > That development of wisdom must be natural / daily life is based on the understanding that all experiences are conditioned and arisen already by the time they are known. Therefore sati and panna, like any other dhamma, are not subjected to control of will but arises by specific conditions all of which are equally anatta. That they develop is due to their being sankhara dhammas and therefore based on prior arising of the same. That formal meditation needs to be undertaken in order that sati and panna is developed, is this from the same kind of understanding or completely different? > > The starting point is only when panna actually > > arises for the first time in any given lifetime, not when it hasn't. > > I don't quite get what you are saying here. > You had suggested that: "Yes, that was my point exactly. I.e. we all start somewhere - sun-worshipers, pop-buddhists, etc, and still, none of that is an insurmountable obstacle for kusala citta to arise anyway - "in spite of". And elsewhere, the idea that we are all in the Buddha sasana and therefore as long as we have heard the teachings, this can condition right understanding. My point therefore, is that we can't assume this and that it is only when panna has actually arisen, that we can say that it can arise again. > > And belief in formal practice due to wrong view will only make the > > straightening of view more difficult to arise. > > Ok, but that's depending on what's meant by conventional designation > "formal practice". Different people designate it differently, you seem > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't happen without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? > > And my point was, if there is pariyatti understanding, can this > > condition wrong practice? You are saying that if bhavana arises during > > formal practice, this can condition more bhavana, implying that the > > formal practice could still continue. This sounds to me like suggesting > > that wrong practice arises in spite of the right view, and I don't > think > > that this can be defended. My pointing out the pariyatti - patipatti > > relationship is therefore not a side-topic as far as I'm concerned. > > Ok, if you want to discuss it, I get the impression from the above > that panna and pariyatti are somehow similar to sotapati in the sense > of making wrong view and wrong practice appear a lot less than before. > Coming to a conclusion about what constitutes practice while referencing the teachings, this is where I am speaking from, and not the understanding that is firm, as in that of the sotapana. In other words, if one believes that dhammas are anatta and beyond control and that there are in fact only dhammas, how can one at the same time think about meditation and believe that patipatti could arise during the time. > I might be wrong, but my thinking is that despite occasional pariyatti > moments with panna, there will still come plenty of wrong view and > wrong practice moments until sotapati happens. > Yes plenty, for both of us. > Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional > terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, > studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would > all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala > dhammas happening somewhere in there. > I miss the point you are making here. > > I'll add the concept of saccannana, kiccannana and kattannana here. The > > connecting line between these three is understanding and confidence > that > > the "present dhamma" is the only valid object of study. This denies any > > place for the idea of meditation, which after all is about another > time, > > situation and object. And saccannana being related to pariyatti, means > > that if meditation is believed in, not only is saccannana lacking, but > > pariyatti as well. > > Ok, though again depending on how you designate the conventional > meaning of "meditation". You have your own, no worries, but there are > others. E.g. bhavana translated as meditation meaning a kusala citta > with panna, pariyatti translated as study also meaning a kusala citta > with panna. > I think that you are quite clear by now how I use it. What does it matter how anyone else uses it? My objection is based on the meaning and implications that I give. > But there are also others who equate study with wrong practice, just > like others equate meditation with wrong practice. Concepts can be > used anywhich way. > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong practice? Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice without the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. > > My objection to meditation was not telling people not to do it and > to do > > something else instead. You were making a case for meditation or at > > least for not talking against it in a general way. I was trying to > point > > out the wrong view behind the decision to meditate. > > Well, again, that holds only according to your designation of terms. > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about meditation which does not involve self-view? > > Are you calling the one "meditation" and the other "formal meditation" > > just for the sake of argument or do you really believe so? > I take it > > that you actually think this way. > > > > First, you apply the concept in the first case to actual moments of > > reality, and in the second to a conventional situation. Is this done to > > give validity to the conventional activity? If so, the question is, > why? > > Why do you have to even differentiate between time for work and time > for > > leisure here? Are the realities not all the same? Is it a fact that you > > experience more kusala during the one than the other? If not, why label > > one "formal meditation" and the other not? > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > pretty well. > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice motivated by wrong view. I don't label moments of satipatthana as "meditation" like you do. > > If yes, is the meditation in > "formal meditation" a reference to the actual moments of panna or is it > > something else, and what would this be? > > Sure, sometimes there are more kusala moments during what I designate > "formal meditation". Sometimes there are less. There are no rules > since concepts and doings like meditating or not meditating are not > realities. Would there also be wrong view somewhere in there? Perhaps > you don't agree, but I do think wrong view arises very often, despite > any kusala that happens to arise occasionally. It's all just > conditioned moments that arise despite of what we may want to arise. > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? And you think that your novel idea should change the way I view the concept? Forget it, I reserve the right to use it the way I have been doing. First, I limit my use of formal meditation to something done in the name of Dhamma practice. This means that it is not about the arising of kusala at the level of samatha, but the arising of right view. Second, if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it is more likely that you are deluded. I am generalizing? Yes. Sukin #130406 From: Tam Bach Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Dear Tep, You said to Sukin : Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. May I jump in and say something: Although Sukin might not have much the inclination to read a lot, several members that we know very well here such as Nina, John, Sarah etc....are very well learnt, suttas as well as commentaries. They also share the same understanding than Sukin. So it is not a matter of reading enough or not, but a matter of understanding. People read the same suttas and understand it differently. Moreover, the Buddha mentioned four kinds of people: those who have heard little and succeed, those who have heard little and fail, those who have heard much and succeed, those who have heard much and fail. Metta, Tam B #130407 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:38 pm Subject: Re: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 11 epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E > > Well, I've come to appreciate that you actually listen and try to understand what people are saying instead of just seeking to impose your own platform, thank you for that. Thanks for that assessment. > But you see, I can't say it is kusala friendliness at this moment, there is lobha for someone posting in a way I approve of, in escape from dosa arising in response to ways of posting that I don't like. Or maybe there is kusala friendliness. We really can't know kusala from akusala in such a case and of course it is not something to fret about. Just interesting to note that there is always a lot of akusala mixed in when we might assume behaviour is purely kusala. I think you are right to assume that there is a lot of akusala mixed in with whatever kusala arises. Those subtle attachments and defilements are very much worth being aware of, and sometimes they're of course not so subtle. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #130408 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 2:53 pm Subject: Sabhava - a very special essence... (was: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer!) epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E., - > > I appreciate your questions. You are a researcher who always searches for better and deeper knowledge. Well I should probably do more research! But I do like to look into these subjects as much as I can. > >RE: If that is what it is, that is a lot simpler I think than sabhava is sometimes made out. ..."own-being" ... has the connotation of a self... > > T: Yes, the "own-being" translation (by whom?) does imply an entity. > > A quick review of two Pali dictionaries shows the following meanings: > > bhava: becoming; the state of existence. > bhaava: condition; nature; becoming. > 'atta-bhaava': "personalized existence", "selfhood", "personal identity", "self state", or just "this body". {Tep: This shows that 'self' is not a bad four-letter word that is hated by some DSG members.} > sabhaava : nature; condition; disposition; reality. [A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera Dictionary] > sabhaavadhamma : principle of nature. > sabhaava : 1. state (of mind), nature, condition.2. character, disposition, behaviour . 3. truth, reality, ... [PTS Dictionary] > .......... These definitions are very helpful. We can conclude that sabhava is something like the "nature" or "condition" or "disposition" of a dhamma, it represents the "character" of that dhamma, and it is a "truth" and a "reality." In other words, it is the real nature, character or condition of that dhamma, and by implication, the most important aspect of that dhamma's existence and function, which gives it its uniqueness. > >> T: ...They don't disappear either, but remain accountable for all newly arisen phenomena of the same kind. > > >RE: They don't disappear with the falling away of the dhamma? That is hard to understand. How are they accountable? Do they have independent existence apart from the dhammas that have those qualities...? > > T: I think sabhaava of any dhamma (a conditioned or unconditioned "nature"/reality) is intact. Jasmin flowers have their unique aroma, unchanged over millions of years (although there has been no jasmin tree that is older than a few decades). A sabhaava is inherent in the sabhaavadhamma or nature it represents. The Suttas talk about non-self sabhava-dhammas all the time, but no Arahants called them ultimate. > .......... I am still a little confused about this idea. I can understand that a certain kind of dhamma is going to arise with a certain kind of characteristic due to the sorts of conditions that give rise to it. For instance, when conditions come together for hearing to contact an object of hearing, that will allow for the arising of an object whose nature is to be heard. But I don't think it would be correct to say that the characteristic of hearing exists at a moment when no object of hearing is arising. Likewise, I don't think the smell of jasmines exists in some latent form where there is no jasmine flower. The fact that this smell arises according to plan when a jasmine flower grows is quite striking, but that does not mean that the smell exists without the flower, or that it has some special existence apart from the flowers that smell that way. I would say it is the co-incidence of like conditions that bring about a similar dhamma with a similar or same characteristic, rather than a characteristic having an independent existence of some kind. I would think that this would again be mystifying the sabhava into some kind of spiritual entity, rather than being a part of the conditional nature of the dhammas in question. > >RE: One question is whether all dhammas have only one specific unique characteristic or any number of them. Earth does not just have hardness as a characteristic, it has solidity and others - are they all parts of earth's sabhava, or is there only one main characteristic that is sabhava? > > T: I'd say all characteristics together define sabhaava of a dhamma... That is something that will require more contemplation on my part. ... > >RE: Thanks, Tep - I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. From a fellow plankton, hopefully not eaten by a fish in the near future, .. > > T: Take my thoughts as strawman (for the experts to throw darts at), if you will. Thanks for the willingness to accompany this plankton in the lonely, vast ocean! > > Let's be brave, > Tep Thanks Tep, for a good conversation. Sabhava has always mystified me - I think it is a bit more clear now. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #130409 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 3:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Tam, - I appreciate your gentle and persistent communication about the value of understanding. But we need to make sure that we understand/know the term "understanding" more or less the same. There are several kinds of understanding such as: 1. comprehension, 2. intellect (power of abstract thinking), 3. perception of a given situation, 4. sympathetic awareness, and 5. insight. The Visuddhimagga states (Chapter XIV, 1) that it is not easy even to know about understanding (insight), let alone to develop it. Vism XIV, 2 : "What is understanding? Understanding (pa~n~na) is of many sorts and has various aspects... so we shall confine ourselves to the kind intended here, which is understanding consisting in insight knowledge associated with profitable consciousness." But that kind of understanding (or wisdom) often is not the main concern here at DSG. >Tam: People read the same suttas and understand it differently. Moreover, the Buddha mentioned four kinds of people: those who have heard little and succeed, those who have heard little and fail, those who have heard much and succeed, those who have heard much and fail. T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > You said to Sukin : > > Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. > > > May I jump in and say something: .... > #130410 From: Sukinder Date: Thu May 2, 2013 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Hi Alex, > >S:Why does one listen to the Buddha's teachings? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > To know how to practice. > How to do it or what it is? And why jump to the idea of practice? Is not the Eightfold Path the fourth of the Four Noble Truths and therefore it is imperative that you hear about the other three also? > >Is it not to understand something one otherwise would never come to > >know by oneself or from any other teacher? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > This understanding is useless unless one puts it to use. > The idea of "putting into use" may be due exactly to not understanding what the Buddha taught. Therefore start again, because even if there is right understanding, one must begin again and again rather than the idea of application or of having direct experience. > One can know that smoking is bad, yet still smokes. Why? Due to > craving. And here is the difficulty lies. To resist the craving. > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. Worse is to resist it with self-view. > >Does this not therefore make a difference in one's outlook? > > Very little after a while. > A difference in terms of accumulated understanding, and no worry about how much and when, dhammas works their way. Craving for direct understanding on the other hand, and further to be driven to wrong practices, this is not the right cause for the result aimed at. > >And one keeps on listening because one sees the value of such > >understanding. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Its almost useless unless one puts it into a practice. > Knowing to swim and swimming are different. > Yes intellectual understanding is not direct understanding. However one leads to the other by conditions and not by a self who wishes it. Intellectual understanding knows that it is intellectual understanding and therefore far from being a problem, is sign of being on the right track. What is bad is wrong practice mistaken for right, where no direct understanding is ever involved, but wrong view makes appear otherwise. > >The experience of ultimate realities? Well, we all experience > >ultimate realities and even refer to them all day! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > This is irrelevant to the path. Appropriate attention is to > contemplate 4NT rather than existence/non-existence. See MN2 > Four Noble Truths are not ultimate realities that exist? > > > Of course, over there --we are told by Abhidhammikas who are not > > > Arahants-- there are no control, no you, no me, no discussion, no > > > meditation, no learning, no practice, no Dhamma -- just the > >ultimate realities alone. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > That is not what suttas or Abhidhamma teaches. > Of the Four Noble Truths, which one refers to persons? As to practice, it is the Fourth Noble Truth, but this is a particular set of cetasikas accompanying the citta, not a person who practices. > >Is seeing now "me"? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Wrong reflection. See MN#2. > MN2 is about someone whose reference point is "I". in the above the reference point is "seeing", a dhamma. > >...this can be understood too, now, can it not? > > Better is to reflect on 4NT. See MN2 > Seeing consciousness is Dukkha, the First Noble Truth. > >Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away > >right now? > >>>>>>>>>> > > A better thing to see is arising and passing away of dukkha. MN2. > If you don't understand seeing consciousness as a dhamma, there is no way that you will ever understand it as Dukkha. > >One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a > >beginner go by and why? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > All relevant teaching minus improper speculative theories. > So you think that the Dhamma contains speculative theories? Anyway, please give a more precise answer as to which part of the teachings a beginner should go by. > >Some people love stories about "self" moving in time, doing and > >achieving this and that. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Talking that "self doesn't exist... Thus no control..." is exactly the > same kind of speculative story about self, that doesn't (supposedly) > exist. > Talking about "self" not existing but not understanding that there only dhammas is speculative. However when self is denied while asserting that there are only dhammas "now" to be known, this is pointing to the First Noble Truth. Metta, Sukin #130411 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 9:36 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >S:How to do it or what it is? And why jump to the idea of practice? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the suttas, please. Even the commentaries (VsM) talk about practice in seclusion. What you say about "no practice" contradicts suttas, commentaries, and very pro Abhidhamma monks such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, or many others. >S:Yes intellectual understanding is not direct understanding. >However one leads to the other by conditions and not by a self who >wishes it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One uses one's understanding to correctly practice. So in that way it is required condition. >S:Four Noble Truths are not ultimate realities that exist? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should not be put that way. 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.' 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced' This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed' SN56.11 >S:The idea of "putting into use" may be due exactly to not >understanding what the Buddha taught. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See above. >To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. >>>>>>>>>>>> "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html Check http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.042.wlsh.html Desire can be used to end desire. >S:Worse is to resist it with self-view. Strawman. One doesn't need to have self-view to follow Dhamma. With best wishes, Alex #130412 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 11:04 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Alex (Sukin, Tam), - >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. T: Thanks for pointing out the important fact that a problem (dukkha) can be caused by craving, rather than by self-view. A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha. Be joyful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all. > > Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, and it harms himself and others. .... > It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. > #130413 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu May 2, 2013 11:26 pm Subject: Re: I am so sorry!....Poem for Dr. Han Tun yawares1 Dear Brother Han, This Uposatha Day...please read my poems I wrote just for you! *********** Dear Brother Han I remember the day I joined SD and JTN Groups You were the first member to greet me I felt your sincerity..kindness..so clearly to see Whatever I posted.. you always encouraged me Helping me find stories that I looked for I posted Anuruddha..you gave me Rohini You said they were brother/sister May be like.. you and me Dear Brother Han You are my big brother That I truly love so dearly I wish you never feel sad or depressed I wish you blue-birds in the spring I wish you sweet songs to sing I wish you health and wealth But more than anything I wish you..you.. you Sotapatti Fruition! Why? Because Tep and I love you!: Namo Tassa song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm1Oa31xYUQ Sister yawares *************** --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Khun Tadao, Khun Jagkrit, Brother Tep and Sister Yawares, Partner Sarah and Jon, and others, > > Before I recover completely from the recent surgery, the Pathologist has found in me another illness that requires various investigations and prolonged and difficult treatment. > > When I first read the statement [Once a being acquires the five aggregates, he acquires the dukkha] I took it lightly. Now I come to understand the seriousness of the above statement, and I get fed-up with the five aggregates. > > My five aggregates are a heap of sheer formations (suddhasa"nkhaarapu~njoya.m). > > It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases. > > Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, > dukkha.m ti.t.thati veti ca; > Naa~n~natra dukkhaa sambhoti, > naa~n~na.m dukkhaa nirujjhatii"ti. > -SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta. > #130414 From: "philip" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 12:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) philofillet Hello Professor Tep > > T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. > Did it ever occur to you that cutting and pasting chunks of sutta (suttantitos? suttantots?) and thrusting them under people's noses in order to score points in an Internet debate is a rather coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching? This morning I sat with SN 35 in the anthology, as is my wont. So much better a way to open patiently to the Buddha's words than having people like you cyber whacking me with suttantots. Just because people like me resist being hectored with suttantitos doesn't mean we don't treasure the suttanta. I recommend paraphrasing suttas, briefly, to demonstrate your understanding. Be refined, Be moderate, Be sensible, Phil Phil Phil P.s this is a one-time suggestion, conditioned by your comments. Nothing more to say on it. #130415 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 1:58 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Phil, - >Ph: Did it ever occur to you that cutting and pasting chunks of sutta (suttantitos? suttantots?) and thrusting them under people's noses in order to score points in an Internet debate is a rather coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching? T: I need to see a few examples of what you're calling "coarse exploitation of the Buddha's sublime teaching" because I have no idea what you are complaining and accusing me about. Let's examine together in this forum whatever evidence you can produce, and if you can prove that your complain is not a lie with the purpose to abuse (but I don't have any clue why you'd want to commit such a sinful kamma!), then I promise to offer my apologies & correct the problem for you. .............. >Ph: Just because people like me resist being hectored with suttantitos doesn't mean we don't treasure the suttanta. I recommend paraphrasing suttas, briefly, to demonstrate your understanding. > > Be refined, > Be moderate, > Be sensible, T: Again, no hollow accusation, please. Produce an adequate evidence and submit it. Be a gentleman, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > Hello Professor Tep > > > > T: People who read the Suttas do not understand them the same way; that's understandable. But there are people who don't pay attention to the Suttas (the words of Buddha) even when someone post them for they to read. I think they already fail right at the beginning. > > > > Phil > Phil > Phil > > P.s this is a one-time suggestion, conditioned by your comments. Nothing more to say on it. > #130416 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 2:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Phil, Sukin, all, It is one thing to teach "KS Teaching" and call it her teaching. It is totally different to call it Buddha's teaching as found in the suttas, Abhidhamma, Vinaya, and even VsM. With best wishes, Alex #130417 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:06 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Hi Alex (& Sukin), > > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. > "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " I think the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) might help a bit here. Alberto ************* Discourses of the Buddha - An Anthology - Part 1 - Translated by Nyanaponika Thera - BPS Wheel N. 155-158, page 120n note 64. ta.nha.m nissaaya ta.nha.m pajahati - Com: "Based on the present craving (i.e. desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantaship) is wholesome (kusala) or unwholesome (akusala)? - It is unwholesome. Should it be pursued or not? - It should be pursued (sevitabbaa). Does it drag one into rebirth (pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati) or not? - It does not drag one into rebirth. Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained. #130418 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:12 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Alberto, all, Comy agrees with what I have said: "It should be pursued (sevitabbaa)...It does not drag one into rebirth...Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained." It is also similar to parable of the raft. N8P is sankhata, yet it leads to asankhata. Parable of the raft: one uses the raft to cross over, and then it is discarded. Similar is with meditation. Even though one may start with little amount of right views, as one gains insight, one will develop more right view. The goal is NOT the path as some unorthodox mahayana teachings can teach. Path starts as imperfect and it brings, it doesn't create, it brings one to Nibbana. With best wishes, Alex #130419 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 8:13 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Alberto , Alex (Sukin), - According to the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) that helps more than a bit for me, I learnt this : Due to the present craving (desire for becoming an Arahant) he gives up previous craving that was the root cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. It is unwholesome. It should be pursued. It does not drag one into rebirth. Such permissible craving is abandoned when its object is attained. Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the Self to drag one into rebirth? Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka , or is his teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to follow? Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Alex (& Sukin), > > > > To resist craving with craving, one is not better than the other. > > > "'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on > craving that craving is to be abandoned.' " > > I think the Commentary to this sutta (AN4-159, The nun) might help a bit here. > #130420 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:59 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sukin, all, >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone >attain arahantship? >>>>>>>>>>>> No. >T:Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the >Self to drag one into rebirth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craving and self view are not the same. There can be craving without self views, such as craving found in sotapanna to anagami stage. >T:Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka , or is his >teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to >follow? >>>>>>>>>>>>> He teaches correctly. It is only clinging to views that, IMHO, cause some to create issues that He didn't have. If practice was wrong because it developed Self Views, and this sort of practice was widely known, don't you think that it would be all over the suttas him saying it over and over again? Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. With best wishes, Alex #130421 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Dear Alex, Tep, all >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. -------------------- Tam B: Well, the texts tell us that craving is a nama, a mental factor; it has a distinctive characteristic which is not the same as aversion or feeling, though normally people mix all of them up and call it "emotion". And craving, like any other dhamma, is not I, me or mine, and it can be understood as such, now. >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. -------------------- Tam B: the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative ? I think it becomes speculative when one doesn't really investigate the meaning of "a dhamma". What is a dhamma? Is tasting-base I, me, mine? Is the taste I, me, or mine? Is the tasting consciousness I, me or mine? Do they last? Do they really bring satisfaction? That is the reality of drinking, which can be investigated, very little by little. Don't you see that it is understanding which is doing the work, whatever is the level ? Just wanting with ignorance don't. T: Thanks for pointing out the important fact that a problem (dukkha) can be caused by craving, rather than by self-view. A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha. ------------------- Tam B: So self-view has to disappear first, right? Without the eradication of self-view, can there be the eradication of tanha? By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. I would like to quote Nina's vipassana letters, No 11: "We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (I, Sagatha-vagga, Ch I , The Devas, 3, The Sword Suttas, par. I, By Impending Sword) that a deva said to the Buddha: As one downsmitten by impending sword, >As one whose hair and turban are aflame, >So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert, >Go forth, all worldly passions left behind. The Exalted One said: As one downsmitten by impending sword, >As one whose hair and turban are aflame, >So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert, >Go forth, leaving personality-belief behind. Just as the person who has been struck by a sword or whose hair and turban are aflame will not be neglectful but apply energy to remedy his dangerous situation, even so should the bhikkhu not be neglectful, but mindful and alert. The Buddha repeated what the deva said, but he changed one line, and this change is very meaningful. The deva spoke about subduing the sense pleasures. However, so long as they have not been eradicated by the magga-citta so long will one be bound by them. We read in the commentary to this sutta, the "Saratthappakasini", that the Buddha, in view of this, wanted to change the deva's verse, using the same similes but applying them to the first magga-citta (the magga-citta of the sotapanna) which eradicates personality-belief, sakkaya ditthi. We may easily overlook the subtle point of this sutta. We understand in theory that first of all wrong view has to be eradicated before finally, at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the anagami, clinging to sense pleasures can be eradicated. Even though we know this, we are still inclined to worry about our attachment to sense pleasures instead of knowing its characteristic when it appears. This is the only way to finally be able to eradicate it" Metta, Tam B === #130422 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 4:36 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Alex, (Tam, others) - So you agree with me that without a desire for becoming an Arahant, no-one can attain arahantship. >>Tep: Since there is craving and it is unwholesome, why isn't there the Self to drag one into rebirth? >Alex: No. Craving and self view are not the same. There can be craving without self views, such as craving found in sotapanna to anagami stage. T: Exactly! ........... >>Tep: Does the Buddha teach flexible Dhamma to wise savaka, or is his teaching inflexible (rigid, and without exception) for fools to follow? >Alex: He teaches correctly. It is only clinging to views that, IMHO, cause some to create issues that He didn't have. Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. T: The twisting of the Sutta meaning to be something else is not a wrong view, it is a wrong speech with wrong intention. However, saying that there is no Self is right in the sense of 'no Soul' and 'no Ego-identity'. The word 'atta' -- the lower-case self-- is often seen in the Suttas in the conventional sense, e.g. 'attaahi attano naatho' = one's self is one's own refuge. ........... >Alex: This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. T: Thank you for clearing me from that debate on Khun Sujin's teaching. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sukin, all, > > >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone >attain arahantship? > >>>>>>>>>>>> #130423 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:10 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Alex (& Pt), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > >A: At which council were commentaries, and which ones approved? How do we know if the Buddha would approve them? ... S: Lots of detail in 'useful posts' under 'commentaries -origins'. All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. Here's a quote by I.B.Horner I've given before, which I've given before, from her Preface to the commentary of the Buddhavamsa: "Through enemies and friends alike deleterious change and deterioration in the word of the Buddha might intervene for an indefinite length of time. The commentaries are the armour and protection agains such an eventuality. As they hold a unique position as preservers and interpreters of true Dhamma, it is essential not only to understand them but to follow them carefully and adopt the meaning they ascribe to a word or phrase each time they comment on it. They are as 'closed' now as is the Pali Canon. No additions to their corpus or subtractions from it are to be contemplated, and no commentary written in later days could be included within it." .... S: As for the Vimuttimagga, this is not included. ... > > There was that sutta "Who sees Dhamma, sees me" or something like that. One of the implications I think is that Dhamma is not limited to only the Buddha saying it/approving it. It's timeless. But I understand the problem - so many nowadays saying different things, how can we tell what's Dhamma and what's not. I guess some schools/texts will seem appealing, some dwn't. That's as far as anyone can tell nowadays I guess without actual nanas of whatever level. .... S: In the end, the Dhamma is now, the reality now that can be directly known.So what is important is what can be tested now. Is there seeing now? Is the citta kusala or akusala when wondering about the origins? Is it hardness or a computer touched now? Metta Sarah ======= #130424 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Hi Alex, (Tep), > Comy agrees with what I have said I think the Cmy referred to craving for nibbana, a reality, the object of arahantaship, which eradicates craving itself, thus putting an end to the cycle. And I also think that this particular kind of craving can only be conditioned by understanding realities as non self, at its first two levels (pariyatti and patipatti). Alberto #130425 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: .... No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! <....> > T: According to the Comy. of the Sallekha Sutta (MN 8), patipatti is the "practice according to the teaching". It is also known as 'dhammanudhamma patipatti' [See SN 22.39-42.] > I have not seen 'miccha patipatti' in the Suttas. ... S: What about micchaa pa.tipada (wrong practice)? SN 12:3 (3), The Two Ways (Pa.tipadaasutta.m) (Bodhi transl): "At Saavtthi. 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way (micchaapa.tipada) and the right way (sammaapa.tipada).... " 'And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be]; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness...Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way. " 'And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations..... This, bhikkhus, is called the right way." Nina summarised the commentary to this sutta: "The wrong way is the way that does not deliver beings from dukkha. The Commentary explains that in this respect also the attainment of the stages of jhaana (the eight jhaana samaapatti, including ruupa-jhaana and aruupa-jhaana) and the five 'supra-natural powers' (abhi~n~naas ) are part of the cycle (vatta) and are as such the wrong way of practice. The way of practice by which ignorance and the other defilements are completely eradicated and nibbaana is attained is the right way. Further on, the Commentary explains that in this sutta the practice is considered from the point of view of the result it leads to: the continuation of the cycle (vatta) or the end of the cycle (vivatta). When it leads to the end of defilements, nibbaana, it is the right way practice. The Commentary states that even the offering of one ladle of rice or a handful of leaves can be the right way of practice, leading out of the cycle. When someone performs daana together with satipatthaana, without the idea of self who is giving, the giving is very pure, it is the right practice." **** S: We also read in many suttas about the right and the wrong path factors. Without right understanding of present realities, the distinction will never be known. Metta Sarah ====== #130426 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:41 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Rob E & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: ....No practice, no progress on the path! And the Wheel of Becoming keeps on turning! ... S: From an old message I wrote: >S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or "meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising. The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka, comes down to the understanding of this moment. For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108: (Ananda speaking): "The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m), nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust (kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust. "While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation." We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas, are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. Only the development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice". SN 55:55: "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view to having that consciousness occur."< **** Metta Sarah ===== #130427 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 5:53 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: Isn't it fair to say that commentators sometimes disagree among themselves? ... S: Can you give me an example? ... > ......... > >S: When touching the keyboard with eyes wide open, what is experienced through the body-sense? > > T: Then the whole keyboard is seen, and the touch adds a sensed fact that it is hard or soft. That "experience" does not lead to the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of rupakkhandha, though. ... S: No, because it's not the understanding of dhammas. We think we see a keyboard, but this is just thinking about what is seen. At the momet of seeing, only visible object appears - just the seen. At another moment, hardness is experienced by body consciousness. It is the understanding of dhammas, elements, no person or thing there, that gradually the understanding of conditions and of the ti-lakkhana of such dhammas becomes known, beginning with the understanding of the clear distinction between those dhammas which cannot experience anything and those dhammas which can experience an object - all anatta. ... Metta Sarah ==== #130428 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:09 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >S (message #130259): Actually none of the examples you give are rupas, rupa khandha. If you look in CMA - in the text itself from Abhidhammattha Sangaha - you'll see there are only 28 rupas and these do not include body parts, roses, diamonds or mountains. However, in the section under concepts at the end of the text, you'll find these are included there. > > T: I think you are refering to the 'sabhava' or "essence" of the paramattha dhamma 'rupa', rather than to forms or form-aggreagte themselves: it's like an atomic physicist who refuses to see nothing but the atoms. ... S: rupa is rupa khandha. "Form" is just a translation of rupa. Only rupas are experienced through the 5 sense doors. .... > T: I don't think our Greatest Teacher switched anything: he always talked about the dhammas and their sabhava. There is no mention of paramattha (ultimate) in the Sutta teachings. > The confusion arose later, long after the Parinibbana. > ............ ... S: Dhammas are namas ad rupas. These are paramattha dhammas. No matter what words are used, it is the same dhammas, dhatus, khandhas, ayatanas referred to throughout the Tipitaka. There are entire sections of the Suttanta under these headings - all to stress the anattaness of dhammas. .... > > >S: Just because it is hardness which is touched now doesn't mean that we no longer refer to computer keyboards! > > T: Yes, if our purpose is to contemplate hardness as a sabhava dhamma --a characteristic of materialities. > ............ S: Let's be clear that hardness is not "a characteristic of materialities" - there are only rupas such as hardness experienced through the bodysense - nothing else at all. ... > T: Yet, in many DSG discussion messages it does not seem that "theoretical understanding of dhammas" is the purpose. The following two declarations show direct understanding/ direct knowing of paramattha dhammas by the speaker. > > "There has to be very clear understanding of what visible object is and how it is distinct from seeing consciousness. There also has to be clear understanding of many other rupas and namas appearing in a day. Without such understanding, there will never be the very highly developed understanding which understands the arising and falling away of realities." > > "Now, visible object appears - it is seen. It's a conditioned dhamma, sankhata dhamma, that arises when the conditions are in place and falls away immediately." .... S: The only distinction between pariyatti and patipatti is in the degree of right understanding. It is always the direct understanding of dhammas that is the goal. Without hearing, carefully considering and appreciating what those dhammas are at this moment, they will never be directly understood. ... > >S: Long before there is any direct understanding of the arising and falling away of particular realities, there must be the understanding of such realities. When there are questions about 'how to?' or 'what do do?", there is no understanding about dhammas at such a time. > > T: Those are legitimate questions every student who intends to apply any theory/principle and develop skills would ask! ... S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. Metta Sarah ===== #130429 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. > >R: Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. ... S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. Metta Sarah ===== #130430 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Tam (Alex, others) - Thank you for giving an opinion on anatta, self-view, and craving/tanha. >>Alex: Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful at certain stage. >Tam: the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative ? I think it becomes speculative when one doesn't really investigate the meaning of "a dhamma". What is a dhamma? Is tasting-base I, me, mine? Is the taste I, me, or mine? Is the tasting consciousness I, me or mine? Do they last? Do they really bring satisfaction? ............. Tep: I think 'Sabbe dhamma anatta.' means 'all dhammas are not-self', i.e., they are not what a person conceives (and is attached to) as his/her ego. However, you're right about the taste and tasting consciousness, and also about the dhammas in general that, as sabhava-dhammas, they are anicca.m, dukkha.m, and anatta (empty of self and anything pertaining to self). We contemplate the anatta characteristic often in order that we may let go (relinquish) "the All" for the cessation of dukkha. Earlier I made a comment : "A Sotapanna has eliminated self-views; yet, he/she still has all three kinds of tanha." and you wrote this: >Tam: So self-view has to disappear first, right? Without the eradication of self-view, can there be the eradication of tanha? [Nina in Vipassana Letter 11:]"We understand in theory that first of all wrong view has to be eradicated before finally, at the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the anagami, clinging to sense pleasures can be eradicated." Tep: Apparently, you had Nina's vipassana letter in mind. It is clear, but nothing is deep at all, that the first stage of ariya-puggala is the Sotapanna who eradicates self-view. How can one become Arahant, who finally eradicates craving, without first passing through the Sotapatti? But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. ............. >Tam: By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. Tep: So would you advise an alcoholic, who wants to quit drinking, that he/she has to become Sotapanna first? Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Alex, Tep, all > > >Alex: Craving is not an intellectual, it is emotional problem. > -------------------- > Tam B: Well, the texts tell us that craving is a nama, a mental factor; it has a distinctive characteristic which is not the same as aversion or feeling, though normally people mix all of them up and call it "emotion". And craving, like any other dhamma, is not I, me or mine, and it can be understood as such, now. > > >Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on breaking the addiction. > >Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually be harmful > at certain stage. > -------------------- #130431 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: In the deepest sense, all conditioned realities, all sankhara dhammas are dukkha, inherently unsatisfactory - not just the unpleasant mental and physical phenomena. > >R: Yes, those are worthwhile distinctions. Are those the three types of dukkha? Physical pain [on account of kamma,] Mental discomfort/suffering [second arrow?] and then the inherent suffering/unsatisfactoriness/unpleasantness inherent in the arising of all phenomena? ... S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Metta Sarah ===== #130432 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (asava). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html > =============== J: The passage is an interesting one. My reading of it is as follows: Question: What is the development of concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents? Answer: Directly knowing the arising and the falling away of dhammas. In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. > =============== > > J: So it means the actual arising of awareness/insight, rather than a technique or exercises designed to induce the arising of awareness/insight. > > T: That is basically what we differ in our opinion. Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. > =============== J: Quite so, awareness/insight does not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. However, what I said earlier (i.e., that "practice (of the path)" measn the actula arising of awareness/insight) does not contradict that statement. > =============== > T: Knowledge and vision must be trained (i.e. developed through practice). > > "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. The practice of insight meditation aims at dislodging the defilements by eradicating the ignorance at their base. Ignorance is overcome by generating, through mindful observation, a direct insight into things as they really are. The material upon which insight works is precisely the sphere where ignorance is concealed, our own psycho-physical experience. Its method is the application of mindfulness or discerning awareness to this sphere without interruption and in all activities." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#top > =============== J: What you have quoted above is Ven. Bodhi's personal interpretation of the texts, and not a translation or summary of any specific text (Tipitaka or commentaries). Of course, there's no reason why the Ven. should not give his own views; however, it is appropriate to check any personal views stated/interpretations given against the texts. The Ven. says that the Canonical term "development of insight" (Pali: "vipassana bhavana") refers to a "system of meditation" that must be "practised". As far as I know, there is no term in the Pali texts for "meditation" as used in this manner. The Ven. does not give any references from the texts to support his interpretation. Jon #130433 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 3, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tambach Dear Tep, all T: But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. ............. Tam B: That wrong view is eradicated before craving is not anyone's decision, isn't it? It is merely how Dhamma is. Similarly, it doesn't depend on someone's decision that craving can be reduced. Assuming so would tantamount to assume a self who can control dhammas at will. The degree that craving can be gradually reduced, so we learn, depends on the degree of the understanding/wisdom/panna which has been developed. So I think it is not a matter deciding to do something about it, or to not do something about it, as both implies an idea of a self. Rather, isn't it more in accordance to the Dhamma that understanding should be developed, as all important wholesome dhammas circle around right view (MN117)? I think it is not beyond our own consideration that craving gradually decrease as our understanding of the Dhamma grows (even at the intellectual level), without having to do anything about it. >Tam: By the way, a sotapanna, who no longer has self-view, will never succumb to drinking again. Tep: So would you advise an alcoholic, who wants to quit drinking, that he/she has to become Sotapanna first? --------------------- Tam B: I didn't advise anything, it is just a re-statement of what has been said in the texts. It was said in the context of Alex's denying the role of right view in the cure of alcoholism. Again, things happen because of conditions, and how can we predict what conditions will arise at what moment? But we know from the Buddha that hearing the Dhamma and wise considering are the cause of wisdom and of all wholesomeness, that can condition more studying and considering, which at due course, will bear result. Metta Tam B #130434 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Tam, all, >Tam B: the Buddha said: " Sabbe dhamma anatta". Is it speculative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that it is practical advice not to consider whatever phenomenon that arise as "Self". This doesn't even refute speculative view of atta. Some theoreticians can say that "sabbe dhamma" is limited set of what is, and Atta is beyond that. While I don't agree with this because it is a view, this is what I understand some atta-vadins to teach. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130435 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:11 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >S:All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils >by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the Buddha didn't physically speak them. How do we know that what the monks said was not mis-interpretation? Even during the Buddha, there were monks with mistaken views (Sati, Arittha, Devadatta). At least when the Buddha was alive, he could have used his authority to rebuke wrong views... But when he is gone... After the Buddha there were about 19-20 early schools... With best wishes, Alex #130436 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:14 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Alberto, all, >And I also think that this particular kind of craving can only be >conditioned by understanding realities as non self, at its first two >levels (pariyatti and patipatti). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as one believes in no-self, one can't even reach stream entry, and those who preach it are not even stream-enterers. IMHO. Rather, one needs to treat everything that arises as not-self, anatta. With best wishes, Alex #130437 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:25 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:All the ancient Pali commentaries as approved at the early councils >by the Mahavihara Theras are "Buddha vacana", word of the Buddha. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > But the Buddha didn't physically speak them. How do we know that what the monks said was not mis-interpretation? Even during the Buddha, there were monks with mistaken views (Sati, Arittha, Devadatta). ... S: Such monks were not the Mahavihara Theras who preserved the Teachings. At these early Councils, starting with the first one under Maha Kassapa, only arahats recited the Buddha Vaccana which included many commentaries. ... >At least when the Buddha was alive, he could have used his authority to rebuke wrong views... But when he is gone... > > After the Buddha there were about 19-20 early schools... .... S: Yes and the wise Theras rebuked the wrong views and attempts at schisms and alterations of Dhamma Vinaya. However, the Truths will never be understood by historical analysis and argument, only by testing out what is correct. What appears now? Is there doubt about the reality appearing now? Metta Sarah ===== #130438 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:46 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon, - >J: In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. T: Your answer is neither conclusive nor convincing without your own definition of "awareness/insight" Or just give me the Pali word for it. I guess it is yathabuta~nana that is supported by right concentration (samma samadhi), the 8th factor of the path. ......... >>T: Awareness/insight --direct experience, direct knowing of the truths-- that penetrates the Noble Truths do not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. >J: Quite so, awareness/insight does not "come to be" by wishing or thinking. However, what I said earlier (i.e., that "practice (of the path)" means the actual arising of awareness/insight) does not contradict that statement. T: Ha, ha :) .. your unyieldling view of "practice(of the path)" must be supported by a strong belief --'This is my understanding'-- that seems to be a self -view . ......... >>Tep's quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's Transcendental Dependent Arising: "The compound expression 'knowledge and vision,' indicates that the kind of knowledge to be developed is not mere conceptual understanding, but knowledge which in its directness and immediacy is akin to visual perception. Conceptual understanding is often needed to clear away the intellectual obstructions to a correct perspective, but it must eventually yield to the light of direct experience. To achieve this experiential understanding it is necessary to enter upon the practice of the second system of Buddhist meditation, the development of insight. ... > J: What you have quoted above is Ven. Bodhi's personal interpretation of the texts, and not a translation or summary of any specific text (Tipitaka or commentaries). Of course, there's no reason why the Ven. should not give his own views; however, it is appropriate to check any personal views stated/interpretations given against the texts. T: FYI the text to be checked against is the one the venerable used in writing this article: the Upanisa Sutta. A person who doubts everyone --except himself-- may end up not learning much even if he lives to be 100. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, (Alex, Rob E., Sarah)- > > > > T: Development of concentration (samadhibhavana) is another support for the progress of the path: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away #130439 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 9:55 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >A:But the Buddha didn't physically speak them. How do we know that what the monks said was not mis-interpretation? Even during the Buddha, there were monks with mistaken views (Sati, Arittha, Devadatta). > ... >S: Such monks were not the Mahavihara Theras who preserved the >Teachings. At these early Councils, starting with the first one under >Maha Kassapa, only arahats recited the Buddha Vaccana which included >many commentaries. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sati, Arittha, etc, were monks who studied under the Buddha - rather than monks living generations after the Buddha. Also, how do we know that commentators were Arahants, or even ariyans? >S: Yes and the wise Theras rebuked the wrong views and attempts at >schisms and alterations of Dhamma Vinaya. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I've read, it was sthaviravadins who altered Vinaya, while mahasanghikas did not. "One reason for the interest in the origins of the Mahasamghika school is that their Vinaya recension appears in several ways to represent an older redaction overall." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81s%C4%81%E1%B9%83ghika With best wishes, Alex #130440 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana truth_aerator Dear Jon, all, >J:The passage is an interesting one. My reading of it is as >follows:> Question: What is the development of concentration that >leads to the ending of the effluents? Answer: Directly knowing the >arising and the falling away of dhammas. > >In other words, the concentration that leads to the ending of the >effluents is the concentration that accompanies awareness/insight. > >So while the question at seems to imply the idea of a sequence of >developments/attainments, the answer says otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sutta does seem to suggest a sequence of developing Samadhi: ============================== "There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a 1) pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 2) the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 3) mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 4) the ending of the effluents." an 4.41 ================================ Numbers are mine. There is no way to go around Jhana as requisite. It is part of N8P, it is not optional like arupa attainments. Before hindrances are suppressed, and mind is tranquil, one cannot really see with insight arising & ceasing. With best wishes, Alex #130441 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 10:50 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Alex, Thep and friends >Questions: Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? >>>>>>>>>>>> >No. JJ: In Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey (translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkh) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html the Buddha mentioned about "papanca dhamma" which is dhamma assails and stops a person to end the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming and the obsessions of ignorance. The Pali Commentaries define papaca as covering three types of thought: craving, conceit, and views. They also note that it functions to slow the mind down in its escape from samsara. And any type of desire or craving and self views demoralize wholesomeness of mind including desire for becoming an Arahat. It is, therefore, very odd when one interprets that desire for becoming an Arahat can attain a person arahantship with simple meaning by citing Bhikkuni sutta. Moreover, there is an issue of translation of this sutta as well as interpretation mentioned in useful post #100183 : ------------------------- "C: "I usually don't trust his translations, but this instance is an exception. It is Thanissaro's rendering of the Bhikkhuni Sutta that accords with theAnguttara Commentary, not the PTS one." The PTS edition gives: "...'This body has come into being through craving, is dependent on craving; craving must be abandoned..." Thanissaro: "...This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned..." And the Paa.li: Ta.nhaasambhuuto aya.m, bhagini, kaayo ta.nha.m nissaaya. Ta.nhaa pahaatabbaa 'ti, iti kho paneta.m vutta.m. C: "...we meet with the clarifying statement: 'so aparena samayena ta.nha.m nissaaya ta.nha.m pajahati'... 'He, on a later occasion, [through] having relied on craving, abandons craving.'" Scott: What is not ambiguous is that at all times, despite conventional language, the function of impersonal dhammas is being described in this sutta. I consider that the suttas are expressed conventionally and that it doesn't do to take these conventional expressions in a literal fashion. In particular, it doesn't do to misunderstand the meaning of 'he...having relied on craving, abandons craving,' Or, as Thanissaro puts it, 'it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' There is no one who relies on or uses anything, nor is there anyone who abandons. No one 'bootstraps' anything. There is no 'using' of craving by an agent in order to 'abandon' craving. And I think this is the whole of Thanissaro's project. Given that all dhammas are anatta, and that the characteristic of anatta is that any given dhamma is not subject to control, then this whole premise founders. C: "The commentary explains that the craving rooted in the past round of sa.msaara is abandoned through relying on the presently arisen craving (for extinction of the aasavas). It then continues: aya.m pana paccuppannata.nhaa kusalaa akusalaati? akusalaa. sevitabbaa na sevitabbaati? sevitabbaa. pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati naaka.d.dhatiiti? naaka.d.dhati. etissaapi pana paccuppannaaya sevitabbata.nhaaya nikanti pajahitabbaayeva. Q. But is this presently arisen craving wholesome or unwholesome? A. It is unwholesome. Q. Must it be embraced or not embraced? A. It must be embraced. Q. Does it draw one towards rebirth-linking? A. It does not draw one. However, desire for the presently arisen craving-that-must-be-embraced must be abandoned." Scott: From the PTS PED: "Paccuppanna...what has arisen (just now), existing, present..." What is your take on the meaning of the commentary? Are we dealing then with a dhamma (ta.nhaa) which is present in this case? Is 'ta.nhaa' meant as a synonym for 'lobha?' It seems to me that 'ta.nhaa' is used when the reference is to that which leads to the round of rebirth, but that, ultimately, it refers to lobha cetasika. In what sense is 'the presently arisen craving' 'relied' upon? Would it not be in the sense of serving as object of liberating wisdom? And, for that matter, could not any dhamma could serve as object in this regard? One need not assume, for example, that the sutta or its commentary mean to suggest that by literally craving abandonment someone can use this craving to finally achieve abandonment craving after working hard towards it. Sorry for the loose thinking, I'm writing on the fly here. Sincerely, Scott." -------------------------- JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. And this should be the same as self view and conceit. ================================ >A: If practice was wrong because it developed Self Views, and this sort of practice was widely known, don't you think that it would be all over the suttas him saying it over and over again? JJ: Practice cannot be wrong with right view of no self. ================================= >A: Buddha refused to say that "there is no self" to Vachagotta, and then to sotapanna Ananda, and never has said that word again, yet people who claim to understand Buddha's teaching seem to put this "there is no self" almost to the highest if not the highest positions. Not only that, this is used to totally twist the meaning of many other suttas to make them say precisely what they do not say. JJ: In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic translated from the Pali by anamoli Thera : The Blessed One said this. "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self... "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self... "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self... "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' This sutta clearly states that there is no dhamma as self at all and should apply to all suttas no exception. On the other hand, to study other suttas with the concept or view of self will totally twist the ultimate point of teaching for thoroughly understand dhamma of the Buddha and create wrong view of self unnoticable. And this is why I see many hard work practitioners (including meditators) are so deeply proud of their experience and knowledge. ============================= >A: This is just my own opinion that teaching of KS is different in some crucial aspects to what is written in the suttas, vinaya, Abhidhamma and even Commentaries. This is solely my opinion. JJ: I respect your opinion but Than Acharn Sujin studys and explains dhamma accordance to Tipitika all vinaya, suttas and abhidhamma with commentaries thoroughly for more than 60 years. To conclude that her teaching is different to Tipitika without undisputed reason to clerify your support seems to be unfair. However, Than Acharn Sujin always said that do not rely upon any teaching of any teachers and also not our own idea but carefully consider and investigate the detail of dhamma explanation whether it has reason in all aspect of Tipitika. not only some parts. And most importantly whether the explanation leads us to understanding variety of dhammas which are realities appearing to us right now at this moment, not just know only wordings which will be forgotten at last. Best wishes Jagkrit #130442 From: Sukinder Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Hi Tep, > > S: >One listens to the Buddha's teachings to understand something one > otherwise would never come to know by oneself or from any other > teacher. One keeps on listening because one sees the value of such > understanding. It is all about "understanding" beginning with the > intellectual level and only later can there be direct understanding. > So why talk in terms of direct experience and use this to reject the > necessary initial level of understanding? > > T: What you think you are listening to may not always be > what-the-Buddha-taught. So you have to double-check it with several > suttas. > Only one's own accumulated panna can be a reliable guide. If no panna, checking with the Suttas will not help. If influenced by wrong view, checking with the suttas will only reinforce the wrong view. Is what I understand at the present moment what the Buddha really taught? Let me put it this way. What I understand now, is not only the best set of teachings I've ever come across, but the only one that would qualify as Truth. And this I attribute the Buddha, who I consider the only enlightened teacher. > If you listen to a wrong idea, and keep on listening, it will be like > mud accumulation on a pig's tail! The poor pig runs around crying in > pain, but it does not "understand now" what is causing the pains. > Well, what I have been hearing is the only set of teachings that encourage understanding "now". And this is precisely what my confidence is built upon. > T: I do not deny that every beginner needs intellectual (not stupid) > understanding; but intellectual ideas may still be incorrect. > Intellectual understanding stands opposite to wrong understanding, not to stupidity. Being stupid is not an obstacle to intellectual understanding, but wrong understanding is. A smart person who can attend to and manipulate ideas may not have any pariyatti or intellectual understanding at all. On the other hand, a slow witted person who can't seem to remember anything that he's heard, may have some understanding at the intellectual level and which can later result in direct understanding or patipatti. > How may an assumed-correct intellectual understanding of what-is-heard > progress toward direct knowing of the khandhas that they are anicca.m, > dukkha.m, anatta? > Understanding is understanding, different from remembering and having the ability to attend to various ideas. One sign of intellectual understanding and its relation to direct understanding is confidence that the reality "now" is what needs to be understood. This means that, if one continues to insist on another time, place and activity as means to develop mindfulness and wisdom, this is sign of a lack of right understanding and the presence of wrong understanding. > Direct experience of the dhammas such as > sense objects, sense media, and the five aggregates is absolutely > important for direct knowing, i.e., "knowledge and vision of things as > they really are" (yathabhuta~nanadassana) that supports disenchantment > (nibbida) leading to the cessation of dukkha. The Upanisa Sutta shows > the dependent conditions. Maybe it's time you properly educate yourself. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html > Without much patipatti there can never be pativedha. In the same way, without much pariyatti, there can never be patipatti. > S: >We all experience ultimate realities and even refer to them all > day. What is lacking is intellectual understanding that they are > indeed ultimate realities and not a "self" who owns, is within, > separate from or identical with, the khandhas. This understanding is > supposed to have an effect in the general outlook without which there > can't be direct understanding. And this general effect must include > from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of self-view. > > T: No, all of us do not experience ultimate realities > (paramattha-dhammas) that arise and pass away rapidly; > Without experience of ultimate realities, I wouldn't be writing this message and you wouldn't be reading it. Is there not seeing and that which is seen, touching and hardness, thinking, pleasant and unpleasant feelings, attachment, ignorance, aversion and so on? Are not these ultimate realities and do we not refer to them all day as in "I see", "I feel happy or angry" or "how did you like the taste of the food?" > our perceptions are perverted (vipallasa) so our minds do not have > samadhi at the level of right concentration to know and see the > ultimate realities, Sukin. > There is sanna and citta vipallasa with all akusala cittas, not when the citta is kusala. When wrong view arises, it is in addition, also ditthi vipallasa. There is no vipallasa when there is pariyatti, so when there is intellectual understanding of seeing now, thinking now, touching now, this is right. To deny that these exist or are expereinced and to go on to believe in ideas such as "need for concentration in order to see ultimate realities", this is wrong view and therefore at that time, all three vipallasas are present. > What you are claiming to understand ultimate realities as "indeed > ultimate realities and not a 'self' who owns, is within, separate from > or identical with, the khandhas" is just a false claim caused by > ignorance. > I admit that pariyatti arises only in flashes, and most of the time I speak from memory. But I think, you are denying that pariyatti understanding is right understanding, therefore this speaking from memory has no basis at all, is that right? > You still have the 20 self-identifications (attaditthi), don't you? > Thus it is impossible to pretend that you have the outlook that > "include from the very beginning, recognizing and rejection of > self-view". You may be confused, Sukin. > No, you are the one who is confused. You are saying that so long as one has not attained stream-entry where all wrong view is eradicated, there can't be any recognition of wrong view. This is saying that enlightenment happens as a result of causes other then the development of wisdom. > S: >You are telling us that there is no such thing, but instead that > we must go by the dictates of this self-view until stream-entry > happens. In effect you are suggesting a path of atta sanna as means of > attaining anatta sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view. > This can't happen, can it? > > T: I think you misquoted me. Please provide an evidence to show my > writing that supports using "atta sanna as means of attaining anatta > sanna, of wrong view as means to attain right view". > Well, your objection above to my suggestion that the development of wisdom from the very beginning include recognizing wrong view, this implies that one will be motivated by wrong view, is it not? If one can't with right view, recognize wrong view, then invariably one will proceed to study and practice with wrong view, no? > Wrong views must be abandoned and right view is to be developed. Period. > And part of the development of Right View is recognizing wrong view as wrong view. Without this, wrong view will never be abandoned. Period. > > >T: Are you able to see an ultimate reality arising and passing away > right now? > > S: > You are talking about a very high level of wisdom and this is why > in another post I asked about lower levels of wisdom. You are assuming > that if there is not direct understanding of rise and fall, this means > that there is no understanding at all, and therefore one should not > talk about and go by such ideas. > > T: For one who knows that he/she has a low level of wisdom muddy>, there should be no claim of understanding of ultimate > realities. Period. > This comes from someone who has yet to experience the first step along the Path of understanding the Four Noble Truths. > Muddy understanding can become less muddy and finally progresses to > direct knowing through following the Buddha's teachings about sila, > sense restraint, and samatha-vipassana meditation. > What is sila and how does it influence the ability to understand seeing or that which is seen, "now"? What is sense restraint, and how is it different from vipassana? What is samatha? And please don't respond simply by giving quotes, because when you do this, your understanding remains hidden from view. A parrot can quote too, but does it understand? > >S: One question here, which part of the Buddha's teachings should a > beginner go by and why? > > T: Everything the Buddha taught about sila (starting with the Five > Precepts), samadhi and panna at the level that he/she can understand > and verify. Then apply what-the-Buddha-taught to everyday living. > We need to know what sila in reality is, do we not? So what is it? Also we need to understand what samadhi is and how it influences panna, do we not? So please say a little about this too? Applying what the Buddha taught in everyday living, like understanding the reality "now", right? Is this what you encourage? Or do you want us to do something else first? > >S: one side is talking about that which can be verified now, whereas > the other, like the blind man attempting to lead other blind men, is > talking about following > suggestions with reference to anything but "now". Some people love > stories about "self" moving in time, doing and achieving this and > that. Others recognize to some extent the deception in such kind of > thinking and are therefore in the process of making such stories loose > their power of appeal. You are obviously in the first category and > that is why you don't like to listen to someone who is in the other > category. > > T: This accusation that everybody else, except you and some DSG > members you know, has the Self Demon lurking behind is based on a > wrong view: "I don't have self-views, they do". > Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", such as the need for sila and samatha-vipassana meditation, whatever this means? How did you draw the statement "I don't have self-views, they do", from what I said? Sukin #130443 From: sprlrt@... Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:12 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sprlrt Hi Tep, > Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? Sounds a bit like asking if one walking in the rain can get back home with dry clothes and hair without having the (unwholesome) desire to open his/her umbrella :) Seriously, I think that what matters most in getting just a little bit closer to the farther shore is understanding realities arising now, one at the time, by conditions, through hearing the Dhamma and considering it wisely. Alberto #130444 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:14 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Tam (Alex, Jon, Sarah) - >Tam: That wrong view is eradicated before craving is not anyone's decision, isn't it? It is merely how Dhamma is. Similarly, it doesn't depend on someone's decision that craving can be reduced. Assuming so would tantamount to assume a self who can control dhammas at will. Tep: It is not a decision but intention, and it is also a right view to abandon craving (origin of dukkha) that arises with feeling at each of the six sense doors. [Samma-ditthi Sutta:] "When a noble disciple has thus understood craving, the origin of craving, the cessation of craving, and the way leading to the cessation of craving... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Besides, abandoning greed (abhijjha, lobha) and distress(domanassa) is an important part of training in the four foundation of mindfulness. >Tam: Rather, isn't it more in accordance to the Dhamma that understanding should be developed, as all important wholesome dhammas circle around right view (MN117)? Tep: MN 117 states that right effort and right mindfulness are the wholesome dhammas, including right view itself, which "circle around" right view to develop it further. Right effort is "doing something" -- to make an effort to abandon akusala and develop kusala dhammas. It consists of four components: endeavor to restrain(samvara-padhana); endeavor to dispel(pahana padhana); endeavor to develop (bhavana-padhana); and endeavor to protect (anurakkhana-padhana). See AN 4. Catukkanipata 2. Caravaggo 4. Samvarasutta. The metta.lk Web site. >Tam: I think it is not beyond our own consideration that craving gradually decrease as our understanding of the Dhamma grows (even at the intellectual level), without having to do anything about it. ... we know from the Buddha that hearing the Dhamma and wise considering are the cause of wisdom and of all wholesomeness, that can condition more studying and considering, which at due course, will bear result. Tep: In theory, yes. But in practice the important point has been that intellectual understanding is a weakling when it comes to fighting with the bully greed, lust, thirst and hunger for pleasurable things! Very intelligent people who have high education, rich experiences and great trainings tend to be the most greedy, selfish with insatiable hunger for morepower, more fame, and more riches! You must have understanding at the level that you know greed the way it really is so that this knowledge (~nana) can condition disenchantment (nibbida) and dispassion (viraga), otherwise there is no hope to deal with craving. Now, how does one know sensual desire, as it really is, such that he/she will not fall to an agreeable sign and, therefore, greed will not overcome him/her? [MN 10:] "Herein, monks, when sensual desire is present in him the monk knows, 'There is sensual desire in me,' or when sensual desire is absent he knows, 'There is no sensual desire in me.' He knows how the arising of non-arisen sensual desire comes to be; he knows how the rejection of the arisen sensual desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the rejected sensual desire comes to be." [The same idea applies to other hindrances: ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.] ........... Have faith, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > > Dear Tep, all > > T: But it does not sound right to jump to the conclusion that you will do nothing about craving while you still have self-view. Extending this misapprehension/ asumption further, you may even conclude that "understanding is all I need; trying to abandon craving is wrong, since such action is guided by a Self". That kind of thinking is misguided. > #130445 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:35 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Hi Sarah, Tep, Alex and all. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > SN 55:55: > "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the > realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? > Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, > practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." > > As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the > Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness > accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently > arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view > to having that consciousness occur."< I think this last point is a point that has been in dispute for a long time, and is not resolved. I have never seen a quote from any scripture, whether sutta or commentary, that claims that the act of meditation is wrong view or wrong practice - not a single one. The Buddha of course does not praise meditation that is "mid-meditation" as it is called in the sutta, any more than we would praise a drunk airline pilot. That does not mean that he does not praise corrrect meditation that is not supporting the hindrances. In fact, while saying that he does not praise mis-meditation, it is clear that he does praise correct meditation. The idea that such correct meditation is only at the naturally-arisen moment of insight and has no relation to the activity of "formal" meditation is not borne out by anything that I have read. The suttas talk in detail about formal meditation practices and the Buddha praises them. The Visudhimagga is filled with meditation practices which it says are part of the correct practice of meditation. No one would argue that an akusala moment is a great meditation moment, it is not. But the idea that meditation itself is akusala and cannot lead to the development of insight is not borne out by anything I have ever seen, and is in direct contradiction to many suttas that extol the virtues of correct meditation and positive meditative states, even though you may say that they only arise momentarily. Through accumulation, they develop. One could easily imagine the Buddha saying "Do not be fooled by those practicing formal meditation into thinking this is part of the path. Such monks are deluded and mistake the path for a formal practice." But he never said that, he said the opposite. And neither did anyone else say that in scripture as far as I have ever seen. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130446 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:37 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Rob E, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > >S: In truth, as Ken H has stressed, no people, no killing of another, no weapon - just cittas, cetasikas and rupas. > > > >R: Thanks for that explanation, which helps. No people, but there is cetana causing rupas to arise, and act as supporting conditions with kamma to cause or not cause the arising of the death citta for another. Intersecting co-arising conditions for all. > ... > S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. That's great - good to know about those possible supporting rupas as a result of kamma. That was the kind of detail I was trying to find out. One can only hope for vipaka where the knives and bullets are not that hard! Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130447 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 3, 2013 11:40 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Thanks Sarah, for the refresher on the three forms of dukkha. Does one experience sankhara dukkha directly in one of the vipassana-nanas? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #130448 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sukin, all, >Suk:Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why don't you jump into railway tracks front of a train? There is no train there now!! Same is here. If "formal practice" as understood by everyone else is so wrong, then why didn't the Buddha reject it on every possible occasion? Why did he instead talk so much about sitting cross-legged in seclusion, and meditating. Even VsM teaches it. Despite all of this, one modern teacher and some people on a certain board know better. With best wishes, Alex #130449 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:56 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Sarah, all, >As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with >the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of >consciousness> accompanied by insight that knows something about the >true nature of a presently arising dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why would those states arise? Because of conditions, one of which is actual practice. Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. It is strange how compilers of the suttas were so "incompetent" that they couldn't explain "don't practice!", and VsM along with other commentaries also talk about practice... Yet, some modern householders know better... With best wishes, Alex #130450 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:07 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Alberto (Alex), - >Alberto: > Seriously, I think that what matters most in getting just a little bit closer to the farther shore is understanding realities arising now, one at the time, by conditions, through hearing the Dhamma and considering it wisely. T: Given that you have the Raft that you have propelled from the nearer shore, then you may relax and take much less effort to get "just a little bit closer to the farther shore". Be good, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > > Without a desire for becoming an Arahant, can anyone attain arahantship? > > Sounds a bit like asking if one walking in the rain can get back home with dry clothes and hair without having the (unwholesome) desire to open his/her umbrella :) > > Alberto > #130451 From: "ptaus1" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:59 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! ptaus1 Hi Sukin, > That development of wisdom must be natural / daily life is based on the > understanding that all experiences are conditioned and arisen already by > the time they are known. Therefore sati and panna, like any other > dhamma, are not subjected to control of will but arises by specific > conditions all of which are equally anatta. That they develop is due to > their being sankhara dhammas and therefore based on prior arising of the > same. That formal meditation needs to be undertaken in order that sati > and panna is developed, is this from the same kind of understanding or > completely different? Formal and natural are concepts, not dhammas, hence they can be different for different people (since they are not dhammas with specific characteristics). > My point therefore, is that we can't assume this > and that it is only when panna has actually arisen, that we can say that > it can arise again. Since there's no discernible beginning to the round, we all have faculty of panna developed to some degree - it already arose at some point. > > Different people designate it differently, you seem > > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't happen > without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal > practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? The one at a moment with right view. > Coming to a conclusion about what constitutes practice while referencing > the teachings, this is where I am speaking from, and not the > understanding that is firm, as in that of the sotapana. In other words, > if one believes that dhammas are anatta and beyond control and that > there are in fact only dhammas, how can one at the same time think about > meditation and believe that patipatti could arise during the time. I'd say that thinking and believing is not pariyatti most of the time. For example, a strong intellectual understanding of the logic of the texts, intellectual belief in the superiority of this or that idea expressed in the texts - all that still isn't pariyatti, nor can it protect or diminish the arising of wrong view. I'd say pariyatti happens in moments when there's panna. In all other moments in between, it's just thinking about Dhamma. Can there be akusala with such thinking? I'd say yes. Can there be wrong view with such thinking about Dhamma without panna? I'd say yes. Hence, I see no difference when it comes to concepts of doings and situations - thinking, meditating, studying, living, etc, all just good opportunities for right view or wrong view to arise, interspersed. > > Whether these akusala moments could be described in the conventional > > terms as meditating or not, considering or not, reciting or not, > > studying or not, debating or not, thinking or not, etc, these would > > all be just conventional/conceptual designations for supposed akusala > > dhammas happening somewhere in there. > > > > I miss the point you are making here. As above, I'd say that moments of right view and wrong view arise interspersed, there's no magic shield that stops wrong view or diminishes it in some way as long sotapati doesn't happen. In other words, increase of moments with right view does not mean decrease of moments with wrong view as long as sotapati hasn't eradicated it, or in other words, until right view has become strong enough to eradicate wrong view. Until that point, I'd say they "coexist" so to speak. > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong practice? > Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a > Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but > not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice without > the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. It seems you are saying that aside from dhammas, doings and situations are also real. > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about > meditation which does not involve self-view? You mean "anyone else's"? I don't know. Most teach based on the same suttas, hence, they are advocating right view. The fact that you or me fail to heed what they are advocating should not be a bad reflection on them. I'm against blaming parents/teachers/elders for our failures. > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > > pretty well. > > > > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all > using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice > motivated by wrong view. I understand that simplifying things helps to make the argument clearer, but that often means dispensing with reality to some degree as well. > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a > difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? Not sure what you mean. > And you > think that your novel idea should change the way I view the concept? > Forget it, I reserve the right to use it the way I have been doing. > First, I limit my use of formal meditation to something done in the name > of Dhamma practice. This means that it is not about the arising of > kusala at the level of samatha, but the arising of right view. Look, that's all fine, you can use terms in any way you want. I find that when I insist on using the terms the way I imagine them to work best usually ends up confusing and hostile even towards those I'm supposedly trying to help. > Second, > if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your > formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the > case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no > difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to > natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it > is more likely that you are deluded. That's sort of what I'm saying, wrong view will arise very often, even if there's a moment of right view now and then, regardless of the situation - i.e. anything is a good excuse for wrong view - meditating, not meditating, studying, not studying, daily life, monastic life, etc. Best wishes pt #130452 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 2:19 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Alex, Rob E., Sarah, Jon, Tadao, Tam B, Alberto, Jagkrit, Sukin, - After several rounds of questions and answers that I have been through since I rejoined DSG lately, and by reading other conversations/debates, it is NOW plainly visible to me that there are certain issues that have not been resolved. It seems that As Robert Epstein aptly observed in his message #130445, they won't be resolved no matter how many times they may be discussed. There are five key observations made by Rob E. in the message : 1. "I have never seen a quote from any scripture, whether sutta or commentary, that claims that the act of meditation is wrong view or wrong practice - not a single one." 2. "The Buddha of course does not praise meditation that is "mid-meditation" as it is called in the sutta ... In fact, while saying that he does not praise mis-meditation, it is clear that he does praise correct meditation." 3. "The idea that such correct meditation is only at the naturally-arisen moment of insight and has no relation to the activity of "formal" meditation is not borne out by anything that I have read." 4. "The Visudhimagga is filled with meditation practices which it says are part of the correct practice of meditation." 5. ".. the idea that meditation itself is akusala and cannot lead to the development of insight is not borne out by anything I have ever seen, and is in direct contradiction to many suttas that extol the virtues of correct meditation and positive meditative states, even though you may say that they only arise momentarily." T: I concur with the above five-point observation and agreed with Rob E. that there is nothing I can (or should) do about the following: ideas concerning meditation practices; understanding and insight development; the meaning of right view; and importance of greed abandonment. Well, there is a very little left for me to discuss here! May each day of your life be a great day, Tep === >> Sarah: > >As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Alex: And why would those states arise? Because of conditions, one of which is actual practice. > Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. > Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. > >Alex: It is strange how compilers of the suttas were so "incompetent" that they couldn't explain "don't practice!", and VsM along with other commentaries also talk about practice... > > Yet, some modern householders know better... > #130453 From: "Robert E" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 2:24 am Subject: Re: Nina's accident epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: > > a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. > > b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. > > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. Another question on these. As there are three forms of dukkha corresponding to unpleasant, pleasant and neutral vedana, are there also different forms of anicca and anatta, or are they just single? It also interests me that dukkha follows the different types of vedana - wonder if there is a special reason for that. Since dukkha, anicca and anatta together mark all sankharas, I would guess that there is at least sankhara anicca and sankhara anatta, if not the other forms. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #130454 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 4:34 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Tep, RobertE, all, RobertE made good points and Tep summarized them very well. If formal practice is, supposedly, so misguided, then why didn't the Buddha refute it in sutta after sutta? Why do sutta after sutta, and even VsM talk about energetic practice and things to do? They don't talk about "read books, live lay life and after aeons of accumulations sati+panna will arise by itself". Why is it only a certain modern group that states that? Does it know better than sutta compilers, VsM and many modern Abhidhamma teachers (such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc)? With best wishes, Alex #130455 From: "colette_aube" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:25 am Subject: Yoga Nidra and Karma via Nina colette_aube Hi Group, Interesting how this is turning out. Nina has been in my thoughts, very much, based on experiences I've had trying to define CITTA which Nina proved very adept at. IN FACT I've been working on VIJNANA THOUGHT CONCOMITANT ADANAVARGA. I'm glad that she is recovering from her mishap and the resulting surgery. After cognizing Nina's assistance to me on CITTA and VIPISSANA, last week or earlier this week, I ran into a very specific oddity, HTOO's conversation with me which was resounding in my head concerning his utter focus on CONCEPTS and CONCEPTUALIZATION he applied to any and all arguments I once was raising in an explanation of something or other. This helped me realize the EASTERN position on CONCEPTS, the concepts that only exist IN THE MIND, then are projected outward establishing reality (see MIND ONLY, CITTAVARGA, etc) And finally, while in a preliminary inverstigation of CITTAVARGA: ADANAVARGA I run into CONNIE'S jest at me, one time, many years ago, concerning my appearance as being SARVASTAVADAN. There actually exists a separate ABHIDHARMA in the SARVASTAVADA doctrine. Hmmm, what Bhikhu was it that was pointing at THE DHARMAPADDA? I find it insteresting how Nina's travails have reached out to me and to my consciousness, in her time of pain and suffering. It almost appears as being A COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUSNESS (Carl G.Jung). HMMMM, William S.Waldron comes to mind, (http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/440169/original/waldron_how_innovative_is_\ alayavijnana0.pdf ) BEST WISHES TO NINA! toodles, colette #130456 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 7:11 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Hi all, I'd like to point out that some DSG conversations have become farcical. An outside observer would think we are a bunch of idiots. The reason they are farcical is that the participants in the conversations are talking about completely different things! Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. He is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply pointed out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an impediment to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid thoughts of self). How can there be a sensible conversation if half of the participants think we are talking about a no-self characteristic of reality, while the other half think we are talking about a not-self meditation strategy? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, RobertE, all, > > RobertE made good points and Tep summarized them very well. > > If formal practice is, supposedly, so misguided, then why didn't the Buddha refute it in sutta after sutta? > > Why do sutta after sutta, and even VsM talk about energetic practice and things to do? They don't talk about "read books, live lay life and after aeons of accumulations sati+panna will arise by itself". > > Why is it only a certain modern group that states that? Does it know better than sutta compilers, VsM and many modern Abhidhamma teachers (such as Mahasi Sayadaw, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc)? > > > #130457 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 7:55 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, >Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. >He >is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply >?>pointed >out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an >impediment >to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid >thoughts of self). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman. I am not saying that "since the Buddha refused to declare that Atta does not exist, atta does exist in some indescribable way". Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? Rather tan getting entangled in metaphysics, why not focus on reducing as much dukkha as possible? Ultimately if one is on fire, at that moment it doesn't matter much metaphysical speculations about nature of fire - what is of concern is how to extinguish it ASAP. With best wishes, Alex #130458 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:05 am Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Dear group "If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance of realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance." (end of passage) Phil #130459 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:22 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, What feeds ignorance are 5 hindrances (AN10.61). This is why I believe that deep meditation that suppresses the hindrances is so important. Suppress the hindrances long enough to see "The Truth" in-sight, and than that insight can weaken and eventually eradicate ignorance. With best wishes, Alex #130460 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 9:59 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Hi Alex I agree that that woul > > What feeds ignorance are 5 hindrances (AN10.61). This is why I believe that deep meditation that suppresses the hindrances is so important. > Suppress the hindrances long enough to see "The Truth" in-sight, and than that insight can weaken and eventually eradicate ignorance. > I agree that that is the way the texts say that liberation is achieved, but I disagree that we can follow those texts like a training manual. I feel that you guys place too much faith in the one sutta (in AN that tells you that you can use akusala to get rid of akusala.) I think that is a dangerous faith. It is better to be patient and very gradually and very very very occasionally develop understanding of the realities that are appearing now rather than attempting with cittas rooted in fear and greed to imitate what is taught in the profound texts as though they were a training manual to get you out of fear and greed, that is a gross misuse of the profound Dhamma which goes against the ways of the world. Remember, the Buddha hesitated to teach because he knew his Dhamma went against the ways of the world. What are the ways of the world? Have you and others here somehow magically come to the Dhamma free of cittas rooted heavily in greed, fear and ignorance? I know we can't agree here, and probably never will. You will just say that it is precisely because our cittas are so deeply rooted in greed, fear and ignorance that we have to get cracking to get rid of them as though our head were on fire. I know where you are coming from because I used to believe that too. Who knows, maybe I will again someday. Quite possible. But for now I am inspired by and have faith in a subtler approach to Dhamma based on the understanding that only kusala can condition bhavana. I know it seems like a Catch 22, but so be it... I don't think there is much point in discussing this though. Obviously it is always about eventually reaching the "let's agree to disagree" point and I always choose to reach that point sooner than later. Phil #130461 From: "philip" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 10:11 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) philofillet Hi again Alex I'll just add that the hindrances are suppressed and the sense doors are guarded at all moments of awareness, at all moments of kusala. and all monents of kusala must be rooted in alobha. (Basic Abhidhamma, if you don't accept it, your loss.) As you may know, I am prone to very heavy defilements so I appreciate your references to strip clubs, etc. I find it fascinating and encouraging to note how freedom from those defile ments that drive behaviour that is very harmful to myself and others comes just as regularly without trying to have it as it does with a lot of trying. The movement towards liberation is very gradual but very real, albeit without those great periods I used to have of believing that I had eliminated bad behaviour through intense diligence. That was just like holding a beach ball underwater, to use a metaphor you may have heard. Anyways, let's a t d. Phil #130462 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 10:46 am Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) truth_aerator Dear Phil, all, >P:I feel that you guys place too much faith in the one sutta >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many many suttas. >(in AN that tells you that you can use akusala to get rid of >akusala.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conceit cannot by itself remove akusala, but it can force one to follow Buddha's teaching (to be better than that monk) and it is following the teaching which is kusala and is going to uproot the fetters and bring one to liberation. >P:Have you and others here somehow magically come to the Dhamma free >of cittas rooted heavily in greed, fear and ignorance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cittas rooted in sensuality (kama) are fully uprooted at Anagami stage, and lobha for the rest, is uprooted at Arhatship. This is quite far from some of us to worry about. Don't put cart in front of a horse. During deep meditation the hindrances are temporary suppressed and one can clearly see presently arisen realities and learn from that rather than being brainwashed by the defilements and seeing things through "filters" which happen during normal states of mind without prior samatha. With best wishes, Alex #130463 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 11:30 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Hi Alex, -------- <. . .> > A: Strawman. I am not saying that "since the Buddha refused to declare that Atta does not exist, atta does exist in some indescribable way". ------- KH: It's not a straw man. The Buddha did not refuse to declare that atta did not exist; he declared it all the time. Anatta (no self) is what makes the Dhamma profoundly different from every other teaching. This has been explained to you thousands (or certainly hundreds of times) on DSG, but you refuse to acknowledge those explanations. You are only interested in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy. -------------- > A: Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? -------------- KH: No, there is no difference. The only way to rightly understand dukkha and its cessation is to know there is no atta, there are only dhammas. ------------------------ > A: Rather than getting entangled in metaphysics, ------------------------ KH: There is no entanglement required; just an acceptance of the doctrine of anatta. ------------ > A: why not focus on reducing as much dukkha as possible? ------------ KH: That would be the Thanissaro way and the way of the formal meditator. It denies the doctrine of anatta. --------------------- > A: Ultimately if one is on fire, at that moment it doesn't matter much metaphysical speculations about nature of fire - what is of concern is how to extinguish it ASAP. --------------------- KH: Yes, if you insist on believing in a self then you must be concerned about your self catching fire. To a student of anatta, however, that sort of thing is no cause of concern. "Mere suffering exists, no sufferor is found." Ken H #130464 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 4, 2013 12:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Tadoa, > How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there > for the entire month. > I'm fine. Hope you are fine too. Yes, see you in August. Metta, Sukin #130465 From: Sukinder Date: Sat May 4, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sukinderpal Hi Alex, > Some thoughts: A person can be alcoholic because he doesn't know how > to deal with problems in life and drinking is his means of temporary > escape. He can know intellectually fully well that drinking is bad, > and it harms himself and others. Yet he craves for it. Craving is not > an intellectual, it is emotional problem. > You mean craving is a kind of nama different from thinking and different from intellectual understanding. One can intellectually understanding that craving is harmful and at the same time that this is not going to eradicate the craving. And further, that understanding needs to be developed and go through many, many stages before at sotapanna, craving for intoxicants is completely eradicated and at anagami, sensual craving. Intellectual understanding can understand the value of restraint, but also that any restraint by the puthujjana is only temporary, unlike that of the sotapanna where it is perfect. > Should he study chemistry, biology, etc, and know everything about > alcohol? PhD can be useless here as this is not an abstract problem to > solve. > No, the problems are very real, re: ignorance and craving. This is why we need to hear the Dhamma, and hear again and again. > Once he learns well that drinking is bad, he should work hard on > breaking the addiction. > He knows that drinking is bad, because he knows that akusala behavior is bad which the drinking tends to encourage. Knowing that akusala is bad must include not only aversion and attachment, but ignorance as well. It is this which motivates him to study the Buddha's teachings knowing that otherwise he will never be able to eradicate the other two akusala roots. > Teaching him speculative view such as "there is no self" can actually > be harmful at certain stage. > Understanding what the realities are is what will ultimately lead to perfection of sila. Belief in "self" is what leads exactly to the opposite direction. If you find this too speculative, then lets talk about the reality "now". > Imagine if he uses "there is no wife" as an excuse to beat her after > he gets drunk. Or "there is no me, so nobody suffers from drinking, no > fists, and no wife". > Of course when drunk anything can happen. All sorts of excuses are made for dosa to get a chance. But I would think that a person who is bent on beating his wife, he'd have plenty of other excuses than the one you imagine here . But really, if he actually understood that there is no wife, why would he wish to beat her? > It is the same with Dhamma. One learns conceptually 4NT and basics of > practice, and then does it. This is what suttas say. There were many > cases in the suttas where a monk came to a Buddha, received a short > instructions, and then ran into a forest where he realized Arhatship. > Or, he went to the Buddha, heard him and went about his daily activities. Therefore whether this is going to the forest to practice jhana or any other activity, it is the Buddha's words with regard to the nature of the Five Aggregates which caused him to become enlightened. If it was the jhana practice itself which was key, since he was already doing this from before, why did he not already get enlightened? Metta, Sukin #130466 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sat May 4, 2013 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, >KH: It's not a straw man. The Buddha did not refuse to declare that >atta did not exist; he declared it all the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please post where. :) >Anatta (no self) You don't know pali, then. Anatta = not-Atta. It is different from natthatta (no Atta) which the Buddha refused to claim - Even to Venerable Ananda who would have understand Buddha's teaching. >You are only interested in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy. >>>>>>> Looking back, Ven. TB is a genius for spotting this. > -------------- > > A: Rather than focusing on existence or non-existence of Atta, Buddha focused on dukkha and its cessation. See the difference? > -------------- > >KH: No, there is no difference. The only way to rightly understand >dukkha and its cessation is to know there is no atta, there are only >dhammas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And until one holds that view, one is not even Sotapanna. >KH: That would be the Thanissaro way and the way of the formal >meditator. It denies the doctrine of anatta. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ven. TB denies natthatta, and so does the Buddha. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >KH: Yes, if you insist on believing in a self then you must be >concerned about your self catching fire. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe in Atta. With best wishes, Alex #130467 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 12:32 am Subject: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Hi Alex, all - There are two levels of right view: mundane (lokiya) and supramundane (lokuttara). Often when we discussed right view here in this group, I found that it was often confusing. Below, you may find the definitions of right view in MN 117 (Maha-cattarisaka sutta, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi), which are useful in my opinion. Tep === 4. "Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. [Note 1100] And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one's right view. [Note 1101] [Note 1101] This statement suggests that in order to acquire right view about the nature of reality, one must first be able to distinguish between wrong and right teachings on the nature of reality. MA says that this is the right view of insight which understands wrong view as an object by penetrating its characteristics of impermanence, etc., and which understands right view by exercising the function of comprehension and by clearing away confusion. ---------- 5. "And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' This is wrong view. ----------- 6. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view? Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment [Note 1102]; and there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path." [Note 1102] This is mundane right view, a meritorious factor that conduces to a favourable rebirth but cannot by itself issue in a transcendence of conditioned existence. ----------- 7. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment? 'There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' This is right view affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment. ---------- 8. "And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path [Note 1103]: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path. [Note 1103] This definition defines supramundane right view as the wisdom (pa~n~naa) found among the requisites of enlightenment as a faculty, power, enlightenment factor, and path factor. The definition is formulated by way of the cognitive function rather than the objective content of the view. Elsewhere (MN 141.24) the right view of the path is defined as knowledge of the Four Noble Truths. We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realising Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view. ---------- So it is clear that the "right view" that someone with intellectual understanding claims to have is not a path factor (the right view of the path). It is rather the mundane kind, that is "affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment", i.e. it is not yet free from the self demon. Truly, Tep === #130468 From: "Robert E" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 1:42 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. As you and others have pointed out in the past, the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. It is the understanding behind that usage that matters. It is possible to refer to "I" or "we" conventionally and by that to denote the process of conditional dhammas arising that actually takes place. To me, a more thorny issue is whether those arising dhammas are "represented" by the concepts that we think are happening, such as a person or murder. It seems to me that the Buddha did not say "there is no person" per se, but rather said that there is no person as a whole or entity, and that we experience as a person breaks down into the impersonal processes called the kandhas, and shows that there is no place for a 'self' in what takes place. The analogy used by the Buddha of the chariot shows in my view that the dhammas are meant to be seen as the ultimate particles of reality, not as a separate reality that has no relation to objects and actions, but as the true analysis of how that reality takes place and a true view of what is actually happening. The chariot is not shown to be non-existent, a hallucination, it is shown to be a concept that combines many separate parts. The ultimate parts that do exist when everything is broken down to its smallest particles are the dhammas which are ultimate, and cannot be broken down further. So I don't think that our daily experiences, though they are conceptual, are meant to be seen as pure hallucinations, but as combined ideas about the dhammas that are experienced, and do have a relation to dhammas. The dhammas are specific and real, the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas, but less accurate than nimittas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #130469 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sun May 5, 2013 1:47 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! tadaomiyamot... Hi Skin See you in August. I'm also planning to stay in Bangkok a few month during this winter. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Tadoa, > > > How are you? I look forward to seeing you in August. I will be there > > for the entire month. > > > > I'm fine. Hope you are fine too. > Yes, see you in August. > > Metta, > > Sukin > > > > > #130470 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 3:10 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Dear Tep, Sukin, Jon, all, >5."And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, >nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and >bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no >beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses >and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct >knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note how some people teach today that in "absolute sense" beings do not exist... Or arguing for non-existence of people: ============================= [Herein, there is no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater.] Even one who cuts off another's head with a sharp sword does not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the seven bodies. SN24.8 ====================================================== Sounds familiar... With best wishes, Alex #130471 From: "tadaomiyamoto@..." Date: Sun May 5, 2013 3:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) tadaomiyamot... Dear Alex I would like to express my opinions concerning the issues you've brought about. First, in my opinion, we cannot say that cars or trains do NOT exist (even though Kun Sujin says that they do not.) All we can be sure is that these things cannot be experienced in direct manners (through our five senses). Second, nobody persuades us from not to conduct sitting meditation. If it is properly conducted by those who have strong inclination for it, it would be highly meritorious and highly recommended. However, as you know well, the sitting meditation itself is not uniquely Buddhistic. The essential teaching of Buddhism is to develop sati/panna for understanding the realities of this moment. (It is the only way to eradicate our ignorance and defilements.) Fortunately, this type of practice can be conducted without any constraints on place/time/occupation/(sitting or not-sitting). Very unfortunately, sati/panna cannot be induced by our own will. (If we do not understand this point, we would never never never see the essence of Buddhism.) Going back to your issue, when the Buddha said that one should develop samatha, firstly, he was talking to those monks who had strong inclination to sitting meditation, and secondly, he was clearly aware of the fact that they had the right view (having no doubt about the essence of the Teaching, i.e., satipatthana). In other words, the Buddha would not command those with no inclination for samatha to sit, and would not command those who have no understanding of satipatthana to do anything. Best wishes, tadao --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Sukin, all, > > >Suk:Well, aren't you always talking about other than what is "now", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And why don't you jump into railway tracks front of a train? There is no train there now!! Same is here. > > If "formal practice" as understood by everyone else is so wrong, then why didn't the Buddha reject it on every possible occasion? Why did he instead talk so much about sitting cross-legged in seclusion, and meditating. Even VsM teaches it. > > Despite all of this, one modern teacher and some people on a certain board know better. > > With best wishes, > > Alex > #130472 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 4:17 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Hi Rob E. - Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! >Rob E. : .. the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. It is the understanding behind that usage that matters. >It is possible to refer to "I" or "we" conventionally and by that to denote the process of conditional dhammas arising that actually takes place. T: Yes. The Buddha and the Arahants in the Sutta stories were flexible: they knew when to use "I" and "mine". Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.025.wlsh.html >Rob E. : The Buddha ... rather said that there is no person as a whole or entity, and that we experience as a person breaks down into the impersonal processes called the kandhas, and shows that there is no place for a 'self' in what takes place. T: Whether 'no self' or 'not self' is used in the contemplation, the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. When voidness (emptiness, su~n~nataa) arises, clinging in the conditioned dhammas will be relinquished. >Rob E. : ... the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas ... T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] .................. By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Sarah. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > S: This is where the understanding goes wrong again - when there is any idea that it is 'we' or 'every student' that can apply anything and develop skills. > #130473 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 5:00 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Hi Alex, - Yes, it is clear why it is wrong view to deny things given or sacrificed, kamma and result of a kamma, existence of this world or other world, of mother and father, etc. since a non-ariyan disciple must depend on those as the basis to develop his/her belief and conviction in the Teacher and his teachings (such as the law of kamma; abandonment of akusala dhammas and development of kusala dhammas). The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Tep, Sukin, Jon, all, > > >5."And what, bhikkhus, is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, >nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and >bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father, no >beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses >and brahmins in the world who have realized for themselves by direct >knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > #130474 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 11:57 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Hi Alex, -------- <. . .> > A: Anatta = not-Atta. It is different from natthatta (no Atta) which the Buddha refused to claim -------- KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots preaching ridiculous theories. What a complete and utter travesty it is when people claim the Buddha did not teach "no soul." In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life in heaven. They are saying he was just another religious leader, teaching the same sort of thing everybody else taught. What a disgrace! They can't explain why the Buddha never said there *was* an eternal soul. They can only insist (falsely) that he never categorically said there * wasn't*. How pathetic is that? On the plus side, those crackpots do provide an excellent illustration of miccha-ditthi. They demonstrate how determined wrong view is to deny right view, and they demonstrate how desperate wrong view is to *not see* the ariyan path. It will go to absurd lengths to avoid seeing the true path. ----- <. . .> > A: I don't believe in Atta. ----- KH: Why don't you? You have just finished telling us the Buddha didn't teach "no atta" and now you seem to be telling us you personally don't believe in atta. Why is that? Is it a conclusion you have reached on your own? Ken H #130475 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 12:57 pm Subject: Lobha adjusts the flowers on the balcony philofillet Dear group. Just color, visible object. Sanna marks them, and the stories begin. Last year there were more, they were brighter. Dosa, sadness. I go to the garden center and stock up, escape from dosa the only way we know, through lobha. (And very very ovcasional moments of dosa understood, moments of panna arising the only way they possibly can, with alobha, uncontrollable, beyond greedy fearful intent.) Back home, studying. I look up, visible object, vipaka of seeing. And them javana cittas rooted in lobha, with mana. The balcony garden is good now. Lobha has adjusted the variety and brightness of flowers the way lobha likes. And so life goes on and on, through samsara. Understanding is the only way out of greed and fear, rare moments of understanding conditioned by listening to the wise friend and reflecting patiently on the Buddha's words, without exploiting them. Phil #130476 From: "philip" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) philofillet Hello Tadao I agree with you. Saying there is no car or there is no Nina is not particularly helpful and leads to these sort of doctrinal debates that distract from understanding the realities if the present moment.The important point in my opinion is that a car cannot be directly experienced through the sense doors except as hardness, visible object and so on. A car is not a dhamma. It is only by the developing of understanding of dhammas that there can be progress, debate about the existence or non-existence of cars etc seems like a kind of mental game. Phil #130477 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Discussion with Annie & Pt sarahprocter... Hi Pt, I think the difficulty is when we start thinking of a particular situation and trying to work out what the cittas are or might be instead of understanding the present reality now. Aren't we just lost in stories about a past (or future) scenario? Having said that: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" wrote: > Basically, for those guys outside a sasana, I'm wondering if there is such a citta like the following, or not: > > - it's a kusala citta, > - it has panna of weak samatha kind with it (so it is not jhana, nor advanced samatha bhavana) > - it has a concept as object, but it is an ordinary one (e.g. a cake, or music, etc), so not one of the Vsm. samatha bhavana objects. > > In addition, > - it is brief - so an ordinary javana cittas of a normal mind-door process, involved in day-to-day interaction with cakes, music, etc. > - it has nothing to do with dana, sila, advanced samatha bhavana, intellectual right understanding, vipassana, etc. .... If it's kusala and not right understanding of a reality, it must be intellectual right understanding (of a concept), however weak and at whatever level, i.e. not pariyatti which is intellectual right understanding about reality. So now, I'm eating an apple - there can be reflections (naturally) about the attachment to the taste, to the apple, reflections about the transitory nature of the attachment and pleasant feelings, the value of restraint, the shortness of life, impermanence (but not of realities) etc..... just brief moments of kusala with samatha that anyone might reflect on without any understanding of dhammas as anatta. Again, more precious is just a moment now of understanding the doubt or attachment at this moment as a dhamma, not self. When we see A.Sujin in June, I'll see if she has anything to add. I understand your point. Metta Sarah ===== #130478 From: Sukinder Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sukinderpal Hi Pt, > Formal and natural are concepts, not dhammas, hence they can be > different for different people (since they are not dhammas with > specific characteristics). > Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are also concepts meaning different things to different people. I think what you are saying is that we should only talk in terms of dhammas since only these have definite characteristics. But of course there is no stopping thinking about conventional reality. For someone whose had right understanding about practice, there won't be thinking about formal practice in the course of his day. On the other hand, someone who thinks in terms of formal practice, this would be due to the arising of wrong view in the past and also some time during his day. > Since there's no discernible beginning to the round, we all have > faculty of panna developed to some degree - it already arose at some > point. > OK, which is a worse situation, two persons, both with accumulations of right view from previous lives. One, he has not heard the Dhamma and therefore does not think about it. The other, has heard the teachings but has wrong understanding about it? > > > Different people designate it differently, you seem > > > to insist on equating "formal practice" and "meditation" with ditthi. > > > > I don't equate one with the other exactly, but that the one can't > happen > > without the other motivating it. Do tell me which kind of formal > > practice do you consider not motivated by wrong view? > > The one at a moment with right view. > What motivates the formal practice? Does the right view agree with it? > I'd say that thinking and believing is not pariyatti most of the time. > For example, a strong intellectual understanding of the logic of the > texts, intellectual belief in the superiority of this or that idea > expressed in the texts - all that still isn't pariyatti, nor can it > protect or diminish the arising of wrong view. I'd say pariyatti > happens in moments when there's panna. In all other moments in > between, it's just thinking about Dhamma. Can there be akusala with > such thinking? I'd say yes. Can there be wrong view with such thinking > about Dhamma without panna? I'd say yes. Hence, I see no difference > when it comes to concepts of doings and situations - thinking, > meditating, studying, living, etc, all just good opportunities for > right view or wrong view to arise, interspersed. > For someone who has never understood wrong practice as wrong, in fact believes it to be right, what likely are the dhammas that have arisen when he sits down to meditate and is motivated to continue sitting? For someone who understands that only the present moment reality is object of the development of wisdom, when thinking about the Dhamma in the abstract (no pariyatti in the moment), would these include those that motivate "doing" in the name of practice? Would someone go rock climbing in the name of formal practice? Would someone who sits cross legged and concentrates on his breath as a relaxation exercise call it "formal practice"? Just because "daily life" and "formal practice" are both concepts, how does this make believers (no pariyatti understanding) of both, equal in terms of being on and off the Path? Someone who is swimming, if he must think about the concept of practice, will think that he is practicing swimming. A meditator when meditating will think that he is doing Dhamma practice. A believer in conditioned dhammas will think that practice is a conditioned dhamma, therefore whatever he is doing (conventional situation) he'd not identify that as being Dhamma practice, would he? More importantly, the reason I pointed out the concepts of saccannana > kiccannana > kattannana is to show that it is not the concepts entertained which define the presence or lack of panna, but the confidence that "now" is the only object of study. So a meditator who thinks in terms of another time and place, this kind of confidence shows to be lacking. So why would you insist that he has equal opportunity as the one who has had some pariyatti understanding, especially if he keeps at it? > > I miss the point you are making here. > > As above, I'd say that moments of right view and wrong view arise > interspersed, there's no magic shield that stops wrong view or > diminishes it in some way as long sotapati doesn't happen. In other > words, increase of moments with right view does not mean decrease of > moments with wrong view as long as sotapati hasn't eradicated it, or > in other words, until right view has become strong enough to eradicate > wrong view. Until that point, I'd say they "coexist" so to speak. > And the wrong view behind wrong practice makes no difference? That which takes concept for reality, what is not sati for sati and for panna what is not panna, this makes no difference in terms of the likelihood of right understanding arising? Not being a sotapanna but a kalyana puthujjana is no different from someone who encourages wrong view and wrong practice? > > What about you, do you equate reading a Dhamma book with wrong > practice? > > Concepts can be used any which way is no excuse. Someone reading a > > Dhamma book with the idea that panna will develop, this is wrong, but > > not normal. Someone who meditates in the name of Dhamma practice > without > > the idea of self and control, I don't think there is such a situation. > > It seems you are saying that aside from dhammas, doings and situations > are also real. > No, but would someone who wishes to do Dhamma practice go climb rocks? And when otherwise he is climbing rocks for pleasure, would he believe that patipatti can arise at anytime during the activity? And if he suddenly wishes to "practice" would he not decide that he must find a quiet place and sit cross legged or something? > > Apart from your own novel idea, can you show me anyone else idea about > > meditation which does not involve self-view? > > You mean "anyone else's"? I don't know. Most teach based on the same > suttas, hence, they are advocating right view. > You mean they just recite the Suttas and the audience are not expected to understand it according to a particular interpretation? Even if this is the case, would not the suttas have been given in a particular setting, i.e. at a retreat or in a meditation manual? > The fact that you or me fail to heed what they are advocating should > not be a bad reflection on them. I'm against blaming > parents/teachers/elders for our failures. > ?? Even if I am wrong and they are right, how is my pointing out their wrong equal to blaming them for my failure? > > > Why not? I mean, you seem to manipulate the concept of meditation > > > pretty well. > > > > > > > There are tens if not hundreds of different schools of meditation, all > > using the same label. I reduce them all to wrong idea about practice > > motivated by wrong view. > > I understand that simplifying things helps to make the argument > clearer, but that often means dispensing with reality to some degree > as well. > With regard to formal meditation, I'll believe that you are correct only after you or anyone else show me one right motivation for doing it. > > So you separate those moments out from other moments because there is a > > difference and this is why you label this "formal meditation"? > > Not sure what you mean. > OK, lets go one step back. Why do you call what you do during times off-work which you described in an earlier message, formal meditation? > > Second, > > if you believe that for you right view arises more often during your > > formal practice than otherwise, I question whether this is really the > > case, given the fact that when it comes to dhammas, there is no > > difference between one situation and another. And if you appeal to > > natural decisive support condition, I'd still doubt it, since to me it > > is more likely that you are deluded. > > That's sort of what I'm saying, wrong view will arise very often, even > if there's a moment of right view now and then, regardless of the > situation - i.e. anything is a good excuse for wrong view - > meditating, not meditating, studying, not studying, daily life, > monastic life, etc. > If this is what you really believe, then why meditate? Purely out of attachment just as it is for me with regard to watching movies? If so, why consider it "formal practice"? Do you think those of us who have come to the conclusion that development of understanding must be natural / daily life go about using labels such as "daily life", "not meditating", "dhamma study" and so with regard to particular activities? How conventional living proceeds, there is no change. The meditator on the other hand, his conventional life now includes the new activity which he labels "formal practice". Metta, Sukin #130479 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Hi Rob E (and Tep) 130324 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > ... > > > RE: Is sabhava dhammas synonymous with paramatha dhammas? > > ... > > T: Yes, Robert, "sabhava dhammas" is synonymous with paramatha dhammas --according to my understanding. > > RE: Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > =============== J: Regarding <>, in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. Cittas have the general function of experiencing an object, and this general function can be further sub-classified. However, it it's not said that rupas have the function of being experienced, since rupas arise independently of a citta experiencing them. The conditions for the arising of rupas do not include the simultaneous arising of a citta that experiences them. Regarding <>, it's a characteristic in the sense of being an attribute, since only sound can be experienced by (i.e., be the object of) hearing consciousness. Jon #130480 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 6:47 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Suttas: Some Questions & Answers sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > >S: In other words, hearing and sound are ultimate realities. Mountains and roses are not. > > T: Mountains and roses are not ultimate realities, but intrinsic pathavi-dhatu in them is ultimate reality. ... S: There are only elements such as pathavi-dhatu (earth element) which arise and fall away. Such elements are not in mountains or roses because there are only the elements themselves which arise and fall away. You referred in another post to the trainer (sekha). The sekha is the ariyan disciple (not yet an arahat) who directly knows pathavi-dhatu as pathavi-dhatu without any more wrong views about people or mountains as existing in reality or about earth element as being part a person or mountain or anything else, no longer imagines a person or mountain in earth element, apart from earth element or owning earth element in anyway. MN 1 and commentary (Bodhi transl): "He directly knows earth as earth" (pa.thavi.m pa.thavito abhijaanaati) Cy: "He directly knows earth in its nature as earth (pa.thaviibhaavena), unlike the worldling who perceives it with a completely perverted perception. Further, he knows it with distinguished knowledge (abhivisi.t.thena ~naa.nena). What is meant is that, resolving upon the earth in accordance with its real nature as earth, he knows it as impermanent, suffering, and non-self." S: It means, as the sub-commentary elaborates, that he clearly understands the dhammas as dhammas, i.e. the realities, without any confusion. .... >They are deformable, hence they are material form and may be used as meditation object to train perception of impermanence. ... S: What is deformed are the rupas, the "material form". It is through the development of right understanding of dhammas, i.e. namas and rupas, that the understanding of the ti-lakkhana of such dhammas becomes apparent. ... Metta Sarah ====== #130481 From: "sarah" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 7:05 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sarahprocter... Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. .... S: Yes, like with the "butter-jar" example quoted, we refer to people and things, we talk about associating with family and friends. This can be with right or wrong understanding. For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! ... > > You quoted [AN 3s, 134 "The Three Characteristics of Existence" :] > "A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." > > Sadhu! Sadhu! This is a good one. > Does he teach the three characteristics to conceptual disciples that do not exist, or does he teach them to his real disciples who penetrated the Dhamma and eradicated Dukkha? ... S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. Is the visible object seen your wife? Is the sound heard your wife? Is the hardness/softness touched your wife? .... > By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? ... S: Unless there is any understanding of what "all (conditioned) things" are, it's useless. For example, if we have the idea that a person or a mountain is anatta, it is not the understanding of sankhara dhammas. ... > >S: They had no illusion about the realities involved. Whilst using names and concepts in teaching the Dhamma, there was no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities. No bodies in reality, just rupas and namas, impermanent, suffering and not-self as you say. > > T: Who are they? They are Arahants who have no illusions; so it is clear that they have "no misunderstanding or taking concepts for realities". > Who are we? The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? ... S: Instead of being concerned about "experience" or results, we can begin to understand, even in theory, what dhammas (realities) are and how these are distinct from concepts. If we don't appreciate the clear distinction between those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing and hearing, and those realities which cannot experience anything, such as visible object and sound, there will never be the development of direct understanding. ... > It seems you have not admited the fact that the Buddha and his disciples are real, regardless of some people calling them "concepts". .... S: See Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'Tathaagata': "To the often asked questions, whether the Tathaagata still exists after death, or not, it is said (e.g. S. XXII, 85, 86) that, in the highest sense (paramattha, q.v.) the Tathaagata cannot, even at lifetime, be discovered, how much less after death, and that neither the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.) are to be regarded as the Tathaagata, nor can the Tathaagata be found outside these corporeal and mental phenomena. The meaning intended here is that there exist only these ever-changing corporeal and mental phenomena, arising and vanishing from moment to moment, but no separate entity, no personality. When the commentaries in this connection explain Tathaagata by 'living being' (satta), they mean to say that here the questioners are using the merely conventional expression, Tathaagata, in the sense of a really existing entity." Metta Sarah ===== #130482 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 8:45 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear KenH, all, >KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots >preaching ridiculous theories. >>>>>>>>>>> It is their stuff. If there is similarity in what I say, and what someone else say - it is coincidence. > In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life >in heaven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100% NO. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say that. There is no eternal retirement home for some indescribable citta after Parinibbana. Lets bury this issue. The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). With best wishes, Alex #130483 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Alex, - >Alex: >The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' ! Just a thought. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear KenH, all, > > >KH: I've just Googled "natthatta" and found some dangerous crackpots >preaching ridiculous theories. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > It is their stuff. If there is similarity in what I say, and what someone else say - it is coincidence. > > In essence, they are saying the Buddha taught a path to eternal life >in heaven. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > 100% NO. Don't put words into my mouth, I did not say that. There is no eternal retirement home for some indescribable citta after Parinibbana. Lets bury this issue. > > > The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). > #130484 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:12 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep (and Alex) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Alex, - > ... > T: In summary: > 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. > =============== J: A more accurate summary would be: "All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; however, they are weak and so mostly lie latent/are dormant. Progress can only ever be very gradual". > =============== > T: > 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. > =============== J: Better would be: "Right view is a mental factor, not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is also a mental factor, in particular, the mental factor that accompanies right view; it is not the conventional 'effort to have' awareness/insight". Jon #130485 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 9:44 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Alex 130345 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > >J:Dhammas are those things that can be directly experienced. > >>>>>>> > > A: And door is one of them, otherwise how could dog distinguish door from a wall, or any other obstacle from empty space? > =============== J: The rupas that are object of consciousness in our daily life are those that are the objects of the 5 sense-doors, that is to say, visible object, audible object, hardness/softness, etc. It is from the experience of such rupas that the idea of 'a door' can be formed (by consciousness). It's the same for all the 'things' that we take for being 'real' in life. You make the point that other people see the same door and know to go through it rather than try to go through the wall. You mean, I think, that this indicates that there is something there, something real, in the first place. The Dhamma does not concern itself with the 'reality' (or otherwise) of conventional 'things'. It is concerned only with what can be directly known, and this means anything that can be directly experienced (and thus directly known, and verified) by panna. These are the things ("dhammas") that have an inherent characteristic that is the same no matter the circumstances (time, place, state of mind). These things the Buddha classified in many ways including as khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc. There is no dhamma of 'door'. While the idea (i.e., thought or concept) of 'door' can arise in the mind, that idea is based on the prior experience of visible object, hardness, audible object, etc. and the ability to recall those previous experiences (i.e., conventional memory). Jon #130486 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Sun May 5, 2013 11:19 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Tep > T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' Jk: I agree that there can be craving or wanting to understanding the ultimate realities either by way of listening to dhamma and by way of meditation. It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? Please educate me if you have time. Best wishes Jagkrit #130487 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:04 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Alex > > A: The only thing I am saying is that we need to treat every phenomena as not-self. Not treating it merely with words, but with actions (let go of craving). Jk: I would like to know more how can we treat every phenomena as not-self. Thank you Jagkrit #130488 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:27 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Jagkrit, all, >Jk:I would like to know more how can we treat every phenomena as not->self. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't consider it to really be "I, me, mine". Observe it "from outside". Don't personally cling or be aversive to it. It is much easier (and perhaps only possible) to do it when there is some basis in samatha. Here I believe skill in samatha is important. Samatha any attachment to arisen phenomenon whenever it arises. IMHO. With best wishes, Alex #130489 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hello Jagkrit, (and Alex) - Thank you for giving me The opportunity to communicate. >Jk: It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. T: They think they can, but they may not. Maybe they don't know the difference between "understanding" and "knowledge and vision of things as they really are". >Jk: But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. T: It is not hard for an intelligent person who has saddha in the Dhamma. "And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#sut >Jk: And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? T: If 'self' is 'bhava', then 'no self' is 'vibhava'. If 'vibhava' can be the object of clinging, then why can't 'no self'? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > > T: Thinking about craving, we know there are craving for 'bhava' and craving for 'vibhava'. Thus there can be craving for 'understanding' of the ultimate realities and craving for 'no self' > > Jk: I agree that there can be craving or wanting to understanding the ultimate realities either by way of listening to dhamma and by way of meditation. It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. > > Please educate me if you have time. #130490 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:28 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. .......... > S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. T: Then how could the Buddha tell if this disciple was Sariputta and that disciple was Moggallana? The "namas, rupas, elements" are micro constituents of the macro human known as Sarah, who is a fleeting reality. This kind of understanding does not create a conflict. The fact #1 that there are only atoms and sub-atomic particles in the universe does not conflict with the fact #2 that they make up the stars and planets in the macro scale. However, by claiming that there are no stars no galaxies, but only atoms and sub-atomic particles is a conflict with the reality. How can our atmosphere change so much when there is a flare-up in the solar activity, if both the Earth and the Sun do not exist? Sarah now is not the same as the young-and-vibrant Sarah 25 years ago, just because of ageing . But by looking at the ageing phenomenon and say there is nobody ageing is a self denial. Be realistic, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep & all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. > .... #130491 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:30 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Rob E. - > > Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! What is in the mind one moment is always gone or changed in the next. :-) > >Rob E. : .. the use of "I" or "we" as a convention is not a problem in and of itself. ... > > T: Yes. The Buddha and the Arahants in the Sutta stories were flexible: they knew when to use "I" and "mine". ... > T: ...the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. This knowledge would eliminate the idea of a controlling self, which I guess are clarified through different successions of ~nanas. > >Rob E. : ... the concepts are general and inaccurate, but they are like nimittas in that they contain the impressions that are left by the passing of actual dhammas ... > > T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] > .................. I will look into this sutta - that is nice the way that is explained. On the level of normal concepts I don't think we even experience that there are dhammas at all, but the sense that we have of what we have seen or experienced still contains the traces of the actual namas and rupas that took place. > By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. It is also a good idea to back up what we think or believe with something from the suttas or other scriptural authority, keeping it grounded to the teachings. That's not a bad thing. > But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. That doesn't happen too often. Most people appreciate the sutta references if they pertain to the point you are making or clarifying. If someone doesn't like it that is fine too. I think that a good combination of making your point and when possible giving a reference is just about right. > Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. Everyone is unhappy anyway. Nothing to do about that for the time being. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130492 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:46 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and all) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- > > >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! > > T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. > .......... > > S: The "real disciples" are like us - just namas and rupas, elements, which arise and fall away. > > T: Then how could the Buddha tell if this disciple was Sariputta and that disciple was Moggallana? The "namas, rupas, elements" are micro constituents of the macro human known as Sarah, who is a fleeting reality. This kind of understanding does not create a conflict. > > The fact #1 that there are only atoms and sub-atomic particles in the universe does not conflict with the fact #2 that they make up the stars and planets in the macro scale. However, by claiming that there are no stars no galaxies, but only atoms and sub-atomic particles is a conflict with the reality. How can our atmosphere change so much when there is a flare-up in the solar activity, if both the Earth and the Sun do not exist? > > Sarah now is not the same as the young-and-vibrant Sarah 25 years ago, just because of ageing . But by looking at the ageing phenomenon and say there is nobody ageing is a self denial. > > Be realistic, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > > > Hi Tep & all, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > You say persons (puggala), e.g. the Buddha's disciples, are not real: they are just concept. But the Buddha never appears to teach the Dhamma to concepts; he taught it to his real disciples. He even called them by their names. > > .... > > ================================== My opinion: Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are dhammas-IN-RELATION. If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #130493 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:50 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. > The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - #130494 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 3:00 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! epsteinrob Hi Jon. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > RE: Thanks - the "characteristic of being heard" seems to me to be redundant of the function of being heard. In what sense is that a characteristic? I'm wondering if sabhava is not just acknowledging the dhamma's behavior or function? > > =============== > > J: Regarding < of the function of being heard.>>, in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. Okay. However it is classified, "being heard" or "being audible" is the same thing as being an audible object, or object of hearing. It doesn't say anything about the rupa except what it already is. That is fine, but it seems to me that is the long and short of what an object of hearing is. In other words, rupas are characterized by exactly what they are...? Fine, if that's what it is. > Cittas have the general function of experiencing an object, and this general function can be further sub-classified. That is sensible. > However, it it's not said that rupas have the function of being experienced, since rupas arise independently of a citta experiencing them. The conditions for the arising of rupas do not include the simultaneous arising of a citta that experiences them. Right, that is understandable and thanks for clarifying that. My interest is in figuring out what the significance, if any, there is of sabhava. It seems less important for rupas than for namas. > Regarding <>, it's a characteristic in the sense of being an attribute, since only sound can be experienced by (i.e., be the object of) hearing consciousness. I guess that can be seen as an attribute of the rupa, or it could be seen as an attribute of the nama which can only hear X but not Y. Is that the rupas fault if the nama is not designed to experience it? If the nama were designed to hear "hardness" then that would become "audible" too, without any change on the part of the rupa. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130496 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:18 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Hello Howard (Sarah & other good friends) - I am so glad to see you back to this forum at the time we are actively discussing your favorite topics. :) >H: My opinion: >Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are dhammas-IN-RELATION. If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. T: Yes, that key word --dhammas-in-relation -- makes lots of sense. Indeed mental conflict and confusion usually result when the truths (impermanence & not-self characteristics of realities) seem incoherent with "the world of appearance and convention". Then our common sense tells us that something doesn't seem right! >H: Because dhammas arise interdependently and tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. T: Yes, in other words "interrelationship and interdependence" ensure that there is no unrealistic and absurd abrupt-change from the ultimate reality to nothing-existing-world that the Buddha lived and taught His great Dhamma. The ultimate realities are within us internally as well as externally. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and all) - > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Sarah, Jon, Alex, others- > > > > >S: For the Buddha and his ariyan disciples, no illusion for an instant that these are just conventional terms and association. No illusion at all that in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away. No conflict at all! > > > > T: No conflict just because Sarah says so? How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? It is a double illusion-delusion phenomenon! We have to accept both ultimate reality and the fleeting reality in order to make the whole sense. > > .......... With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #130497 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:29 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. t.sastri Hi Alex, Rob E. - >Rob E. : > Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. T: I came across this sutta SN 24.8 first time because of Alex , who quoted in a SariputtaDhamma message: [Herein, there is no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater.] Even one who cuts off another's head with a sharp sword does not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the sever bodies. SN24.8 So, Alex, could you please reply to robert's request? Thanks. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > The other kind of wrong view in SN 24.8 is more dangerous. > > The teaching about no-self, emptiness of self in all formations is too advanced for a disciple at this level. > > Could you please direct me to a link for SN 24.8? I have tried to find it through several searches with no luck. It's a "blank" on the Access to Insight list of SN suttas. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - > #130498 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 4:46 am Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator I pasted it from samyutta nikaya pdf (pg 744). It can also be found in the hardcover Samyutta Nikaya Book. Bottom of Pg 995 (The Great view). Interesting thing is that there is "no killer, no slaughterer, no hearer, no speaker, no knower, no intimater" is considered a view (ditthi) and this is one of those views that is very popular somewhere. Sotapanna is supposed to overcome this and other ditthi s. With best wishes, Alex #130499 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 10:42 am Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... t.sastri Hi Rob E., - > >T: Allow me to say what is on my mind now, otherwise it may be lost soon! > Rob E. : What is in the mind one moment is always gone or changed in the next. :-) T: Thanks to sa~n~na for it brings what was gone back to mind: a nimitta of what happened. ........... > >T: ...the purpose is to gain the knowledge (~nana) that all sankharas are devoid of ownership. > Rob E. : This knowledge would eliminate the idea of a controlling self, which I guess are clarified through different successions of ~nanas. T: Precisely so! Understanding through "listening and considering" has yet a long-and-lonely-way-to-go before the first ~nana may arise (quite likely, not). ........... >> T: Following the passing of the observed dhamma, "he should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit 'I am', for a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm". [AN 9.1 Sambodhi Sutta] > Rob E. : I will look into this sutta - that is nice the way that is explained. T: Anyway allow me to explain the meaning of this meaningful sutta quote as I understand it: 1. The perception of inconstancy is developed as the result of anupassana [This is form. This is its arising. This is its passing-away. ... feeling ... perception ... formations ... consciousness] 2. Seeing the arising/passing-away of the khandhas the way they really are, it will become clear that the khandhas are dukkha.m and hence they should not be perceived as me, mine or my self. Thus the perception of not-self is made firm. Another sutta that I recommend is SN 22.89, Khemo Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html ........... > Rob E. : On the level of normal concepts I don't think we even experience that there are dhammas at all, but the sense that we have of what we have seen or experienced still contains the traces of the actual namas and rupas that took place. T: Along that line of thought I also think the namas and rupas that we have seen or experienced in every-day living, although they do not satisfy the (Abhi)dhamma definitions, are useful enough for us to realize that these "things" once come-to-be, they actually deform, deteriorate, change, and disintegrate. And that is enough for us to abandon the perception of permanence. ........... > Rob E. : Everyone is unhappy anyway. Nothing to do about that for the time being. T: Yes, we just let it go. BTW Thanks for the advice that if someone doesn't like "my" Sutta quotes, "that is fine too". Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Rob E. - > > ... ... > > By the way, I borrow from the Suttas all the time mainly because there are people who always ask for a sutta reference. > > It is also a good idea to back up what we think or believe with something from the suttas or other scriptural authority, keeping it grounded to the teachings. That's not a bad thing. > > > But there is a disadvantage for referencing the Suttas, because someone else may blame me for quoting the Suttas and demands for my personal interpretation and real-world experience. > > That doesn't happen too often. Most people appreciate the sutta references if they pertain to the point you are making or clarifying. If someone doesn't like it that is fine too. I think that a good combination of making your point and when possible giving a reference is just about right. > > > Whatever you do, you will never make everyone happy. > > #130500 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:44 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Hi Sarah - [Please replace my deleted message #130495 by this one:] This is Part 2 of my earlier reply. >S: Is the visible object seen your wife? Is the sound heard your wife? Is the hardness/softness touched your wife? T: Ah, that's a good one; but I like the cliche computer-keyboard better. :) If each constituent is perceived as a whole, then it is misperceived. But when a whole is perceived as the coming-together of its constituents, then that is a correct understanding of the reality -- no illusion-delusion kind of conflict. ...... > >T: By the way, do you know: what is the purpose to contemplate that all (conditioned) things are anatta? >S: Unless there is any understanding of what "all (conditioned) things" are, it's useless. T: Even when it is an intellectual understanding of a conditioned thing, it is nothing to cherish about. The purpose of the contemplation that all (conditioned) things are anatta can lead to disenchantment (nibbida). But the proudly-presented "intellectual understanding" has no chance to become yathabhuta-~naanadassana, unless craving and other hindrances have been abandoned. ...... >S: For example, if we have the idea that a person or a mountain is anatta, it is not the understanding of sankhara dhammas. T: The mountain example and your computer keyboard are not good as the object of vipassana since they don't relate to dukkha unlike the five aggregates of clinging (conceived as a person) and the sense sphere. ...... >>T: The best we can do now is only talk about understanding, concepts, and realities -- just talk (like parrots mimicking human?). Are we able to experience, directly know the ultimate realities that way? >S: Instead of being concerned about "experience" or results, we can begin to understand, even in theory, what dhammas (realities) are and how these are distinct from concepts. If we don't appreciate the clear distinction between those realities which can experience an object, such as seeing and hearing, and those realities which cannot experience anything, such as visible object and sound, there will never be the development of direct understanding. T: Assessing the worth of anything we do at the beginning can save us lots of time and frustration. To continue to think about and listening to, or discussing, paramettha dhammas and concepts for so many years now is like an airplane that keeps running on the runway without taking off! That's not profitable. ...... >S: When the commentaries in this connection explain Tathaagata by 'living being' (satta), they mean to say that here the questioners are using the merely conventional expression, Tathaagata, in the sense of a really existing entity. T: Thanks for the reminder. Be healthy & happy, Tep == #130501 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 12:25 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Tep Thank you very much for your explanation. This is very interesting and I would like to know more in detail. >Jk: It is understandable that when people study dhamma and consider more, there is the possibility that they can understand the ultimate realities. > T: They think they can, but they may not. Maybe they don't know the difference between "understanding" and "knowledge and vision of things as they really are". JK: What is the meaning of knowledge and vision above mentioned? Is there level of Knowledge and vision to some certain things as they are or this means absolute knowledge? ================== > >Jk: But it is hard to understand that by way of meditation, we can understand the ultimate realities because meditation provides stage of calmness beside considering reality. > T: It is not hard for an intelligent person who has saddha in the Dhamma. > "And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html#sut JK: Thank you for citing this sutta. I went through it and this seems to me that this sutta explains in line of conditions. If we start from suffering, suffering is the supporting condition of faith. This is very interesting to know why and how this line of supporting activates. Again same as concentration, there are lines of supporting conditions. Therefore if there're any possibility that we start to concentrate by cut out the suffering. Because suffering in this context should not refer to only body sickness and unpleasant feeling. It should mean Dukkha which is difficult to know. And faith up to the level in this sutta is hard to arise without really know Dukkha first. ==================== > >Jk: And craving for no self to me seems a bit confusing because if understanding about no self, what will be the object to cling to? > T: If 'self' is 'bhava', then 'no self' is 'vibhava'. If 'vibhava' can be the object of clinging, then why can't 'no self'? JK: I think that "bhava" means existance or becoming and "vibhava" means non existance or non becoming. It is different from the meaning of self. Otherwise, sotapatimagga citta which yet to eliminate "bhava and vibhava tanha" will not extinguish wrong view about self if self means bhava. Therefore, I still wonder about craving for no self? Best wishes Jagkrit #130502 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Alex Thank you for you explanation. I would like to discuss more in detail. >A: Don't consider it to really be "I, me, mine". Observe it "from outside". > Don't personally cling or be aversive to it. > It is much easier (and perhaps only possible) to do it when there is some basis in samatha. Here I believe skill in samatha is important. JK: When you mention "observe it from outside", it seems to me like the technic used in psychology. I've been attained in some seminar like "Atthony Robbins" He applies the technic of watching yourself from the outside, like watching the movie. This way you will relax the emotion of yourself down to some certain level. When you get angry, observe yourself from the outside and picture yourself like Mikeymouse mumbling. Then you can detach from yourself and your anger. And when you mention that it is much easier with basis of samatha. Sometime during the seminar, he asked participants to lie down, rest and relax and then concentrate or focus to anything that makes you happy. After that start of observe from the outside. I don't know that there are somethings more to aware when we observe from the outside concerning time and place due to your explanation and suggestion? ======================= > A: Samatha any attachment to arisen phenomenon whenever it arises. IMHO. JK: I think some words are missing on you typo. Can you give more detail? Thank you Jagkrit #130503 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:06 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts epsteinrob Hi Howard. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ...If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of appearance and convention. ... I think this is most important. My biggest effort is to relate the reality of dhammas to the everyday world that I experience, and I think that by understanding the relationship of dhammas, nimittas and concepts as different levels of perception that distort the arising and falling away of dhammas to a greater or lesser degree, one can create a continuum of understanding, rather than a bifurcated radical break between dhammas and everyday experience. With the "continuum" view, rather than the "all or nothing" view of dhammas, it is possible to make sense of all the teachings as they are presented, and see the different levels of experience as co-existent. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130504 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:19 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Hi Ken H., and Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > <. . .> > > A: I don't believe in Atta. > ----- > > KH: Why don't you? You have just finished telling us the Buddha didn't teach "no atta" and now you seem to be telling us you personally don't believe in atta. Why is that? Is it a conclusion you have reached on your own? Jumping in to what I think is an interesting point, I would say two things for myself: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhoold but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #130505 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:37 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I came across this sutta SN 24.8 first time because of Alex , who quoted in a SariputtaDhamma message: ... > So, Alex, could you please reply to robert's request? Thanks. Thanks, Tep. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130506 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 1:41 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > I pasted it from samyutta nikaya pdf (pg 744). Do you know of a link for the Samyutta Nikaya pdf? Or is it possible that you could send it to me as an email attachment? I'd be happy to give you my personal email address if you don't already have it. Thanks, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130507 From: "Robert E" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 2:27 pm Subject: Re: It Is An Illusion, a Mirage ... epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > 2. Seeing the arising/passing-away of the khandhas the way they really are, it will become clear that the khandhas are dukkha.m and hence they should not be perceived as me, mine or my self. Thus the perception of not-self is made firm. Another sutta that I recommend is SN 22.89, Khemo Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html I enjoyed that sutta. I clicked onto the Thanissaro translation as well, which gives the full sutta, and found it illuminating as well: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html The distinction between the residual arising of the "I am" and the sense that "I am that" is a very useful one to know about. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130508 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 5:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ---- <. . .> > RE: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. ---- KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul? ---------------------- > RE: In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. ---------------------- KH: It might be clear to you, but to me the opposite is clear. There is no self that is made up of khandhas or anything else. There is just the khandhas (nama and rupa). --------------------- > RE: It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. > By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhoold but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. > 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. > Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' ---------------------- KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. Ken H #130509 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana t.sastri Hi Jon (and Alex, others) - It is good to see your suggested improved version of my summary of your own ideas. They say you are what you write. So if one is not careful and his writing is vague, then he may not be credible --like having a low credit rating :) >J: A more accurate summary would be: "All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; however, they are weak and so mostly lie latent/are dormant. Progress can only ever be very gradual". T: Knowing/understanding that 'progess has been very gradual', will there be a sense of urgency and heedfulness/earnestness to improve upon the mediocre progress in sila-samadhi-panna? Please don't make me sad by tellling me that improvement is impossible since there is no agent or condition to make it happen. ......... >J: A more accurate summary would be: "Right view is a mental factor, not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is also a mental factor, in particular, the mental factor that accompanies right view; it is not the conventional 'effort to have' awareness/insight". T: Are you saying that effort arises by itself, and so it means that higher understanding is not supported by wholesome effort? ......... Be heedful, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Alex) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Jon and Alex, - > > ... > > T: In summary: > > 1. All the necessary kinds of 'good' dhammas have already been accumulated; they lie latent/dormant, ready to spring into action to wipe out wrong views. Therefore, your progress will be steady and never falls away from the path. > > 2. Right view is not the actions of somebody doing something. Right effort is not required. The confidence to 'let the dhammas do the talking' is what you need. > > =============== > #130510 From: "philip" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Words of Ajahn Sujin 6 (the object which is seen) philofillet Dear group " If one is only interested in the object which is seen, it prevents one from knowing that the object which is seen can only appear because citta arises and performs the function of seeing that object." (From SPD) (end of passage) Phil #130512 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 8:44 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Hello RobertE, I can't find the link to SN. I did find almost complete AN book. http://uploaded.net/file/h90h7rll/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_\ Buddha_A_Translation_of_the_Anguttara_Nikaya_2012_Scan_OCR_PDF.rar If your email can accept 5mb something, I can try to send it that way. What is your email? With best wishes, Alex #130513 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. truth_aerator Hello RobertE, all, >RE: Do you know of a link for the Samyutta Nikaya pdf? I compressed it (rar) and uploaded here in members files. With best wishes, Alex #130514 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 6, 2013 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) > > The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. -------------------------------- HCW: Your equating the assertion of the importance of interrelation and interdependence among dhammas with atta-belief is groundless, pointless, and absurd, and no more than an attempt to promote your personal dislike of certain facts about reality by attacking those who point them out. I think this is, at best, a painting over of what you dislike with the excrement-covered brush of "Buddhist heresy". Are you trying to establish a Dhamma Inquisition? Okay, a bit harsh, for which harshness I immediately apologize, but I do strongly object to this tack you are adopting. --------------------------------- > > Ken H > =============================== With metta, Howard /"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."/ (From the Honeyball Sutta) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /"Just now, friend Sariputta, I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that name-&-form is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that without self-making or other-making it arises spontaneously. However, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form' But then I understood your statement as, 'It's not the case, Kotthita my friend, that consciousness is self-made, that it is other-made, that it is both self-made & other-made, or that without self-making or other-making it arises spontaneously.' However, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Now how is the meaning of these statements to be understood?""Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form." / (From the Nalakalapiyo Sutta) #130515 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:03 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Jakrit, - Thank you for allowing me to clarify unclear remarks. Certainly, you will find more coming! :) JK: What is the meaning of knowledge and vision above mentioned? Is there level of Knowledge and vision to some certain things as they are or this means absolute knowledge? T: "Knowledge and vision of things as they are" is the rendition of yathabhuta~nanadassana. Yathabhuta means in reality, conformity with the truth. The word ~nana means knowledge, and dassana is vision. Therefore, the whole word means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. Bhikkhu Bodhi states in his article, Transcendental Dependent Arising, as follows: "The realization of these three characteristics impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness through unmediated insight is the knowledge and vision of things as they really are." I like that! I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? ........... T: After having read the Upanisa Sutta, your comment is : >Jk: If we start from suffering, suffering is the supporting condition of faith. This is very interesting to know why and how this line of supporting activates. Again same as concentration, there are lines of supporting conditions. Therefore if there're any possibility that we start to concentrate by cut out the suffering. T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? >Jk: Because suffering in this context should not refer to only body sickness and unpleasant feeling. It should mean Dukkha which is difficult to know. And faith up to the level in this sutta is hard to arise without really know Dukkha first. T: I agree. Experiencing suffering that is drastic enough, such as death of people whom one loves dearly, will be an eye opener to him that death is suffering. When there is birth, then death comes to be. So to him, who realizes that condition, birth is a supporting condition for the whole mass of suffering (dukkha). For someone who wants to escape from suffering, suffering is the motivation for him to have faith in the Buddha's teachings which are mainly about the Four Noble Truths. >Jk: I think that "bhava" means existance or becoming and "vibhava" means non existance or non becoming. It is different from the meaning of self. Otherwise, sotapatimagga citta which yet to eliminate "bhava and vibhava tanha" will not extinguish wrong view about self if self means bhava. Therefore, I still wonder about craving for no self? T: Let me try again. It is true that bhava does not mean self, but self is an existence to some, non-existence to others. So to those who believe in existence of self, self is a bhava. The reverse is true, i.e. no self is vibhava in the sense of "non-existence of self". (In my opinion) Be happy, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > #130516 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon May 6, 2013 11:52 pm Subject: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? t.sastri Hi Howard, all - My search of old DSG messages about Karaniya Sutta stumbled upon an old post titled On Concepts. It is very interesting, so I thought of reposting it for the members to see. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92764 The key points are : 1. The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought. The reality corresponding to that is actually a mental activity, a specific line of thought. Any instance of that is certainly anicca, dukkha, and anatta. 2. Often, there is no actual phenomenon, elementary or an aggregation of elementary phenomena, that is the referent of a given concept. In that case, the intended referent is merely imagined/projected; it doesn't exist, and we speak of it as "concept-only." 3. On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, and if that intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is treated, oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, hence having the property of anatta. 4. While unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/formations and of all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of compounds, including sentient beings. Do you have anything to add to or delete from the above? Be well, Tep === #130517 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:18 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ---- > <. . .> > > RE: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found. > ---- > > KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul? Ken, you seem to have made a dsg profession of being purposely thick. Are you just trying to test my ability to meditate on the fly and refrain from getting frustrated? Maybe it's an attempt to prove that there is no one to control the unpleasant vedana that arises when you say things like that...? Haven't I personally made clear about a million and a half times that there is no self or soul of any kind? Below I also add what I would call the "provisional everyday self," that is, merely, the psycho-physical organism and its everyday functioning, which I then say is also completely devoid of any real self or entity, and try to show that this was the view of the Buddha, as is the one above. Between the two - the denial of a Soul or Spiritual Self, and the denial of any entity within the everyday activity of body and mind, there is NOTHING left over - no self of any kind. So why you think I am suggesting a temporary self I do not know. I guess you are committed to the view, in lieu of any evidence to support you, that I must be trying to sneak in some kind of self when I talk specifically about what the Buddha said was not-self. Why do you think that? I don't know - maybe because you are pre-convinced that I am on the "other team" and that as someone who believes that meditation is part of the path, I MUST be committed to a view of a controlling self. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I do not believe in the existence of a self or internal or eternal or temporary entity of any kind, as I have said many many times. Are you clear about my view now? Or should I repeat it several more times? Yes, Ken H. someone CAN disagree with your philosophy of a world of dhammas that are "wholly other" than our everyday experiences and still NOT believe in the existence of any kind of self. It is true. > ---------------------- > > RE: In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes. > ---------------------- > > KH: It might be clear to you, but to me the opposite is clear. There is no self that is made up of khandhas or anything else. There is just the khandhas (nama and rupa). That's exactly what I'm saying. If you use your intelligence to follow my argument you will see that we are saying the same thing, not the opposite. You are not a computer, so you don't have to have an automated reaction to a key word that you think shouldn't be used. I am making clear that within the everyday activities that are considered the everyday self there is in fact no self or entity, so I am saying the same thing, not the opposite. Take a closer look and don't jump at the word 'self' like Pavlov's dog without understanding what is being said. > --------------------- > > RE: It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person. > > > By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhood but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions. > > > 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything. > > > Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.' > ---------------------- > > KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-) Did you not bother to read what I said above? It seems you didn't: Here it is again: "It is precisely his point that ***no personal self can be found*** in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person." You disagree with that...? If you do, you disagree with yourself. > The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. That's what I said. I don't believe in any kind of self, and I ruled out both/all kinds in the above. If you can't read, that's your problem. > What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. I didn't say that, Howard did. If you want me to discuss how I would describe the action of dhammas, feel free. Maybe it's similar, maybe different, but I didn't say that. Thanks for lumping us together though, that is very convenient I'm sure. "The other team - Team Atta." > Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas. You are misreading what I said in every way, based on ignorance and prejudice, which doesn't give me much confidence in your understanding of anything relating to Dhamma. Sorry I tried to communicate with you. It's like trying to teach your dog to sing. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #130518 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 7, 2013 1:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > My opinion: > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about this. > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. Metta, Sukin #130519 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:05 am Subject: Re: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Howard, all - > > My search of old DSG messages about Karaniya Sutta stumbled upon an old post titled On Concepts. It is very interesting, so I thought of reposting it for the members to see. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92764 > > The key points are : > > 1. The standard meaning of 'concept' is that of an "idea," which is generally understood to be a mental phenomenon or thought. The reality corresponding to that is actually a mental activity, a specific line of thought. Any instance of that is certainly anicca, dukkha, and anatta. > 2. Often, there is no actual phenomenon, elementary or an aggregation of elementary phenomena, that is the referent of a given concept. In that case, the intended referent is merely imagined/projected; it doesn't exist, and we speak of it as "concept-only." > 3. On DSG, many folks use the word 'concept' not to refer to a mental activity/phenomenon, but to the intended referent of that activity, and if that intended referent is an aggregation of elementary phenomena, it is treated, oddly, as both non-existent and as simultaneously being not-self, hence having the property of anatta. > 4. While unequivocal in asserting the emptiness of all aggregations/formations and of all namas and rupas, the Buddha never denied the existence of compounds, including sentient beings. > > Do you have anything to add to or delete from the above? > > Be well, > Tep > === > ========================= I would add the following: I believe in thinking but not in things called "concepts." We may "think about" so-called paramattha dhammas, we may think about groups of interrelated dhammas, and we may think of purely imagined things. The complexes of interrelated dhammas, also called "compounds" are not individual phenomena, and they are only known by thinking, but they do have a basis in simple interrelated dhammas. I would add one more thing - my own perspective that every everyday thing that we think we know, whether the clearly conventional or the allegedly ultimate, lacks genuine, separate reality and exists only as a matter of appearance. For me, there is one reality, nibbana. 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) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /There is but one reality: Unconditioned, timeless, boundless, seamless, and luminous. The mystics in the Abrahamic traditions, call it "God." The Ch'an/Zen Buddhists refer to it variously as "vast emptiness" and "the empty field." The Buddha called it "nibbana." Misperceived, it is Buddhist "samsara": the realm of tortured wandering - being tossed about on the waves of desire and aversion; it is the appearance realm of separate things, the Hasidic "world of lies". Coming to perceive it as it is, is our awakening, the destruction of all taints, the end of suffering, and the final and perfect attainment of ultimate happiness and perfect peace./ (Anonymous) #130520 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > My opinion: > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? ------------------------------ HCW: Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. ------------------------------ > > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about this. ----------------------------- HCW: Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. ------------------------------- > > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the world of > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, higher-level > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious error. > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. ------------------------------ HCW: I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. ----------------------------- > > Metta, > Sukin > > > > ================================= 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) #130521 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 4:29 am Subject: Re: Is a Concept Both Non-existent & Not-self? t.sastri Hi Howard, - Thanks for responding to the request. ... > HCW: I would add the following: I believe in thinking but not in things called "concepts." We may "think about" so-called paramattha dhammas, we may think about groups of interrelated dhammas, and we may think of purely imagined things. The complexes of interrelated dhammas, also called "compounds" are not individual phenomena, and they are only known by thinking, but they do have a basis in simple interrelated dhammas. > I would add one more thing - my own perspective that every everyday thing that we think we know, whether the clearly conventional or the allegedly ultimate, lacks genuine, separate reality and exists only as a matter of appearance. For me, there is one reality, nibbana. > T: Thinking --to my understanding-- originates from consciousness (citta), concomitant dhammas(cetasikas), and mind object(arammana). Citta and cetasikas are ultimate realities, while arammana may be anything internally or externally. Yes, they are interrelational, conditioned; and they are fleeting. Nibbana is also a mind object, but it is unconditioned. But, for me, they are all realities. Without consciousness there is nothingness. Regards, Tep === ........................ > /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) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > /There is but one reality: Unconditioned, timeless, boundless, seamless, and luminous. The mystics in the Abrahamic traditions, call it "God." The Ch'an/Zen Buddhists refer to it variously as "vast emptiness" and "the empty field." The Buddha called it "nibbana." Misperceived, it is Buddhist "samsara": the realm of tortured wandering - being tossed about on the waves of desire and aversion; it is the appearance realm of separate things, the Hasidic "world of lies". Coming to perceive it as it is, is our awakening, the destruction of all taints, the end of suffering, and the final and perfect attainment of ultimate happiness and perfect peace./ > > (Anonymous) > #130522 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 8:14 am Subject: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Dear group The alarm rings. Hearing is vipaka, arising beyond control. Perhaps there are conditions that lead to seeing physical object and conditions that lead to thinking about the meaning of the object that is marked by sanna whether digital, or hands. Or perhaps first there is struggling to remember what day it is. And in response to sanna and countless cittas noting the day, there arise javana cittas rooted in dosa or lobha depending on whether it is once holiday or not, for example. From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. Understanding is the only way out. Phil #130523 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 8:31 am Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work nichiconn > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. haha, phil - they say if you 'chant the sutta' you're guaranteed the pure abodes; how could i entertain thoughts of chanting scott back! take care, and keep tucking in the good messages, connie #130524 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 10:19 am Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Hi Connie > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. The Dhamma is much deeper than we like to think. > haha, phil - they say if you 'chant the sutta' you're guaranteed the pure abodes; how could i entertain thoughts of chanting scott back! Don't think, just do it. Visualize The Captain and Tenille. Correct understanding of the sublime Dhamma will keep us together. Make up some palicious words and murmur them until you believe them fervidly. And them plant your butt on a cushion and let 'er rip! Just do it without any understanding of the processes at work, hey, that's the secret to effective meditation! just do it! Some of us are fervidly counting on you as we manipulate our beads, bottoms twitching on our cushions, changing position to escape dosa...lly. Phil #130525 From: Sukinder Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > > My opinion: > > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? So what is it exactly? > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about > this. > ----------------------------- > HCW: > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the > world of > > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, > higher-level > > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious > error. > > > > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. > ------------------------------ > HCW: > I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the > notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a > correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their particular functions, this very well illustrate not only conditionality, but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear as they are in the conventional world. And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic concepts of the Dhamma. Metta, Sukin #130526 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 12:49 pm Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts nichiconn dear Tep, i'd thought you meant the ti-lakkhana when we were thinking about conventional-v-absolute talk examples the other day... but the 3 Stigmata seem a grey or special class of 'realities' ... not really real on their own but more as aspects of other, 'more real' realities like the cohesiveness defining 'the water element', also only known thru the mind-door. i don't mean to say the three marks aren't real; just that in the usual imaginary room there are really 4 doors but 3 are still invisible (no handle on them)... how 'bout that hole in the roof? anyway, 'neither here nor there' was my phrase of the day then; and to borrow it for it's 'unimportant' conventional sense, "so it is ..." jump track "...what it is", yatha; "has become", bhuta. and gone, iaw conditions - another loose change word. > > T: How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? c: our thinking is upside down, somehow. The eyes and ears don't say any such thing - if they talk at all, it's in ultimate terms only; conceptualizing may put people and other little selves 'out there' - blended perceptions, yum! - but thinking can be done without conceiving / me- myself- and I-ing things thru craving, conceit and view; also we tend to be delightfully color-blind as far as the roots go. We're a perverse bunch. don't mind the tangled commo lines, connie #130527 From: "connie" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 1:39 pm Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work nichiconn > > > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. > > Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. c: not at all, Phil, just a clumsy elaboration: bhavanga-cittas being `process-freed'... with that weird object! and yet, no different from right now's moments of vipaka. cuti anytime, but not yet. you keep the muskrats! connie The Dhamma is much deeper than we like to think. > poor hares! c #130528 From: "philip" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 2:06 pm Subject: Re: The alarm rings and javanas rush to work philofillet Hi Connie > > > > From the first moments of the day (and even as we sleep) citta processes rooted in liking and disliking rush to work, leading us through samsara. > > > > > > but not "bhavanga-sleep"... kusala got us to this dreamy stage. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. But fascinating to note that as with all cittas, bhavangas are accompanied by sanna and the other universals. > > c: not at all, Phil, just a clumsy elaboration: bhavanga-cittas being `process-freed'... with that weird object! and yet, no different from right now's moments of vipaka. cuti anytime, but not yet. Ah yes, "process freed", thanks. > you keep the muskrats! > Oh god, you send me back to youtube for another taste of that tantalizing twosome. Whoever knew that during my punk days lobha for those guys was accumulating, beyond control. It blows me away how much I like Hall and Oates now, and how much I *thought* I hated them then. Citta processes aring and falling away, beyond control. Phil p.s I prefer the Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation of "Don't go Breaking my Heart", but Kiki Dee disagrees, of course. That debate will never end, we should just agree to Let The Sun Go Down on it, but we Don't. (Or won't.) Again, processes beyond control, although a sense of control may arise occasionally. #130529 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 3:46 pm Subject: Re: Right Views As Defined in MN 117 with Comy. epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello RobertE, > > I can't find the link to SN. > > I did find almost complete AN book. > > http://uploaded.net/file/h90h7rll/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_The_Numerical_Discourses_of_the_\ Buddha_A_Translation_of_the_Anguttara_Nikaya_2012_Scan_OCR_PDF.rar > > > If your email can accept 5mb something, I can try to send it that way. > > What is your email? > I did send you a private request just now for the pdf, but now it looks like it is downloading just fine from the link. If that is the same volume, I think I will be able to get it as a download. Thanks for finding it! And thanks everyone for indulging this message...! Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130530 From: "Robert E" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 4:18 pm Subject: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi All - Mindfulness of the Body A section of B. Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya - 593 (19)~595 (21) . . ; .. "Bhikkhus, when one thing is developed and cultivated, (593) penetration of numerous elements occurs...(594) penetration . of the diversity of elements occurs... (595) analytical knowt- edge of numerous elements occurs What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. WTien this one thing is . developed and cultivated, penetration of the various elements occurs... penetration of the diversity of elements occurs... ana lytical knowledge of the various elements occurs/' 596 (22)599 (25) . "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (596) to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... (597) to realiza tion of the fruit of once-returning... (598) to realization of the fruit of non-retuming [45].:. (599) to realization of the fruit of arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cul tivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... to real ization of the fruit of once-returning... to realization of the fruit of non-returning... to realization of the fruit of arahantship." 600 (26)-615 (41) - "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (600) to the obtaining of wisdom!.. (601) to the growth of wis dom ... (602) to the expansion of wisdom... (603) to greatness of wisdom... (604) to diversity of wisdom... (605) to vastness ' of wisdom... (606) to depth of wisdom... (607) to a state of 132 The Book of the Ones 146 , unsurpassed wisdom... (608) to breadth of wisdom... (609) to abundance of wisdom... (610) to rapidity of wisdom... (611) to buoyancy of wisdom.. - (612) to joyousness of wisdom... (613) to swiftness of wisdom... (614) to keenness of wisdom... (615) to penetrativeness'of wisdom What is that one thing? Mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cultivated, leads to penetrativeness of > wisdom." . Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130531 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 5:59 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. > S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! > > T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. ... S: The Buddha's Teachings are always true. Metta Sarah ====== #130532 From: "sarah" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 6:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. sarahprocter... Dear Tam B & Bach Lang, I thought Tam wrote an excellent reply to your question (#130185), such as the following: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Tam Bach wrote: > BL: The practice of seeing senses experience as the > elements, process of mind,.v..v... is pretty hard. Remembering your time > with loved ones, your life experience,....with that view, it's kind of a > shock. ... <...> >TB: This development is therefore "hard" in the sense that the truth is deep and it takes time for understanding to be cultivated. It is also surely a shock, because it challenges our attachment to all pleasant objects, such as our ideas of loved ones and life experiences, that same attachment that binds us in samsara. So it is a most beneficial shock, as it provides the chance to be awakened to the truth, which is the real way out of suffering. > > There might be the idea of someone who tries to practice that "seeing is just seeing" and therefore it seems impossible. And it is indeed impossible as long as there's the idea of "someone" who can try to experience something in a certain way. ... S: Do you have any further questions for us, Bach Lang? Often the basic questions and comments like your one above are the most useful for us all to consider further. Metta Sarah ===== #130533 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 7, 2013 6:41 pm Subject: Nina update sarahprocter... Dear Friends, I just spoke to Nina and she sounded cheery and happy to chat. Her hip is progressing slowly with lots of exercise and therapy. She can walk with special assistance, but still needs help for most tasks and this means a lot of patient waiting around, especially in the morning, when there are not enough staff. She thinks she'll be at the centre for about 8 weeks in total and I think she's been there about 3 so far. She'll need help at home, I'm sure. We chatted about how even though we think a lot about situations, such as 'my accident', 'being in the centre' or 'taking a long time in the bathroom to wash', in fact there are only ever just realities, just dhammas arising and falling away. Hardness in the bathroom is just like hardness now or hardness in Thailand. No Nina at all - just different realities being experienced through 6 doorways, realities experiencing them and lots of ideas and dreams on account of them. How fortunate we are to have heard and considered the Dhamma to assist us through all the trials in life. Metta Sarah ====== #130535 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 7:21 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head t.sastri Dear Sarah, - > > > >T: Yes, Sarah, yes, everything except your view; it never seems to change. > > >S: Ha, ha! Different citta each moment, but what is true is always true! > > T: But how do you know what you think is true is true? Please elaborate on that. > ... > S: The Buddha's Teachings are always true. > T: So, let there be clear knowing of what-the-Buddha-taught! Sincerely, Tep === #130536 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 7:38 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Tep Thank you for your explaination. There are an interesting pali word you brought up which I would like to find more detail. >T: ..yathabhuta~nanadassana. .. means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. Bhikkhu Bodhi states in his article, Transcendental Dependent Arising, as follows: "The realization of these three characteristics impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and selflessness through unmediated insight is the knowledge and vision of things as they really are." I like that! I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? JK: The meaning of yathabhuta-nana as you explained above is one level of vipassana-nana which also means panna or wisdom. In some commentary, panna is divided into 3 levels Suta-maya-panna (knowledge of studying or intellectual understanding), Jinta-maya-panna (knowledge of contemplating or direct understanding) and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge of experiencing or absolute understanding). Bhavana-maya-panna is vipassana-nana which has 16 levels. Yathabhuta-nana is the second level vipassana-nana knowing or understanding namas and rupas and their conditions. Therefore, when we use the term of understanding, it is understandable that understanding is panna which can develop to higher vipassana-nana. But I think the most important is to have complete intellectual understanding first before panna can develop to other level. Don't you think? ============================= T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? JK: I mean that, in upanisa sutta, the line of supporting conditions start from suffering to be supporting condition of faith and so forth until concentration. But in model meditation practice, practitioners start to concentrate directly without following the line of supporting conditions. I would like to know that to start without or cut out the suffering as supporting condition is ok for right concentration? ================================== T: Let me try again. It is true that bhava does not mean self, but self is an existence to some, non-existence to others. So to those who believe in existence of self, self is a bhava. The reverse is true, i.e. no self is vibhava in the sense of "non-existence of self". (In my opinion) JK: I understand your definition above. Thank you very much Jagkrit #130537 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 7, 2013 9:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > My opinion: > > > > Within this world of appearance, there are only dhammas, but they are > > > > dhammas-IN-RELATION. > > > > > > > > > > Can you please clarify what you propose here? Dhammas condition each > > > other variously, but always in a moment, re: the 24 paccayas. Are you > > > saying that there are other ways in which dhammas relate to each other? > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? ------------------------------ HCW: Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect how we respond now and what comes to us now. ----------------------------- > So what is it exactly? ----------------------------- HCW: What is *what*? ---------------------------- > > > > > > If we ignore interrelationship, we acquire a staccato, freeze-frame > > > > perspective that contradicts the facts of anicca and conditionality, > > > > > > > > > > You mean referring to one moment of consciousness together with the > > > accompanying mental factors, all conditioned to arise at the same base > > > and falling away together in an instant while experiencing an object, > > > this is not illustrative of the characteristic of impermanence and > > > conditionality? And you are saying that the idea of "interrelationship" > > > gives a better depiction of these two concepts? Please tell me about > > this. > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? ----------------------------------- HCW: Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition reduces to contiguity condition. ---------------------------------- > > > > > > and, moreover, subverts the capacity to relate reality to the > > world of > > > > appearance and convention. Because dhammas arise interdependently and > > > > tied to each other by a complex web of interrelationship, > > higher-level > > > > perception and thinking are able to construct conceptual pictures of > > > > "the world". The intricate patterning due to interrelationship and > > > > interdependence is an essential element of "the way things are," and, > > > > IMO, ignoring this, even giving short-shrift to it, is a serious > > error. > > > > > > > > > > I think the idea that thinking follows every sense experience and also > > > otherwise, and the fact that concepts are objects of different kinds of > > > dhammas (including jhana factors such as vitakka and vicara)both kusala > > > and akusala, and that these sometime condition verbal intimation and > > > sometimes bodily intimation, explains very well, our conventional life. > > > If you think you have a better explanation, please give it. > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > I don't know what you are talking about. What I do know is that the > > notion that all conditionality occurs in a single moment is neither a > > correct description of how things are nor is it Dhamma. > > > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only conditionality, > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > as they are in the conventional world. ---------------------------------- HCW: Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. ----------------------------------- > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > concepts of the Dhamma. ---------------------------------- HCW: You'll state here that this is how it is rather than this is how you *believe* it is? Okay - it's nice to be a truth knower! ;-) ------------------------------------ > > Metta, > > Sukin > > > > ================================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #130538 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 10:10 pm Subject: Bypassing the No-self Argument Directly to Nibbana t.sastri Dear Alex, all - Contemplation of feelings as impermanent in seven aspects [1. impermanent, 2. conditioned, 3. dependently arisen, 4. wasting, 5. vanishing, 6. fading, and 7. ceasing] is effective enough for the cessation of dukkha! You don't need to see anatta (not-self, no-self) in the feelings. You don't need to intellectually see the world being empty of beings: no fingers, no hammers, no persons, no seas, no mountains, no computer keyboards. :) .............. "Pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, having the nature of wasting, vanishing, fading and ceasing. The painful feeling and the neutral feeling, too, are impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, having the nature of wasting, vanishing, fading and ceasing. "When a well-taught disciple perceives this, he becomes dispassionate towards pleasant feelings, dispassionate toward painful feelings and dispassionate toward neutral feelings. Being dispassionate, his lust fades away, and with the fading away of lust, he is liberated. "When liberated, there comes to him the knowledge (~naana) that he is liberated. He now knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived, done is what was to be done, there is no more of this to come.' "A monk whose mind is thus liberated, concurs with none and disputes with none; he employs the speech commonly used in the world, but without misapprehending it. [MN 74, Dighanaka Sutta] .............. Please note that the wisdom to "employ speech commonly used in the world, but without misapprehending it" belongs to Arahants who do not cling to nama-rupa, khandha, ayatana. Be healthy & happier, Tep === #130539 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue May 7, 2013 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Jagkrit, - I appreciate this Dhamma discussion. > > >T: ..yathabhuta~nanadassana. .. means knowledge and vision that conforms with the truth that the Buddha discovers, i.e., the Four Noble Truth. ... I have seen "absolute knowledge" as a translation of yathabhuta~nana, but I have no idea what "absolute" refers to. What is your thought? > > JK: The meaning of yathabhuta-nana as you explained above is one level of vipassana-nana which also means panna or wisdom. In some commentary, panna is divided into 3 levels Suta-maya-panna (knowledge of studying or intellectual understanding), Jinta-maya-panna (knowledge of contemplating or direct understanding) and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge of experiencing or absolute understanding). Bhavana-maya-panna is vipassana-nana which has 16 levels. Yathabhuta-nana is the second level vipassana-nana knowing or understanding namas and rupas and their conditions. Therefore, when we use the term of understanding, it is understandable that understanding is panna which can develop to higher vipassana-nana. But I think the most important is to have complete intellectual understanding first before panna can develop to other level. Don't you think? > ============================= T: As the Abhidhamma term panna is the 52nd cetasika, the wisdom faculty. The Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (a BPS publication. Editor: Bhikkhu Bodhi) on page 90 says: "wisdom is knowing thing as they really are. ... In the Abhdhamma, the three terms --wisdom (panna), knowledge(nana), and non-delusion(amoha)-- are used synonymously. ... Its proximate cause is wise attention(yoniso manasikara). I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. ............ > >T: What do you mean by "cut out the suffering"? > > JK: I mean that, in upanisa sutta, the line of supporting conditions start from suffering to be supporting condition of faith and so forth until concentration. But in model meditation practice, practitioners start to concentrate directly without following the line of supporting conditions. I would like to know that to start without or cut out the suffering as supporting condition is ok for right concentration? > ================================== T: To my understanding the four "conditions" that make up the transcendental order : joy, rapture, tranquillity and happiness, are jhana factors. For example, joy & rapture pertain to the first jhana. Since right concentration (samma-samadhi) is defined as first jhana to fourth jhana, it clearly depends on the four transcendental conditions. According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. .................. Be happpy, Tep === #130540 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 12:16 am Subject: Rahula-theragatha yawares1 Dear Members, This lovely Tuesday morning, I proudly present "Rahula-theragatha" that I love very much ..to you all. ************ Thag 4.8. Rahula-theragatha (uttered by Venerable Rahula) [Presented by Dr.Han Tun @ SD/JTN] "In both ways consummate, I'm known as Rahula the Fortunate: Because I'm the son of the Buddha, because I've the eye that sees Dhammas." "Because my fermentations are ended, because I've no further becoming. I'm deserving of offerings, a worthy one a three-knowledge man, with sight of the Deathless." "Those blinded by sensuality covered by the net, veiled by the veil of craving, bound by the Kinsman of the heedless, are like fish in the mouth of a trap." "Throwing that sensuality aside, cutting through Mara's bond, pulling out craving, root and all, cooled am I, Unbound." ************ yawares #130541 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 4:31 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body t.sastri Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - Mindfulness of the body is wonderful; it offers many benefits including the four Noble Paths (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arahantship) and great wisdom: "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the obtaining of wisdom... to the growth of wisdom ... to the expansion of wisdom... to greatness of wisdom.. " Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi All - > > Mindfulness of the Body > A section of B. Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya - > > 593 (19)~595 (21) . . ; .. > "Bhikkhus, when one thing is developed and cultivated, (593) > penetration of numerous elements occurs...(594) penetration > . of the diversity of elements occurs... (595) analytical knowt- > edge of numerous elements occurs What is that one thing? > It is mindfulness directed to the body. WTien this one thing is > . developed and cultivated, penetration of the various elements > occurs... penetration of the diversity of elements occurs... ana > lytical knowledge of the various elements occurs/' > 596 (22)599 (25) . > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads > (596) to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... (597) to realiza > tion of the fruit of once-returning... (598) to realization of the > fruit of non-retuming [45].:. (599) to realization of the fruit of > arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed > to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cul > tivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry... to real > ization of the fruit of once-returning... to realization of the fruit > of non-returning... to realization of the fruit of arahantship." > 600 (26)-615 (41) - > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads > (600) to the obtaining of wisdom!.. (601) to the growth of wis > dom ... (602) to the expansion of wisdom... (603) to greatness > of wisdom... (604) to diversity of wisdom... (605) to vastness > ' of wisdom... (606) to depth of wisdom... (607) to a state of > 132 The Book of the Ones 146 > , unsurpassed wisdom... (608) to breadth of wisdom... (609) to > abundance of wisdom... (610) to rapidity of wisdom... (611) to > buoyancy of wisdom.. - (612) to joyousness of wisdom... (613) > to swiftness of wisdom... (614) to keenness of wisdom... (615) > to penetrativeness'of wisdom What is that one thing? > Mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, > when developed and cultivated, leads to penetrativeness of > > wisdom." . > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - > #130542 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 4:40 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Dear Connie, - [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] Many thanks for your nice thoughts! > C: don't mind the tangled commo lines .. T: It's a unique experience reading your commo lines, Connie. ............. > C: i'd thought you meant the ti-lakkhana when we were thinking about conventional-v-absolute talk examples the other day... but the 3 Stigmata seem a grey or special class of 'realities' ... not really real on their own but more as aspects of other, 'more real' realities like the cohesiveness defining 'the water element', also only known thru the mind-door. T: I think I see what you mean. Looking from the Suttas side, my intellect is not so keen to detect the different shades of realities. The mind often hesitates to dig into 'anubya~njana' as it's questioning: is this leading to the Path? ............... > C: "...what it is", yatha; "has become", bhuta. and gone, iaw conditions - another loose change word. T: I'll be glad to know your thought on yathabhuta~nana, Connie . Is it important for you? .............. > C: our thinking is upside down, somehow. The eyes and ears don't say any such thing - if they talk at all, it's in ultimate terms only; conceptualizing may put people and other little selves 'out there' - blended perceptions, yum! ... We're a perverse bunch. T: Yes, you're right about the lacking of trustworthiness in the perverted sensing. So there are conflicts in our minds as we keep on denying and doubting what we are seeing, hearing, and so on. Therefore, it's important to know how to deal with such conflicts. > C: - but thinking can be done without conceiving / me- myself- and I-ing things thru craving, conceit and view; also we tend to be delightfully color-blind as far as the roots go. T: For me the not-self understanding comes to be when perception of impermanence of the khandhas arises to replace atta-sanna (perception of self). Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Tep, > ... > i don't mean to say the three marks aren't real; just that in the usual imaginary room there are really 4 doors but 3 are still invisible (no handle on them)... how 'bout that hole in the roof? > > anyway, 'neither here nor there' was my phrase of the day then; and to borrow it for it's 'unimportant' conventional sense, "so it is ..." > > jump track > ... > > > T: How can there be no conflict when you think (conceive) that "in reality there are no persons or things, just elements arising and falling away", even though your eyes and ears are telling you just the opposite? > #130543 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 5:00 am Subject: Words from Ajahn Sujin 7 (just a succession of dhammas) philofillet Dear group "There is mere introduction to realities when panna does not develop even to the degree that even a moment of understanding whatever appears is worthwhile in this life. For example hardness is very common. There is touching many many moments but is there understanding or not? Or is there no understanding at all? Seeing sees many times a day but what about the understanding of it? Hearing hears, it now hears, it appears. It is a reality that is there. there is no one there and then it is gone completely. Life is a succession of different realities from moment to moment, that is all." (end of passage) Phil #130544 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 5:24 am Subject: Re: Nina update philofillet Hi Sarah Thanks for the update. ->No Nina at all - Hmmm. I still don't favour this wording, I don't think panna leads us to this conclusion. > just different realities being experienced through 6 doorways, realities experiencing them and lots of ideas and dreams on account of them. Yes, whether there is a being known as Nina or not, only dhammas can be directly experienced. Nina can only be thought about, not seen, not touched etc. But while this point might be seem important I mean this point of whether there is a Nino or not it is in fact not important because it is only by developing understanding of dhammas that the answer will come. And because of our accumulations to think about Nina and other people there will be proper behavior towards people that is not a problem. Or there will not be proper behavior. But the goodness or badness of our behavior towards people does not depend upon whether they have ultimate existence or not. That is irrelevant. The goodness or badness of our behavior towards people depends upon our accumulated kusala and akusala, that is all, dhammas performing functions. Please give her my best when you speak to her and tell her I have been enjoying Jon's posting of her latest series, more to come soon I hope. > How fortunate we are to have heard and considered the Dhamma to assist us through all the trials in life. Yes but how very rare it is that the Dhamma is not exploited for easy comfort, with wanting to escape dosa. Very natural and if that is as far as understanding develops for almost all people, Dhamma is at least the best self help program. Phil > #130545 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:43 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Tep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - > > Mindfulness of the body is wonderful; it offers many benefits including the four Noble Paths (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arahantship) and great wisdom: > > "Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the obtaining of wisdom... to the growth of wisdom ... to the expansion of wisdom... to greatness of wisdom.. " > > Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? > > Regards, > Tep > === Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. From the kayagatasati sutta: ...The bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty house, sits legs crossed, the body straight, and mindfulness established in front. Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out. ...When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Again the bhikkhu becomes aware, going forward or turning back, looking on, or looking about, bending or stretching, Becomes aware bearing the three robes and bowl, Becomes aware enjoying, drinking, eating or tasting. Becomes aware going, standing, sitting, lying, speaking, or keeping silence. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130546 From: "connie" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 7:55 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts nichiconn dear Tep, > [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] ok. good thing i saw this one before sending the answer i will delete now. connie #130547 From: "philip" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 10:44 am Subject: Delisting announcement14 philofillet Dear moderators I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. This is probably because there is so much attachment to the atmosphere of the recorded talks and the atmosphere is so very different here. (Of course it is, it's a different medium, and the Internet naturally lends itself to broader membership with more debate, fair enough.) That doesn't seem to be a problem for some people (maybe it is for others who join in live discussions but don't come here) but there are different accumulations of akusala and kusala for each of us. Hope to see you again in Thailand or Australia when circumstances permit. I don't suppose it is possible, but if there is ever and alternative or sub group that is more in line with the atmosphere of the live discussions please let me know. (Yes that is an absurd thing to wish for, I know.) Phil P.s Thanks again for the recordings and please know I will be listening. #130548 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:48 am Subject: Re: Delisting announcement14 sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Can't believe it's only 14 - are you sure you've counted correctly? :-)) Seriously, thanks for sharing the extracts and for all your participation as usual. Glad you'll be listening to the recordings (and maybe reading Nina's series). You'd probably be amazed if you heard some of the unedited recordings at the Foundation - amazed at Ajahn's patience for one thing! As you say, lots of different accumulations and any problems always come back to the citta now. There's a very good part on a recording to be uploaded soon. Some of the group went with A.Sujin to Safari World which she loves. They have some very loud, touristy shows there including one called "Spy Wars". Jon & I didn't go, but Tom did. A few days later he raised the topic of taking children to such shows or to violent movies and whether they should be avoided. A.Sujin gave a very good response about how there is only a problem when "it's not the lone world". When thinking and worrying about children going to such shows, at such a time "there is the problem of children because it's not the lone world". What is the lone world? The world of seeing, hearing and so on just now. That's all. Always back to this moment. Best wishes and keep in touch on or off list. Metta Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > > > Dear moderators > > I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. #130549 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:54 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body t.sastri Hi Rob E., - > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. T: It is samatha meditation that leads to wisdom (~nana) and ends at nibbana. Starting with vipassana (e.g. contemplation of the arising & passing away of the upadanakkhandha), given that it is done rightly, also ends at nibbana. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Tep. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob E., Sukin, Jagkrit, Alex, Sarah, Jon - > > ... ... > > Since the DSG philosophy states that wisdom (understanding) is the leader, so isn't it true that wisdom, when developed and cultivated, leads to perfection of mindfulness of the body? > > > > From the kayagatasati sutta: > ...The bhikkhu, gone to the forest, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty house, sits legs crossed, the body straight, and mindfulness established in front. Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out. > > ...When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Again the bhikkhu becomes aware, going forward or turning back, looking on, or looking about, bending or stretching, Becomes aware bearing the three robes and bowl, Becomes aware enjoying, drinking, eating or tasting. Becomes aware going, standing, sitting, lying, speaking, or keeping silence. When he abides diligent to dispel, worldly thoughts and recollections fade and his mind gets established in a single point concentrated. Bhikkhus, in this manner too mindfulness of the body in the body is developed. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = > #130550 From: Sukinder Date: Wed May 8, 2013 1:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts sukinderpal Hi Howard, > > > HCW: > > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? > ------------------------------ > HCW: > Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect > how we respond now and what comes to us now. > What kind of cause /effect are you pointing at, conditionality, kamma / vipaka or is it accumulated tendencies? > ----------------------------- > > So what is it exactly? > ----------------------------- > HCW: > What is *what*? > ---------------------------- > The "interrelationship" which the "staccato, freeze-frame perspective" fails to cover. What exactly are involved in the interrelationship and which concept in the Dhamma it corresponds with? > > > HCW: > > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > ----------------------------------- > HCW: > Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition > reduces to contiguity condition. > There are 24 conditions, I don't remember most of them, but I do believe that they are all different. Saying that conditionality happens in the moment does not imply that there is only one type of condition, namely contiguity condition. That one kind of dhamma arises before another dhamma still points to the conditioning / conditioned relationship that happens in the moment. Even in the case of asynchronous kamma-condition, the kammaja rupa or vipaka citta arises as a result of the coming together of different realities, in the moment. > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > > > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only > conditionality, > > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > > as they are in the conventional world. > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality > reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. > So are you referring to the 24 conditions when you talk about the idea of "interrelationship"? Why would you do this here on DSG, where more than anywhere else, conditionality is emphasized? It seems to me that you are talking about something else, something which we in fact never take into account. So again I ask, what is this "interrelationship" about? My first impression was similar to Ken H's, namely that you are making a case for some kind of "self". > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > > concepts of the Dhamma. > ---------------------------------- > HCW: > You'll state here that this is how it is rather than this is how you > *believe* it is? Okay - it's nice to be a truth knower! ;-) > You mean if I say "I believe" that would give credibility to what I say? Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands at the level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one does not understand at all. Metta, Sukin #130551 From: "Robert E" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 3:45 pm Subject: Re: Delisting announcement14 epsteinrob Hi Phil. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > I'm addicted to coming to DSG, but the experience always leaves me feeling aggrieved and causes me to behave in an uncharacteristically antagonistic way. This is probably because there is so much attachment to the atmosphere of the recorded talks and the atmosphere is so very different here. (Of course it is, it's a different medium, and the Internet naturally lends itself to broader membership with more debate, fair enough.) That doesn't seem to be a problem for some people (maybe it is for others who join in live discussions but don't come here) but there are different accumulations of akusala and kusala for each of us. > > Hope to see you again in Thailand or Australia when circumstances permit. I don't suppose it is possible, but if there is ever and alternative or sub group that is more in line with the atmosphere of the live discussions please let me know. (Yes that is an absurd thing to wish for, I know.) You know, Phil, it's not that absurd, and you could even start it yourself. Anyone can start a yahoo group. It can be moderated and does not have to have open membership. You could start a group called the Khun Sujin Study Group and have the mission of discussing and understanding K. Sujin's interpretation of the Dhamma. No debates, just discussions among like-minded followers. I am not being sarcastic. DSG for whatever reason has a slightly broader mission and allows anyone who is interested in the Dhamma to participate. There's no reason why you couldn't start a sub-group and invite whoever you want to include to join, or just have it be a prerequisite that you accept K. Sujin's teaching of the Dhamma. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130552 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:00 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Hi Robert E, --------- <. . .> > RE: It "almost" sounds like it is advocating meditation. --------- KH: I am glad to see the word "almost." To me it doesn't sound *remotely* like advocating meditation, but I will pay "almost." :-) ------- > "Mindfully he breathes in or breathes out." ------- KH: Even people developing samatha can, in rare cases, develop satipatthana at the same time. ----------- > <. . .> "Again, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu going knows, I go. Or standing knows, I stand. Or sitting knows, I sit. Or lying knows, I lie. In whatever manner his body is placed, that and that he knows. ----------- KH: As the ancient commentaries remind us, even dogs and jackals know "going" (etc) in the conventional sense. So is that what the Buddha taught? Or does a monk, at *any* time, regardless of what he is doing, know the ultimately real (nama or rupa) arammana of the moment? Which do you think? Is the Buddha's mindfulness of the body the same as worldling mindfulness? Or is it something profound? Ken H #130553 From: "sarah" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! .... S: If you look in 'Useful Posts' under 'Person & People, Beings', you'll find countless quotes, such as the following in a message of Phil's: **** SN 35:23 At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that... "And what, Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objexts, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make know another all' - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If here were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexations. For what reason? because, bhikkhus, taht would not be within his domain.'" SN 5:10 "Why now do you assume 'a being?' Mara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found" **** > > Thanks for another quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p.41) of the Kathavatthu. Allow me to give some thoughts as follows. > > 1. "Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: 'there is the person.' ... > > T: Popular speech and convention are man-made. Hammer and car are man-made. There are men who made these things. ... S: They are the creations of cittas. No man to make anything. .... >Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. ... S: Sabhava, intrinsic qualities only refer to characteristics of ultimate realities. It's not correct to refer to ultimate realites as sabhava of concepts. Makes no sense at all and you won't find any textual support for such an idea. ... >It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist > (even for a moment)! ... S: As the texts quoted many times indicate, the wise may refer to the smelling of a rose or to people and things without any misunderstanding that in reality there is no rose, person or thing. ... > > 2. ... it was also said by the Exalted One: 'These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.' (Dialogues, i 263). > > T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. .... S: Citta and the Buddha are also names, expressions used for convenience. Only ever namas and rupas. If you read the very beginning of CMA, it's made clear that there are only 4 ultimate realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. Metta Sarah ===== #130554 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 7:49 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Tep >T: I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. JK: I agree with you on this. Do you have more idea how the level of jinta-maya-panna or direct understanding develop from intellectual understanding? =================== > T: ........... According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. JK: You raise very interesting point. Because before the time of Buddhism, there were a lot of Jhana practitioners, including 2 great teachers of the Buddha; Arraara-daapatha and Uttakka-daapatha. These 2 teachers were great jhana practitioners. When the Buddha enlightened, he thought of his teachers and would like to teach them but it was too late because they'd passed away. The Buddha lamented that disaster had come to them because they would stay in jhana plane of a long long time and never get out of samsara. In my opinion, this different of jhanas shall be investigate carefully. Even though in many suttas and vism mention jhana practice, there must be some crucial points to differentiate Buddism jhana from others. Like in this upanisa sutta, the Buddha stressed the line of supporting conditions. This shall imply certain factors when we look at concentration, not just simple meditation. Best wishes Jagkrit #130555 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:15 pm Subject: The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 14 jonoabb By Nina van Gorkom Ch. 2, 'Living Alone' (cont'd): I was sitting next to Acharn in the car and I enjoyed the mountainous landscape. Meanwhile we had a most beneficial Dhamma conversation. Acharn: "Sometimes there is very strong lobha or very strong dosa (aversion), who can condition that? The nature of attachment is different from the nature of aversion. Who can control them? There must be conditions, no matter kusala or akusala arises. The truth can appear little by little as not permanent. At this moment there can be a little understanding of what appears as uncontrollable; it does not belong to anyone. Can that which arises and falls away and never comes back be anyone? Not at all. That is the way pa~n~naa develops from pariyatti (intellectual understanding), to pa.tipatti (development of direct understanding), to pativedha (direct realization of the truth). Next life one is a different person, suddenly. But past accumulations go on. That is why people have different characters, different likes and dislikes." Nina: "I experience a very pleasant object with pleasant feeling, such as the mountains." Acharn: "It is a reality, it is conditioned. It falls away before we know what it is. As soon as it is an object that is experienced, it is gone. Then another object appears and pa~n~naa can understand that. The intellectual understanding conditions detachment from clinging when time comes. But it is not as effective as direct understanding. The difference between the two can be seen." Nina: "It is not so easy to know direct understanding." Acharn: "When awareness arises it can be seen that it is quite different. Intellectual understanding can condition direct understanding, and it keeps on going by conditions. Otherwise it is always, how, how can `I' understand." #130556 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > > > HCW: > > > > Of course. Not all relationships are at a single moment. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean such things as kamma condition? > > ------------------------------ > > HCW: > > Sure, that. And much more. Even events early on in this life affect > > how we respond now and what comes to us now. > > > > What kind of cause /effect are you pointing at, conditionality, kamma / > vipaka or is it accumulated tendencies? ---------------------------------- HCW: I believe it goes much beyond this. For example, physical conditions that one is born with affect all sorts of things throughout life. Consider birth defects, for example. ----------------------------------- > > > > ----------------------------- > > > So what is it exactly? > > ----------------------------- > > HCW: > > What is *what*? > > ---------------------------- > > > > > The "interrelationship" which the "staccato, freeze-frame perspective" > fails to cover. What exactly are involved in the interrelationship and > which concept in the Dhamma it corresponds with? -------------------------------- HCW: Only-at-the-moment conditionality cannot account for change, for change is a cross-temporal matter. --------------------------------- > > > > > > HCW: > > > > Things no longer existing can affect currently arising things. > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean for example pre-nascence and absence condition? > > ----------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Sure! And there is no need to presume that prenascence condition > > reduces to contiguity condition. > > > > There are 24 conditions, I don't remember most of them, but I do believe > that they are all different. Saying that conditionality happens in the > moment does not imply that there is only one type of condition, namely > contiguity condition. That one kind of dhamma arises before another > dhamma still points to the conditioning / conditioned relationship that > happens in the moment. Even in the case of asynchronous kamma-condition, > the kammaja rupa or vipaka citta arises as a result of the coming > together of different realities, in the moment. --------------------------------- HCW: You have great faith in a particular Abidhammic theory. Particularly, you are certain that it came from the Buddha and is a complete theory. Okay. ----------------------------------- > > > > > OK, So what exactly is the correct notion? > > > > > The basic idea I was trying to get across in the above, is that dhammas > > > rise and fall away each conditioning the other while performing their > > > particular functions, this very well illustrate not only > > conditionality, > > > but also impermanence and non-self. Also it explains how things appear > > > as they are in the conventional world. > > ---------------------------------- > > HCW: > > Here, it seems to me, that you are presuming that all conditionality > > reduces to contiguity. I do not presume this. > > > > So are you referring to the 24 conditions when you talk about the idea > of "interrelationship"? Why would you do this here on DSG, where more > than anywhere else, conditionality is emphasized? It seems to me that > you are talking about something else, something which we in fact never > take into account. So again I ask, what is this "interrelationship" > about? My first impression was similar to Ken H's, namely that you are > making a case for some kind of "self". --------------------------------- HCW: It just ain't so. And there is no basis for it. And, frankly, relating interrelationship to atta-view is absurd, for they go in opposite directions! ------------------------------------ > > > > > And I'l state here, that any other explanation will not only be > > > unsatisfactory, but in fact end up contradicting some of the basic > > > concepts of the Dhamma. > > ---------------------------------- > > HCW: > > You'll state here that this is how it is rather than this is how you > > *believe* it is? Okay - it's nice to be a truth knower! ;-) > > > > You mean if I say "I believe" that would give credibility to what I say? -------------------------------------- HCW: I would make your statement true, and it would protect the truth. ------------------------------------ > Is there a place for doubt in the Dhamma? Either one understands at the > level of pariyatti, patipatti or pativedha and knows it, or one does not > understand at all. ------------------------------------- HCW: This strikes me as quite similar to what devout Moslems would say of Islam, devout Jews of Judaism, and so on. The Buddha warned against such attitudes. --------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukin ====================================== With metta, Howard Safeguarding the Truth "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. (From the Canki Sutta) #130557 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:20 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts jonoabb Hi Tep (and Alex) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Alex, Jon - > > T: There are two issues: > 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. > 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. > > Comment: > 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. > =============== J: When the Buddha spoke of dhammas (whether as dhammas, khandhas, dhatus, etc.) he was referring to those objects that can be directly experienced through a (single) sense/mind door, such as (in the case of rupas), hardness, heat or pressure. As far as I know, there is no instance in the texts where a conventional object (such as a door or person) is said to have the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. > =============== > 2. Path development concerns with sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na. > =============== J: In terms of momentary dhammas, path development refers to a moment of insight (citta with panna that knows anther dhamma as it really is). The path factors are mental factors that accompany such a moment of insight. Those mental factors can be grouped according to the aspects of sila, samadhi and panna. Jon #130558 From: "jonoabb" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)- > > >J: To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane. > > So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person. > > T: I'm sorry to pronounce that you're wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called "wisdom faculty" in the CMI (see p. 90). It is the mental factor #52 (see p. 79). Second, by definition panna is "knowing things as they really are", and as such, it is not found in ordinary men/women. :-) > =============== J: Pa~n~na cetasika is referred to by many different names in the texts (vijja, ~naa.na, vipassana to mention just a few). It is a 'faculty/indriya' (and also a power/bala and a perfection/parami) CMA, Ch. 1, para 13 lists the 8 types of wholesome consciousness of the sense-sphere (kaamaavacara-kusalacittaani). Of these, 4 are cittas that are "associated with knowledge" (~naa.nasampayutta.m). The Guide to para 13 explains the expression "associated with knowledge" as follows: "Knowledge comprehends things as they are (yathaasabhaava.m). In the consciousness associated with knowledge, the word ~naa.na refers to the mental factor of wisdom (pa~n~naa-cetasika), which also represents the root non-delusion (amoha)." > =============== > T: [I think you know that I did not mean to find fault with you, just poking fun a little. Can't do the same to Sukin or KenH, though. :-)] > =============== J: I'll take that as a compliment :-)) Jon #130559 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:59 pm Subject: Khanika Samadhi rjkjp1 Dear Group On another site I was interested to see a friend who thought that khanika samadhi was some rather high level of concentration rather than the momentary samadhi that arises all the time in whatever we are are doing. Here is my post: robertk wrote:without khanika samadhi one couldnt read a book, or even a sentence, couldnt watch tv, or tie one laces. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>Obviously your opinion is different from my interpretation of the >>>>>>text. I think that what I quoted, the rest of the Visuddhimagga, >>>>>>the Suttas, and other Theravada literature, make it clear that >>>>>>>what is required is considerably more than what is required for >>>>>>>reading a book. +++++++ Robert: Khanika has the meaning of momentary. Eggagata cetasika (concentration) arises with practically all cittas, kusala or akusala. From Bodhi's tranlsation of the Abhidhammathasangaha The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkhana). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time that it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. ....Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters in a stream." [page 156 of CMA] Thus i think we agree that khanika samadhi is brief and it can arise with either kusala or akusala- it can be right or wrong concentration. Even in wrong concentration it can be quite strong- like a safe cracker picking a lock say. And of course the suttas are clear that one can attain while listining to Dhamma, or speaking about Dhamma, or thinking about Dhamma. On emoment can be citta with lust or anger, the next could be satipatthana with deep understanding of that moment of lust or anger. Does samadhi strengthen at the moments there is listening and considering with right view? Yes it does, but the key point is in my opinion right view. Here is a link for anyone interested on Khanika samadhi to an old discussion (its brief!) http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=312&hl=khanika #130560 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Jagkrit, - >Jk: Do you have more idea how the level of jinta-maya-panna or direct understanding develop from intellectual understanding? > T: As you explained earlier, cinta-maya-panna is knowledge based on thinking, and suta-maya-panna is knowledge based on learning ("hearing"). So, what you call "intellectual understanding" seems to be rather a combination of knowledge depending on both thinking & learning. The Vism XIV says that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna) is that "which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appana samadhi). >Jk: In my opinion, this different of jhanas shall be investigate carefully. Even though in many suttas and vism mention jhana practice, there must be some crucial points to differentiate Buddism jhana from others. Like in this upanisa sutta, the Buddha stressed the line of supporting conditions. This shall imply certain factors when we look at concentration, not just simple meditation. > T: I like this excellent attitude that you have! Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is indeed a worthwhile subject for a deep study. Arahant Dhammadinna: Singleness of mind is concentration; the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development. [MN 44] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html Truly, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > Dear Tep > > > >T: I am also of the opinion that intellectual understanding (in the ordinary usage; not in the Abhidhamma) is necessary at the beginning of any study. > > JK: I agree with you on this. > =================== > > > T: ........... According to the Upanisa Sutta, experiencing dukkha and faith in the Dhamma support these four conditions. In my opnion, IF the meditator CAN originate the four conditions without knowing dukkha or without having strong saddha (faith) in the Dhamma, then it is also possible that jhana factors may arise. however, I doubt whether the result is the same as the Buddha's Right Concentration, a lokuttara dhamma. > > JK: You raise very interesting point. Because before the time of Buddhism, there were a lot of Jhana practitioners, including 2 great teachers of the Buddha; Arraara-daapatha and Uttakka-daapatha. These 2 teachers were great jhana practitioners. When the Buddha enlightened, he thought of his teachers and would like to teach them but it was too late because they'd passed away. The Buddha lamented that disaster had come to them because they would stay in jhana plane of a long long time and never get out of samsara. #130561 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed May 8, 2013 11:28 pm Subject: Re: Door = reality. Rupa kalapa = concepts t.sastri Hi Jon (Alex, et. al) > J: When the Buddha spoke of dhammas (whether as dhammas, khandhas, dhatus, etc.) he was referring to those objects that can be directly experienced through a (single) sense/mind door, such as (in the case of rupas), hardness, heat or pressure. > > As far as I know, there is no instance in the texts where a conventional object (such as a door or person) is said to have the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. > T: I can find one case. Kayagatasati Sutta: "Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground one day, two days, three days dead bloated, livid, & festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'..." But you are right with regard to door, tree, or mountain. Although these things are impermanent, they do not help develop insight with regard to the five aggregates of clinging and the noble truths. Be well, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Alex) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex, Jon - > > > > T: There are two issues: > > 1. Door does not exist i.e. not directly experienceable, because it is not a paramattha dhamma. > > 2. Path development concerns the understanding of paramattha dhammas. > > > > Comment: > > 1. Door has characteristics of earth element, decay, and impermanence. So it is a reality too; although it is not ultimate reality. > > =============== > #130562 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 1:40 am Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! t.sastri Hi Sarah, - Eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are clearly what make "a person" at the world level. Of course, there is no human in the dhammas at the ultimate-reality level; same as no human seen through an electron microscope! There is no question about that. Again, the same idea is understood in "This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found". The emphasis of these two suttas is on relinquishment of the five aggregates and of the sense media (i.e., they should not be grasped as a being or as a Self); it is not about existence/non-existence. The same misapprehension --the failure to understand relinquishment of nama-rupa-- is again seen in your statement that the man-made things are "creations of cittas" that reside in vacuum disconnected from a being (that does not exist). The underlying Dhamma is: the external worldly things, and internal khandhas & ayatanas, are not to be clung to as 'me, mine, my self'. This is because clinging to them does not lead to cessation of the whole mass of suffering. ........... >>T: Ultimate realities are not man-made; they are sabhava (intrinsic qualities) of man, things (man-made or nature-made) and the Cosmos. It is true that "man", "Cosmos" are labels, but it is not convincing to say "there is no man", "there is no Cosmos". Similarly, it is ridiculous to say I can smell a sweet aroma of a rose, but there is no rose and I don't exist(even for a moment)! >S: Sabhava, intrinsic qualities only refer to characteristics of ultimate realities. It's not correct to refer to ultimate realites as sabhava of concepts. Makes no sense at all and you won't find any textual support for such an idea. As the texts quoted many times indicate, the wise may refer to the smelling of a rose or to people and things without any misunderstanding that in reality there is no rose, person or thing. T: The truth is that khandhas, dhatus, and ayatanas are sabhava-dhammas that are constituents of a being: a concept. The "wise" has been misquoted many times before! In reality the texts emphasize the teaching that says sense pleasure (e.g., conditioned by sweet smell of a rose) and sense object (e.g., a rose) should not be enjoyed and clung to; it is not about existence/non-existence of the sense object or the sense base, etc. When you keep on insisting about non-existence, you'll get trapped in the wrong view forever. Be free, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > T: I am happy to say that I agree with you about the (four noble) truths do not change whether people agree or disagree about existence/non-existence, real/not-real, ultimate/conventional. However the Buddha does not state in that AN sutta, or in any other suttas, that person (puggala) is not a reality. Otherwise, only the dhammas are real, but Buddha and his disciples never existed!! > .... ... ... > > T: What about Citta, was he not real, not existing as other "designations"? Clearly, the Buddha does not say anything about real/unreal, existence/non-existence, ultimate/conventional. > .... > S: Citta and the Buddha are also names, expressions used for convenience. Only ever namas and rupas. If you read the very beginning of CMA, it's made clear that there are only 4 ultimate realities: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana. > #130563 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:58 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > KH: As the ancient commentaries remind us, even dogs and jackals know "going" (etc) in the conventional sense. So is that what the Buddha taught? If the ancient commentaries appear to contradict the suttas, I guess you dismiss what the sutta says. The sutta is pretty clear. The commentary has its own opinion, about "dogs" and "jackals," but the truth is that the awareness that is "mindful" of what the body is doing is *not* the same as dogs and jackals in any way shape or form. Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. > Or does a monk, at *any* time, regardless of what he is doing, know the ultimately real (nama or rupa) arammana of the moment? > > Which do you think? Is the Buddha's mindfulness of the body the same as worldling mindfulness? Or is it something profound? Worldlings do not practice mindfulness. They are generally unconscious of what is going on even on the everyday level of the body at any given moment. Your idea that this is for jackals or worldlings does no justice to the Buddha's teachings. Your understanding of Dhamma is all interpretation through dogma and very little actual reading and comprehension. You have "dogs and jackals" in your head instead of the actual quality of movement, hardness or visual object that is taking place in the body now, which jackals and worldlings are almost totally unaware of. But even being aware of where your leg is moving, or what position you are in, is beyond jackals and worldlings. Trust me, people don't even remember what they just ate. Mindfulness is attention to what is actually happening, and its fruit is awareness and more awareness. It isn't some sort of body-worship. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = #130564 From: "Yawares Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:58 am Subject: Kancanadevi yawares1 Dear members, I just finished cutting flowers and arranged them for my Buddhas-shrine puja...And now it's time to post this beautiful story for you all. *********** Kancanadevi [Wisdom Library] Daughter of the king of Devaputta On the day of her birth jewels fell from the sky and her body was so bright that no lamps were needed when she was by. She entered the Order when she grew up and became an arahant. In her past birth, when she was listening to a sermon at the end of celebrations held at Devaputta in honour of the Bowl Relic, a Naga king fell in love with her. When she refused his attentions, the Naga wrapt her body with his coils, but she continued to listen unmoved. By power of her virtue the Naga was subdued, and he paid her great honour by means of an Udakapuja(Udakapj.-A celebration held by a Nga king in honour of Kacanadev.) ******** Love Buddhas yawares/sirikanya #130565 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 9:51 am Subject: Re: The Buddha & His Disciples Are Not Concepts t.sastri Dear Connie, - > dear Tep, > > > [Replce my deleted message #130534 by this one, please.] > > ok. good thing i saw this one before sending the answer i will delete now. > connie > What's up? The communication line was deleted too!? Be happy, Tep === #130566 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 11:04 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Hi Robert E, ------- <. . .> > RE: If the ancient commentaries appear to contradict the suttas, I guess you dismiss what the sutta says. -------- KH: I don't know what I would do if the commentaries ever appeared to contradict the suttas. It hasn't happened yet. Let's say I will cross that bridge when I come to it. -------------- > RE: The sutta is pretty clear. -------------- KH: The Dhamma is "deep, profound and difficult to see." -------------------- > RE: The commentary has its own opinion, about "dogs" and "jackals," -------------------- KH: Should I ignore the commentary's opinion in favour of yours? --------------------------- > RE: but the truth is that the awareness that is "mindful" of what the body is doing is *not* the same as dogs and jackals in any way shape or form. --------------------------- KH: I would say in it was the same in *every* way shape and form, and I think the commentaries say that too. I think wild animals provide an excellent example of conventional mindfulness. Animals need to be alert for so many dangers, and they can't miss an opportunity for a feed etc. In the main they provide a much better example of conventional mindfulness than safe, comfortable, civilised humans do. ------------------- > RE: Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. ------------------- KH: I have no idea why you would say that. I think animals are, in most regards, very similar to humans. --------------------------- > RE: The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. --------------------------- KH: Please tell me how you would do that. If you practice mindfulness of walking, for example, will you be aware of a bus that is about to run you over? If so, how? You would have to interrupt your walking-watching intermittently in order to check the traffic, wouldn't you? So, when you are walking you will sometimes need to practice non-mindfulness of walking. The same goes for breathing; assuming you are breathing and walking at the same time you will have to practice non-mindfulness of one and mindfulness of the other. If you are also moving your arms, turning your head and chewing gum etc while you are walking, which of those things should you be mindful of, and why? ----------- > RE: We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, ----------- KH: That is the Dhamma version. ------------------- > RE: but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. ------------------- KH: Where in the suttas or the commentaries (or in any of the Pali texts) does the Dhamma say that? ------------------------------ > RE: The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, ------------------------- KH: "The attention to the extent one is aware of it"? Sorry, you have lost me. ---------------- > RE: is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation ---------------- KH: It is not any kind of weird formulation. ------------------------ > RE: that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. > The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. ---------------- KH: Hmm. -------------------- > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. -------------------- KH: No, it indicates that kayagatasati *is* wisdom, and wisdom develops more wisdom. Is walking-watching wisdom? What sort of wisdom would develop from mindfulness of feet? Ken H #130567 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 12:04 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > I think wild animals provide an excellent example of conventional mindfulness. Animals need to be alert for so many dangers, and they can't miss an opportunity for a feed etc. In the main they provide a much better example of conventional mindfulness than safe, comfortable, civilised humans do. You show an astounding ignorance of any sense of what mindfulness is. It is not alertness against a perceived enemy or being hungry for food and then going to eat. All of that can be done without any mindfulness at all. Dogs are not aware of what they are doing as an object or of the specifics of the actions or objects they undertake. They are very skillful at doing what they do, and they are aware of their environment in order to coordinate with it, but that's not mindfulness. > ------------------- > > RE: Dogs and jackals are not aware of their own bodies except as > part of their own peripheral sense of motion or action. They don't turn their attention back on their own actions and are incapable of doing so. > ------------------- > > KH: I have no idea why you would say that. I think animals are, in most regards, very similar to humans. They are not conscious of things as separate object apart from their actions. They don't have that kind of discernment. They take actions based on feelings and drives and do not focus on a specific object in order to know what it is. > --------------------------- > > RE: The kind of conscious attention that is mindfulness is only available to humans and it is the act of being aware in the moment of what is actually taking place instead of being distracted by thoughts and fantasies of present future or non-existent events. > --------------------------- > > KH: Please tell me how you would do that. If you practice mindfulness of walking, for example, will you be aware of a bus that is about to run you over? > > If so, how? You would have to interrupt your walking-watching intermittently in order to check the traffic, wouldn't you? So, when you are walking you will sometimes need to practice non-mindfulness of walking. The same goes for breathing; assuming you are breathing and walking at the same time you will have to practice non-mindfulness of one and mindfulness of the other. > > If you are also moving your arms, turning your head and chewing gum etc while you are walking, which of those things should you be mindful of, and why? One can be mindful of a specific object and still have peripheral awareness of what is going on around one. You don't have to walk in front of a bus. > ----------- > > RE: We can agree that the ultimate version of that is to be directly aware of present namas and rupas, > ----------- > > KH: That is the Dhamma version. > > ------------------- > > RE: but there are intermediate levels as well, such as being aware of concepts, being aware of dhammas through nimittas, etc. > ------------------- > > KH: Where in the suttas or the commentaries (or in any of the Pali texts) does the Dhamma say that? Try the Abhidhammasangaha, I think the Visudhimagga too. Nimittas. > ------------------------------ > > RE: The attention upon currently arising rupas or of the body movement to the extent one is aware of it, ------------------------- > > KH: "The attention to the extent one is aware of it"? Sorry, you have lost me. > > ---------------- > > RE: is the practice of kayagatasati. It is not some other weird formulation > ---------------- > > KH: It is not any kind of weird formulation. > > ------------------------ > > RE: that has nothing to do with what the sutta espouses. > > > The habit of erasing the Buddha's words in favor of your own interpretation of commentary is a dangerous one if you want the Buddha's teachings, but that's your business I guess. > ---------------- > > KH: Hmm. > > -------------------- > > RE: Indeed this sutta indicates that the cultivation of kayagatasati will lead to the development of wisdom. > -------------------- > > KH: No, it indicates that kayagatasati *is* wisdom, and wisdom develops more wisdom. Speaking of the sutta not saying things, it doesn't say that. > Is walking-watching wisdom? What sort of wisdom would develop from mindfulness of feet? The object is not as important as the mindfulness developed, but attention to activities and positions is part of what is described in the suttas. What do you think those direct statements mean? To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - #130568 From: Thanh Nguyen Date: Wed May 8, 2013 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. bostight257 Dear Sarah and Tam B, I have a couple of questions: 1./ I hope you explain more about the practices of "seeing is just seeing". 1a.) This practice can help you understand anatta, is it? How it help you decline the craving for existence, which is lying deeply and subtle that can't transform into thinking? Your practice is just thinking, and maybe, understanding, how can it destroy the defilement which lying deeply than your consciousness? 1b.) "Perceiving the seen as the seen, he conceives [things] about the seen, he conceives [things] in the seen, he conceives [things] coming out of the seen, he conceives the seen as 'mine,' he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." Mulapariyaya Sutta As the 5 hindrances still in you, it's sure that your view is not pure, and "perceive" is the thing that absolute. Just need to "perceive" and that is the cause for all the thing the Buddha said. "Directly knowing the seen as the seen , let him not conceive things about the seen , let him not conceive things in the seen , let him not conceive things coming out of the seen , let him not conceive the seen as 'mine,' let him not delight in the seen. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you." Or "directly knowing the seen as the seen" is like "seeing is just seeing"? 1c.) How can you keep out of not falling to nihilism? 2./ There's a burst of information out there. In spiritual, there are Osho, Krisnamurti,psedo-science.v.v.... Not mention many linear in Vajranaya, Mahayana. Even in Theravada there a some controversial between traditions. In life, there are lot of knowledge we must "update". Technology, business, culture, science..... How are we "knowing as just knowing"? We must learn, at least,some "mundane" knowledge, and we must consider what is according to dhamma, and what is not. And it affect you, at least at subconscious level. Thinking become a tool we use more than ever. So, how are we "restrain the intellect faculty"? Or we just ignore all and practice to what we are taught in our tradition? Keeping our mundane knowledge minimum. 3./ How do we restrain when doing literature (writing poems, novels, or reading them....) and watching movies, news or learn a new knowledge? Or best not doing at all? #130569 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:24 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Hi Robert E, I don't think you have any idea of what meditation is. But don't feel bad, none of the other meditators do either. One meditator famously said on DSG, "It doesn't matter what you mean by `meditation' just so long as you do it." ---- > RE: To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. ---- KH: It might be, but we should be careful with words like `silly' in case we accidentally cause offence. There are many respected Buddhist meditation teachers who think `feet' is the issue. Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. "Once you feel connected to the body, let your attention settle into your feet and lower legs. <. . .> With your attention in the legs and feet, feel the sensations of each step. Feel the legs and feet tense as you lift the leg. Feel the movement of the leg as it swings through the air. Feel the contact of the foot with the ground. There is no "right" experience. Just see how the experience feels to you. Whenever you notice that the mind has wandered, bring it back to the sensations of the feet walking." Ken H #130570 From: "jagkrit2012" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) jagkrit2012 Dear Tep > T: As you explained earlier, cinta-maya-panna is knowledge based on thinking, and suta-maya-panna is knowledge based on learning ("hearing"). So, what you call "intellectual understanding" seems to be rather a combination of knowledge depending on both thinking & learning. The Vism XIV says that knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna) is that "which has reached the stage of full concentration" (appana samadhi). JK: I would like to discuss more about the 3 level of panna. In my opinion, suta-maya-panna can develop by thoroughness of learning either hearing or reading. When one clearly understand dhamma which is taught with no doubt or rough comprehension, then intellectual understanding is fulfilled. Cinta-maya-panna will develop from substantial understanding of suta-maya-panna. One will experience and survey directly dhammas he has learnt which occur to him at the moment of their present. Thus the knowledge in this level arises with direct experiencing real dhammas not only wording. When cinta-maya-panna develop after long and repeatedly experiencing and investigating those dhammas, bhavana-maya-panna starts to develop from further understanding real dhammas as they are. As you mentioned Vism XIV says that bhavana-maya-panna attains at the stage of full concentration (appana samadhi). But bhavana-maya-panna is one level of vipassana not sammatha. Therefore, there should be some clarification to this issue. And according to many suttas arahants attained their enlightenment right after listening to the Buddha's preaching not in the middle of meditation at all. This is again making me more curious on this issue. > T: ...........Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is indeed a worthwhile subject for a deep study. JK: Do you think that samadhi is sammatha? Best wishes Jagkrit #130571 From: "Robert E" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 4:00 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > I don't think you have any idea of what meditation is. But don't feel bad, none of the other meditators do either. > > One meditator famously said on DSG, "It doesn't matter what you mean by `meditation' just so long as you do it." I feel quite certain that it is you who do not understand what meditation is, Ken. You and some others who believe a particular ideology about meditation repeat the same catch-phrases without ever making the logical bridge between what you think and what actually takes place in meditation or what it actually does. But never mind, it's a useless debate as always, and always will be. When you are coming from a specific dogma you will continue to espouse the principles of that dogma no matter what is said or experienced. Even if you meditated yourself, as I guess you did in the past, it would make no difference because you are already fully committed to your view. And that's just the way it is. > ---- > > RE: To say that "feet" is the issue is amazingly silly. > ---- > > KH: It might be, but we should be careful with words like `silly' in case we accidentally cause offence. There are many respected Buddhist meditation teachers who think `feet' is the issue. No they do not. > Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. The fact that attention on the feet is part of walking meditation does not mean that 'feet' are the issue. The reason they focus on the feet is because it is a *walking* meditation, for God's sake, and that is where the main contact takes place, and thus the main sensation. The meditation is on the sensation of stepping, not on the feet per se, just as in breathing meditation the attention would be on the sensation of breathing. It's pretty obvious really, not about 'feet' but about awareness. If it was a handstand meditation the attention would be on the hands. What a shock. > "Once you feel connected to the body, let your attention settle into your feet and lower legs. <. . .> With your attention in the legs and feet, feel the sensations of each step. Feel the legs and feet tense as you lift the leg. Feel the movement of the leg as it swings through the air. Feel the contact of the foot with the ground. There is no "right" experience. Just see how the experience feels to you. Whenever you notice that the mind has wandered, bring it back to the sensations of the feet walking." Yeah, it's just a basic meditation procedure, in this case walking meditation, to pay attention to what is taking place and develop mindfulness through attending to whatever occurs. Or as it is called on dsg, The Devil's Playground. Scary stuff. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #130572 From: "sarah" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 6:54 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > T: That is the most important point of this discussion! How does one prepare/train himself in order to be "ready" for that moment? > .... > S: 'One' doesn't! That's the point! > ... > > S: As soon as there's a question about "how to prepare.... for that moment", it's not understanding present dhammas, no matter how "one" is used. There is still the idea of someone doing something. > >R: What if there is only the idea of how conditions may lead to one or another accumulation or outcome? If there is no "one" involved, and there is no one trying to do anything, but there is just an understanding of conditions, then there is no problem. ... S: Right, then no idea of how to prepare oneself to do anything. ... >R: Everyone goes about their business either reading and discussing scriptures or meditating or eradicating defilements to whatever extent is possible, doing good and trying to avoid doing bad, etc., "as if" these all really do make a difference, but then when discussing them they deny that they have anything to do with the path. It seems to me that such a contradictory divide between what is actually intended and done, and what is acknowledged, is not a very realistic situation. .... S: The more understanding there is that there are only ever just dhammas arising and passing away, the less thought or concern there is about whether this or that is the right activity for such understanding to develop. It is the understanding which knows what are good states, what are bad states, what seeing is (result of kamma), what visible object is and so on. Clearly for such understanding to develop, there has to be firm intellectual understanding of such dhammas, but again it's not a matter of doing something special, but just beginning to understand what appears now. ... > >R: If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. .... S: In fact, there are only conditioned dhammas. The only dhamma study of any value is the understanding of such dhammas now, not by a self trying to do so. ... > > S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! > >R: They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. ... S: We think we are. In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. When there is doubt and ideas of self, there are thoughts about "how can I develop?", and "what to do?". Such thinking, such doubt can be understood when it arises too. Metta Sarah ===== #130573 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 7:51 pm Subject: Self-view is Clinging to Attabhava t.sastri Hi Sarah, Rob E., others- It might be good to sum up the important points about no-self/not-self/no-person we have discussed so far. Correct my miccha-ditthi, if you find it in the following message. The reason that dhamma-cakkhu can eliminate atta-ditthi has to be because both the conception of ego-identity ('atta') in each of the five aggregates and the conception of the five aggregates in 'attabhava' are caused by ignorance -- not knowing the truth: 'Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation'. Self-views and conceit come-to-be via the assumption 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' about the khandhas. The self-views and conceit are overcome by the wisdom: 'This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.'. The seeing and believing that there is someone, a person, is just what is concieved from the sensed data. Without conception, which is a mental formation, then no identity will be conceived. To my understanding the anatta-anupassana~naana (knowledge ) arises with the thought: 'rupa is anatta', 'cakkhu is anatta', ... 'mano is anatta', 'dhamma is anatta'. In that moment there is no self identity, hence 'no person' is "seen" by the eye of wisdom. For the one who has abandoned atta-ditthi there still is attabhava, but there is no clinging to it as 'my self'. Tep === #130574 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 8:27 pm Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body truth_aerator Hello KenH, all, >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. With best wishes, Alex #130575 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 9:56 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Dear Jagkrit, - It seems that our "discussion train" is running along just fine. But what is its destination? >JK: When one clearly understand dhamma which is taught with no doubt or rough comprehension, then intellectual understanding is fulfilled. Cinta-maya-panna will develop from substantial understanding of suta-maya-panna. One will experience and survey directly dhammas he has learnt which occur to him at the moment of their present. T: To my understanding the "knowledge based on thinking" is lower than " knowledge based on learning". But as knowledge based on learning is accumulating, one's thinking is also improving along with the advancement. ......... >JK: Thus the knowledge in this level arises with direct experiencing real dhammas not only wording. T: We differ here as I see "direct experiencing real dhammas" coming after "knowledge which one has acquired through mental development (bhavana-maya-panna)". ......... >JK: But bhavana-maya-panna is one level of vipassana not sammatha. Therefore, there should be some clarification to this issue. T: At the level of "full concentration" (appana samadhi) the citta is associated with the fourth jhana which is samatha, is it not? ......... >JK: And according to many suttas arahants attained their enlightenment right after listening to the Buddha's preaching not in the middle of meditation at all. This is again making me more curious on this issue. T: Thank you for asking me as if I have experienced right concentration. No, I haven't. However, I think I do have enough knowledge based on learning the Suttas and have understood bhavana-maya-panna well enough to talk about it. And I promise to tell you when I don't know (i.e., I will not pretend to know). Now, concerning some ascetics (e.g. the famous Bahiya) who attained arahantship by just listening, we need to know their background enough before making any judgement. ......... >JK: Do you think that samadhi is sammatha? T: Right concentration (samma-samadhi) is samatha. Be well, Tep === #130576 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 3:31 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) truth_aerator Dear Jagkrit, all, >J:And according to many suttas arahants attained their enlightenment >right after listening to the Buddha's preaching not in the middle of >meditation at all. This is again making me more curious on this issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Previously they could have been meditating 20 hours per day, 7 days a week, for many years. Also, they were Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu individuals which according to commentaries, do not exist today (they all became awakened during Buddha's time). How many people did NOT awaken even after listening to the Buddha and considering? What happened to few rare and exceptional cases cannot serve as a general rule relevant to us. It wasn't even relevant to many other monks who lived under the Buddha. Some of us read 100x as much as was required for Arhatship, and still not even sotapannas. Why? :) With best wishes, Alex #130577 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 4:23 am Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) nichiconn right on, alex... it's because we don't understand a single word, not to mention a single dhamma. best wishes, connie > > What happened to few rare and exceptional cases cannot serve as a general rule relevant to us. It wasn't even relevant to many other monks who lived under the Buddha. Some of us read 100x as much as was required for Arhatship, and still not even sotapannas. Why? :) > #130578 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:39 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > >R: If those who say that meditating and even Dhamma study are beside the point and cannot lead to path development, then why don't they stop? And why don't they prove they really believe this by drinking, killing and burning their Dhamma books? I don't mean to be too dramatic but it does seem like everyone really does believe that studying Dhamma - a worldly activity - will lead to the path and to true understanding. > .... > S: In fact, there are only conditioned dhammas. The only dhamma study of any value is the understanding of such dhammas now, not by a self trying to do so. > ... On the other hand, we only hear about such a possibility by hearing the teachings - another worldly activity, though a "special event" -- due to kusala? And most of us would think it was odd if someone talked about discerning dhammas now without having ever read a sutta or commentary. But perhaps you really are saying that all is needed is initial understanding of what a dhamma is, and then from there there is no need to study or try to do anything at all... > > > S: Yes, namas and rupas arise and fall away. When namas arise, they perform their functions and then gone. They don't stop to ask "how to?"! > > > >R: They don't have to ask how to develop, that is true. But there are cittas that do collaborate to ask "how is this taking place?," "how does understanding develop?" etc., and we are engaged in those discussions every day. > ... > S: We think we are. In fact, there are just cittas arising and thinking about all sorts of ideas and falling away. Well, if that is all it really is -- and sounds rather random the way you describe it above -- how is it that such arising and falling away of "thinking, speculating" cittas can lead to pariyatti and beyond? After all it is said here many times that intellectual understanding precedes direct experience of dhammas, but here you are saying that such intellectual moments for cittas are basically meaningless. It seems like there is somewhat of a contradiction there...? > When there is doubt and ideas of self, there are thoughts about "how can I develop?", and "what to do?". Such thinking, such doubt can be understood when it arises too. Well I have to say that this all still sounds very "zen" of you. Zen has a focus on non-intellectual immediate discernment in the moment, however flawed your view might be of their methodology. Are you sure that K. Sujin is not a secret zen Master...? :-) Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = #130579 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:43 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Hello KenH, all, > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. No, you must be wrong about this. The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130580 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:46 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body epsteinrob Hi Alex. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > No, you must be wrong about this. The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. Just to add to this - I don't think the Buddha would ever do the kind of lowly meditation practiced by "dogs and jackals," as reflected in some commentaries. As you know, most dogs and jackals spend a good deal of time doing formal walking meditation, thinking to themselves, "Now I am moving my right front paw, now I am moving my back left paw," etc. It's really not for humans. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #130581 From: "Robert E" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 7:47 am Subject: Re: conventional still matters ...You Hit the Nail on Its Head epsteinrob Hi Sarah. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > Well I have to say that this all still sounds very "zen" of you. Zen has a focus on non-intellectual immediate discernment in the moment, however flawed your view might be of their methodology. ... What the above intended to say was "however flawed you might think the zen methodology is," not intended to say that your view of the methodology was flawed. Bad syntax... Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #130582 From: "Ken H" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:39 am Subject: Re: The importance of the practice of mindfulness of the body kenhowardau Hi Alex, --- <. . .> >> KH: >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. >> > A: It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. --- KH: There is only one way taught by the Buddha -- the 8fold path. Concentration on walking is not the 8fold path. ---------------- > A: Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. ---------------- KH: So you say, so why don't you prove it? Where in the Pali canon will we find anything remotely similar to the "walking meditation" that we find on the internet? As I understand it, many monks devoted their lives to Dhamma-study, contemplation, and discussion. Some of them developed samatha-jhana at the same time. In any case, the monks were reminded by their teachers to exercise occasionally (to stretch their legs). That didn't mean they had to stop what they were doing. Hence the term `walking meditation' came about, but it didn't refer some silly, pointless concentration on the act of walking. In this and many other ways the Buddhism that is taught today is a farcical parody of the original. Ken H #130583 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:51 am Subject: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Hi Rob E., Alex - >Rob E. : The Buddha never did 'formal meditation.' I think he was probably just in meditation all the time, and sometimes he happened to walk, so 2 + 2 = 4. It's just another example of "accidental meditation," which is the acceptable kind. T: The Greatest Teacher taught several kinds of concentration (samadhi) in the Suttas. This is one of them: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html Be cool, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > No, you must be wrong about this. ... > #130584 From: "truth_aerator" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 8:59 am Subject: Abhidhamma masters teaching walking meditation truth_aerator Hi KenH, all, >KH: So you say, so why don't you prove it? Where in the Pali canon >will we find anything remotely similar to the "walking meditation" >that we find on the internet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps not exactly similar in instruction, but: In Satipatthana sutta on 4 postures. Also: "On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha on Mount Vulture Peak. Now on that occasion, not far from the Blessed One, the Venerable Sariputta was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus; the Venerable Mahamoggallana was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus; the Venerable Mahakassapa the Venerable Anuruddha the Venerable Punna Mantaniputta the Venerable Upali the Venerable Ananda was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus. And not far from the Blessed One, Devadatta too was walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus."-SN14.15 =================== Also in commentary to DN2 there it talks about continuing meditating even while walking to the village for alms round. Ken, what you will NOT find is that idea that only hearing dhamma will liberate us. Abhidhamma masters such as Mahasi Sayadaw do teach meditation, including - yes, walking meditation. With best wishes, Alex #130585 From: "connie" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 9:30 am Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration nichiconn dear Tep, > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html > would you happen to know the phrasing for this concentrated monk's discernment? 'in line with what has come into being'? feelings, etc., born of contacts. phassa, a cetasika. so what is this touchy stuff? how can we tell nama from rupa? what is 'form'? the clear reality is pasada rupa. i like in the Vism where it talks about the blood running clear. peace, connie > Be cool, > Tep > === > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Alex. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > > > Hello KenH, all, > > > > > > >Google `walking meditation' and see for yourself. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > It could be a way to discern elements, rupas, and cittas/cetasikas. > > > > > > Even the Buddha and his bhikkhus did walking meditation. > > > > No, you must be wrong about this. ... > > > #130586 From: "colette_aube" Date: Thu May 9, 2013 11:55 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) colette_aube --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote:> Hi all, > > I'd like to point out that some DSG conversations have become farcical. An outside observer would think we are a bunch of idiots. > > The reason they are farcical is that the participants in the conversations are talking about completely different things! Alex, for example, is saying that the Buddha did not teach no self. He is saying that there clearly is a self and the Buddha simply pointed out that thoughts of self were stressful (and stress was an impediment to meditation and therefore meditators should avoid thoughts of self). > > How can there be a sensible conversation if half of the participants think we are talking about a no-self characteristic of reality, while the other half think we are talking about a not-self meditation strategy? > > Ken H GOOD MORNING KEN H., I love it, applause, applause, applause. GREAT APPLICATION! I mean, the cement of the BUDDHIST FOUNDATION could not exist without the ingredient ANATTA existing and being constituent in the FOUNDATION mix. That's the example used to illustrate the concept of FARCICAL and FARCE i.e. "surely you jest" (jesting is a function of the court jester, no?). John Lennon had it nailed when he sang about MIND GAMES since we are dealing with the MIND ONLY school which leads me to my current confusion with/in THE ALAYA VIJNANA. It's a good thing that you, Ken H., recognized a characteristic of the group and it's function of discussion because "that which is discussed" is nothing but a perspective thus is nothing more than a concept or conceptualization of the individual. Only that which has been experienced can be questioned as being a concept or not. Experience is the Buddha's most sought after behavior since only through experience can the individual decide the truth, rigpa, about a "thing" or not. Are we to believe that each individual does not have any experience in the Buddha's words and teachings because they are devotees of BAUBLES and TRINKETS abandoning all else to the wayside based on it's monetary value as if they were members of a communist party in a tiny little town like Beijing? Sorry, "my baby", Henny, won't let me type anymore. She needs something to eat and protection while eating, from the male dogs upstairs so I've gotta end this "jest" of illuminating thought. thank you. toodles, colette #130587 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 1:58 pm Subject: Re: An Example of "Acceptable" Concentration t.sastri Dear Connie, - "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness. [Samadhi.m bhikkhave, bhavetha. Samahito bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathabhuta.m pajanati. Ki~nca yathabhuta.m pajanati? Rupassa samudaya~ca atthagama~nca, vedanaya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sa~n~naya samudaya~nca atthagama~nca, sankharana.m samudayaca atthagama~nca, vi~n~na.nassa samudaya~nca atthagama~nca. ] >C: would you happen to know the phrasing for this concentrated monk's discernment? 'in line with what has come into being'? T: As the above Pali text shows, 'in line with what has come into being' is 'yathabhuta.m pajanati'. >C: feelings, etc., born of contacts. phassa, a cetasika. so what is this touchy stuff? how can we tell nama from rupa? what is 'form'? the clear reality is pasada rupa. T: A person's touchy stuff may not be touchy at all to another; their preferences and biases make someone's viewpoint different from that of another person. Here, the important stuff for me is the following: Samadhi.m bhikkhave, bhavetha! Samahito bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathabhuta.m pajanati. Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > dear Tep, > > > "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he discern in line with what has come into being? The origination & disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling... perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of consciousness." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html > > > #130588 From: Tam Bach Date: Fri May 10, 2013 2:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A couple of question: restrain senses. tambach Dear Bach Lang, Glad to see you back here. Bach Lang: I have a couple of questions: 1./ I hope you explain more about the practices of "seeing is just seeing". 1a.) This practice can help you understand anatta, is it? How it help you decline the craving for existence, which is lying deeply and subtle that can't transform into thinking? Your practice is just thinking, and maybe, understanding, how can it destroy the defilement which lying deeply than your consciousness? --------- Tam B: As in my previous post, I would like to stress that, it is important to understand that the practice is not done by someone trying to do something, as we commonly think. This idea of "someone doing something" is lead by our ignorance of realities. As long as there is still taking what is merely the five aggregates or elements as "I", mine , my-self, it would be impossible to understand the right path. We might read suttas, visudhimagga and all that and still are lead by the idea of someone doing something. The idea that is being suggested by DSG members who agree with Achaan Sujin’s explanation of the Dhamma is that although there is a path, it is not done by a person. A person -a concept - has a lot of ignorance, wrong view, and very little- if at all- right understanding. Ignorance and wrong view can not "practice", only right understanding can. When you say " practice "seeing is just seeing", you are very probably having in mind the idea of someone trying to practice that. But right understanding is not "will", it is not "effort", it is a reality which has its own function and its own conditions to arise. There first has to be this clear understanding that it is not a person trying, but only right understanding, when it arises, it is doing the practice. And what is the condition for the arising of right understanding? Hearing the right Dhamma and wise consideration of what is being heard. It seems to be simple, but it is not. One might think it is simple to understand intellectually “anattaness”. However, understanding of the words is not the same than the intellectuall understanding that many members here refer to as “pariyati”. Without proper consideration, there’s not even intellectual understanding. Because, when intellectual understanding arises, panna cetasika arises with it too, and it knows how it is worth. You are concerned about how what is merely thinking can uproot craving. That is true. Thinking can not. However, what is being suggested here is that, intellectual understanding can grow to become direct understanding, if there is consideration again and again, by conditions, of the realities which appear now with right intellectual understanding. "Thira sanna-firm remembrance" is a proximate cause for sati ,which is directly aware of realities, to arise. When sati has arisen thanks to firm remembrance, it conditions more sati which is aware of realities for understanding to develop deeper and deeper, even to the point of insight knowledge and the experience of Nibanna, where defilements are uprooted by stages. But it is an extremely long process. Craving can not be uprooted right away. Even a sakadagami stills has craving for sense pleasure. But before a higher stage is reached whereby craving is eradicated, the wrong view of self should be eradicated first. We might find craving disturbing and want to deal with it first. However, in reality, as long as there is still the wrong view of someone who can do something at will, instead of just dhammas arising by conditions, it is impossible: “Like a weak man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say “I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river”. It is not posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind does not spring, delight and settle to be released. It should be known as the nature of that weak man. Like a strong man come to the bank of river Ganges, full to the brim with over flowing banks would say I will cut the stream of the river, with my hands and safely cross the river. It is posssible that he would cross the river. In the same manner, Ananda, when the Teaching is given for the cessation of the view of self, the mind springs, delights and settles to be released, it should be known as the nature of the strong man.. .” MN64 ------------------------- Bach Lang: 1b.) "Perceiving the seen as the seen, he conceives [things] about the seen, he conceives [things] in the seen, he conceives [things] coming out of the seen, he conceives the seen as 'mine,' he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you." Mulapariyaya Sutta As the 5 hindrances still in you, it's sure that your view is not pure, and "perceive" is the thing that absolute. Just need to "perceive" and that is the cause for all the thing the Buddha said. -------- Tam B: The five hindrances are obstacle to samatha bhavana, not to vipassana bhavana. The hindrance to vipassana is wrongview. -------------------- "Directly knowing the seen as the seen , let him not conceive things about the seen , let him not conceive things in the seen , let him not conceive things coming out of the seen , let him not conceive the seen as 'mine,' let him not delight in the seen. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you." Bach Lang: Or "directly knowing the seen as the seen" is like "seeing is just seeing"? -------- Tam B: Yes, more or less. Seeing is not a person seeing, it is just an element which arises to perform its function of seeing then falls away, by conditions. The seen is just an element which can be seen, it cannot sees, it arises and falls away be conditions, not a person or something. Is there seeing now? ------------------------- Bach Lang: 1c.) How can you keep out of not falling to nihilism? ------- Tam B: What do you mean by nihilism? ----------------------- Bach Lang: 2./ There's a burst of information out there. In spiritual, there are Osho, Krisnamurti,psedo-science.v.v.... Not mention many linear in Vajranaya, Mahayana. Even in Theravada there a some controversial between traditions. In life, there are lot of knowledge we must "update". Technology, business, culture, science..... How are we "knowing as just knowing"? We must learn, at least,some "mundane" knowledge, and we must consider what is according to dhamma, and what is not. And it affect you, at least at subconscious level. Thinking become a tool we use more than ever. So, how are we "restrain the intellect faculty"? Or we just ignore all and practice to what we are taught in our tradition? Keeping our mundane knowledge minimum. --------- Tam B: It is by conditions that one hears this or that information and agrees with such or such point of view. No one can tell another: this is true, you have to follow it. Only if there is proper reflection and truthfulness that one can find the answer, not without conditions of course. Without the words coming from the enlightenment of the Budda, we would go following our own ideas. But without consideration of what appears now, there will be much doubt about whether this or that interpretation is true. The Buddha said: the dhamma is your teacher. Let it be your teacher now. --------------------- Bach lang: 3./ How do we restrain when doing literature (writing poems, novels, or reading them....) and watching movies, news or learn a new knowledge? Or best not doing at all? ----------Tam B: Again, let not be ‘someone” doing the restrain, but right understanding is! Doing or not doing is still the idea of someone. Try to understand our natural life correctly ,what it really is precisely. The Buddha has taught us in details. There are only causes and effects, causes and effects again and again. But the good news is there's a way out, which is the Noble Path, with right view as the forerunner. Right understanding always does its own work. Tks much for the conversation, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the points discussed. Metta, Tam B #130589 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Dear Jagkrit, (Alex, Tep & all), Many excellent comments and quotes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. > And this should be the same as self view and conceit. > ================================ S: You may also like to see these posts I wrote before: groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59632 groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/59634 From the first one: >S: 1. Bhikkhuni Sutta .................... You (Steve) wrote (#52094): "....to me it seems there is a type of tanha that does not condition rebirth. In a sense I think that could be called a tanha that does not produce suffering(five khandhas)? Its from the commentary to : `This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' (Anguttara Nikaya IV.159, Bhikkhuni Sutta) Commentary: Based on the present craving [ta.nhaa] (i. e., desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root-cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantship) is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? It is unwholesome. Should it be pursued or not? It should be pursued [sevitabbaa]. Does it drag one into rebirth [pa.tisandhi.m aaka.d.dhati] or not? It does not drag one into rebirth." ..... More recently, Nina added some notes on the same lines (#56503) Nina: "This body has come into being through craving...through conceit...through sexual intercourse...through food. These must be abandoned. Thai Co not so clear, but I think: craving is one of the main causes for being in the cycle. Sometimes the term pre-craving is used. So long as there is conceit one has to be reborn, only the arahat has eradicated it. We are still dependent on (leaning on) craving and conceit so long as they have not been abandoned.These should be known as they are by paññaa. That is the way out." ... Sarah: A. Sujin commented that we should consider who the person is who pursues(sevitabba) such tanha and at what level. She suggested that the one who wishes to be an arahant in this context is the one who is close to arahantship and who has very slight tanha left before it is completely eradicated. It doesn't mean it’s a way to encourage anyone (even the anagami) to have tanha, but when it arises, no one can help it. It's inevitable by conditions that when the tanha arises it is (to be) followed (sevitabba). It has to be known at such times by panna in order to be eradicated. In this case, it doesn't drag one into rebirth because on attainment of arahatship, there is no more rebirth. I hope this also answers a comment you raised, Steve, about 'the tanha that does not conduce to further becoming' (in #53194). ***** 2. Nettippakarana reference ............................ In the same post, you also raised the passages from the Nettippakarana and its commentaries: ..... Steve: "As for the tanha that is to be pursued, passages from the Nettippakarana and its commentaries seem to address this point. == There are two kinds of ta.nhaa: skilful [kusala] and unskilful [akusala]. Unskilful ta.nhaa leads to sa.msaara, skilful ta.nhaa is for abandoning, which leads to diminishing [of sa.msaaric activities]. As the text goes on to tell us, quoting a passage from the Majjhima Nikaaya, such skilful ta.nhaa is synonymous with an 'eager desire [pihaa] to enter the peaceful sphere that the ariyas, who having realized it by themselves, dwell in'.[36] Thus, having 'liberation of mind' (ceto-vimutti) due to the 'fading away of [unskilful] desire' (raaga-viraaga) as its object, such ta.nhaa is skilful' (Three cheers for Tanha http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol2/tanha.html) == Nettippakarana: Tattha tanha duvidhaa, kusalaapi, akusalaapi There craving is two fold, kusala and akusala. Steve: The kusala tanha which is an eager desire to `enter the peaceful sphere that the ariyas, who having realized it by themselves, dwell in' is similar to the Bhikkhuni Sutta `'I hope that I, too, will -- through the ending of the fermentations -- enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment- release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.'" ..... Sarah: I raised your comments on these passages as well, specifically the first comments on kusala and akusala tanha. A. Sujin stressed that tanha can never be skilful, but since it will lead or be a condition for understanding by showing up and being seen for what it is, here 'skilful tanha' is used as a kind of shorthand for the understanding of the (akusala) tanha. If tanha never arose and was never seen for what it is, there'd be no way out. In this context, 'skilful tanha' is specifically kusala chanda - it's the keen interest to realize nibbana due to the fading away of tanha. The commentary makes this clear so that we don't mistake tanha for being kusala (which it never is). So, the he 'skilful' simply means the tanha which is understood with chanda and panna.< **** S: As always, the context and the understanding of dhammas are essential when reading different suttas. Metta Sarah ==== #130590 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Dhamma-anupassana jonoabb Hi Alex --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > Dear Jon, all, > > The sutta does seem to suggest a sequence of developing Samadhi: > ============================== > "There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a 1) pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 2) the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 3) mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to 4) the ending of the effluents." an 4.41 > ================================ > > Numbers are mine. There is no way to go around Jhana as requisite. It is part of N8P, it is not optional like arupa attainments. > =============== J: I agree that the 4 kinds of concentration in the sutta are given in order of level of attainment. However, there is nothing in the sutta specifically suggesting that one is a prerequisite for the next. In the Bh. Bodhi translation of this sutta, the 4 kinds of concentration are given as the concentration that leads to the following: 1. dwelling happily in this very life 2. obtaining knowledge and vision 3. mindfulness and clear comprehension 4. the destruction of the taints In his notes to the sutta, which are compiled from the commentaries, Bh. Bodhi says of the first and second of these: 1. "This refers to the attainment of the jhanas either by one who does not use them to develop insight, or by an arahant, who enters the jhaanas simply to dwell at ease". 2. "Mp [J: the commentary] explains "knowledge and vision" in this context as the divine eye (dibbacakkhuaa.nadassanassa pa.tilaabhaaya).". So it seems that there is no necessary causal connection being made between the 4. To my understanding from sources other than the sutta, however, I'd say that 1 would be a prerequisite for 2, and 3 would be a prerequisite for 4. > =============== > A: Before hindrances are suppressed, and mind is tranquil, one cannot really see with insight arising & ceasing. > =============== J: The development of awareness/insight begins with knowing/seeing namas as namas and rupas as rupas, and progresses gradually through the various stages over many lifetimes. The knowledge of arising and ceasing is a highly advanced level. I think we can forget about that level of insight for this lifetime :-)) Besides, there is no need for the hindrances to be suppressed before awareness/insight can begin to develop -- see the "Dhammas" section of the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon #130591 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:36 pm Subject: Re: conventional still matters sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >A:But the Buddha didn't physically speak them. How do we know that what the monks said was not mis-interpretation? Even during the Buddha, there were monks with mistaken views (Sati, Arittha, Devadatta). > > ... > >S: Such monks were not the Mahavihara Theras who preserved the >Teachings. At these early Councils, starting with the first one under >Maha Kassapa, only arahats recited the Buddha Vaccana which included >many commentaries. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Sati, Arittha, etc, were monks who studied under the Buddha - rather than monks living generations after the Buddha. ... S: Yes and it was made very clear that they had dangerous wrong views. The Buddha never praised them as he did the noble disciples who 'commentated' on what he had said, such as Maha Kaccayana: "Maha Kaccaana is wise, bhikkhus, Mahaa Kaccaana has great wisdom. If you had asked me the meaning of this, I would have explained it to you in the same way as Mahaa Kacaana...." MN 18 All the words of the arahats were 'Buddha vacana'. ... > Also, how do we know that commentators were Arahants, or even ariyans? ... S: We know from the descriptions of the early councils that they were all arahats. Even Ananda was not going to be able to attend the First Council under Maha Kassapa to recite the Teachings unless he became an arahat first (which he did during the night beforehand). You can read more about the early councils (lots of material in U.P. and the commentaries). There's bound to be lots of doubt about whether these teachings are correct or not until dhammas are understood as anatta and the clear distinction between namas and rupas are known. Metta Sarah ===== #130592 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: SN 55:55: > > "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the > > realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? > > Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, > > practice in accordance with the Dhamma...." > > > > As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the > > Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness > > accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently > > arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view > > to having that consciousness occur."< > >R: I think this last point is a point that has been in dispute for a long time, and is not resolved. I have never seen a quote from any scripture, whether sutta or commentary, that claims that the act of meditation is wrong view or wrong practice - not a single one. ... S: What do you mean by "the act of meditation"? Metta Sarah ==== #130593 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:54 pm Subject: Re: Conventional still matters sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: Yes, it primarily depends on 'one's own' past kamma as to whether cuti citta arises now or not. For kamma to bring its results, there are many other conditions which act as support. One of these may be the temperature or hardness of a knife or bullet, for example, that is experienced through the body-sense, also as a result of past kamma and decisive support condition. > >R: That's great - good to know about those possible supporting rupas as a result of kamma. That was the kind of detail I was trying to find out. One can only hope for vipaka where the knives and bullets are not that hard! ... S: Yes, it depends on past kamma whether the vipaka arises at that moment (through the body-sense) to experience hardness (and if so what kind of hardness!). Even in a deadly battle, not every soldier is injured or killed. Metta Sarah ==== #130594 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 5:58 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > >S: c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. > >R: Thanks Sarah, for the refresher on the three forms of dukkha. Does one experience sankhara dukkha directly in one of the vipassana-nanas? ... S: Good question. Even now, when there is an understanding of a reality as a reality, not self, it is the very beginning of understanding sankhara dukkha. However, it is only when the arising and falling away of realities are clearly understood (at the third vipassana-nana) that dukkha is really understood, because it is the understanding of the unsatisfactoriness of the arising and falling away of dhammas directly which is the understanding of sankhara dukkha. Metta Sarah ==== #130595 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > >S:As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with >the Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of >consciousness> accompanied by insight that knows something about the >true nature of a presently arising dhamma. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > And why would those states arise? Because of conditions, one of which is actual practice. ... S: As made clear in the sutta referred to, associating with the wise, hearing the wise words and careful consideration. The 'practice' that leads to insight is the right understanding of dhammas. It is the kusala citta with panna (understanding) that is always referred to. ... >A: Imagine if a person was droped into a lake and merely wished for conditions to bring him to safety. He will need to actually swim. > Swimming happens due to conditions, but this doesn't mean that one doesn't put the required effort now. ... S: No one to put in any effort. When right understanding arises, right effort arises with it. These other factors 'circle around' right understanding. Metta Sarah ===== #130596 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:16 pm Subject: Re: Hit your finger with a hammer! jonoabb Hi Rob E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > > > J: ... in the teachings, *cittas* are said to have a function (Pali: rasa), but *rupas* are not. > =============== J: Just a quick correction and a clarification here. The correction is that the Pali term for function here should have been 'kicca', not 'rasa' -- see CMA Ch. III, para 8 to 10. The clarification is that I was referring to the ascribing of a function other than the 'function' part of the 4 defining devices (i.e., characteristic, function (rasa), manifestation and proximate cause) used by the Pali commentators to delimit any dhamma (including rupas). Now to get on with responding to your comments (hoping that I've not just muddied the waters :-)) > =============== > > RE: Okay. However it is classified, "being heard" or "being audible" is the same thing as being an audible object, or object of hearing. It doesn't say anything about the rupa except what it already is. That is fine, but it seems to me that is the long and short of what an object of hearing is. In other words, rupas are characterized by exactly what they are...? Fine, if that's what it is. > =============== J: Yes, I think that's pretty much how it is. Audible object is that which is heard. The important thing, however, is that the 'that which is heard' is not voice or words or person speaking but merely the audible data from which the concepts of voice, words or person speaking is built up/recalled by the mind (i.e., by thinking, with the help of memory and other mental factors). > =============== > > J: However, it it's not said that rupas have the function of being experienced, since rupas arise independently of a citta experiencing them. The conditions for the arising of rupas do not include the simultaneous arising of a citta that experiences them. > > RE: Right, that is understandable and thanks for clarifying that. My interest is in figuring out what the significance, if any, there is of sabhava. It seems less important for rupas than for namas. > =============== J: I wouldn't say that. The significance is that being 'sabhaava' means that there is a characteristic that can be directly known by panna. So it is equally important for both. In the case of audible object, for example, awareness/panna will directly know what is appearing to hearing consciousness as the element that is experienced by that particular consciousness. > =============== > > J: Regarding <>, it's a characteristic in the sense of being an attribute, since only sound can be experienced by (i.e., be the object of) hearing consciousness. > > RE: I guess that can be seen as an attribute of the rupa, or it could be seen as an attribute of the nama which can only hear X but not Y. Is that the rupas fault if the nama is not designed to experience it? > =============== J: The characteristic/attribute of hearing consciousness is that it experiences audible object that appears at the ear door. > =============== > RE: If the nama were designed to hear "hardness" then that would become "audible" too, without any change on the part of the rupa. > =============== J: Hypothetical :-)), but if you're saying that the conventional labels are immaterial, then, yes. Jon #130597 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:18 pm Subject: Re: Nina's accident sarahprocter... Hi Rob E, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > S: The 3 kinds of dukkha we discussed before are: > > > > a) dukkha dukkha which refers to unpleasant mental and bodily feelings (so this would include both the arrows). The Buddha and arahats (and anagamis) still have bodily unpleasant feeling, but no aversion, no mental unpleasant feeling on account of the painful bodily feeling. > > > > b) viparinama dukkha which refers to pleasant feeling and the way it never lasts - always leading to unpleasant feeling. > > > > c) sankhara dukkha refers to neutral feeling and all condtioned realities. This is what the Buddha teaches throughout, including in the description of the first Truth of Dukkha. All conditioned dhammas arise and fall away, so all are inherently unsatisfactory and not worth clinging to. > >R: Another question on these. As there are three forms of dukkha corresponding to unpleasant, pleasant and neutral vedana, are there also different forms of anicca and anatta, or are they just single? .... S: As you know, all conditioned dhammas are anicca and anatta. So this means that all the dhammas referred to above are anicca and anatta. Impermanence may be referred to in a conventional sense and we can also say concepts are anatta in the sense they are not atta, but in all the Teachings, whatever we read, the Buddha is pointing to the understanding of sankhara dhammas as anicca, dukkha and anatta. ... > > It also interests me that dukkha follows the different types of vedana - wonder if there is a special reason for that. ... S: I think it's because of the great importance we give feelings. This is why the second khandha is vedana khandha. When there is bodily or mental unpleasant feeling (dukkha dukkha) we find is so disturbing, so important. Likewise, all day we look for pleasant feeling which never lasts (viparinama dukkha). The Buddha pointed out that all dhammas including neutral feeling and these other types are sankhara dukkha. It's just an emphasis on vedana, but all such dhammas are included. ... > >R: Since dukkha, anicca and anatta together mark all sankharas, I would guess that there is at least sankhara anicca and sankhara anatta, if not the other forms. ... S: Well, "sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". For anatta, nibbana is also included. Thanks for your careful consideration and helpful comments. Metta Sarah ===== #130598 From: "sarah" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 6:20 pm Subject: Re: Words of Ajahn Sujin 5 (ignorance of realities now) sarahprocter... Dear Phil & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" wrote: > "If we want to know a great deal without understanding ignorance of realities right now, there is no way to eliminate ignorance." ... S: Good one! Metta Sarah ==== #130599 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri May 10, 2013 7:17 pm Subject: Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti) t.sastri Hi Sarah (Jagkrit, Alex, others) - The great monk Ananda also told the young Bhikkhuni the following: "There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will " through the ending of the fermentations " enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then, at a later time, he abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said." ....... He also told the bhikkhuni about abandoning conceit: "This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned." Because of conceit a good monk, who desires to become a better monk, compares himself to another: "Oh, he is a better monk than I! I hope that I, too, will attain the same concentration and knowledge." So he exerts himself in the samadhi bhavana taught by the Buddha, and soon realizes the same attainment in concentration and knowledge. He does not worry whether there is a "self" doing the concentration development like some DSG members do! The problem we have here is "intellectually" over-analyzing, over-speculating! The consequence is that we're over-confusing each other. Sincerely, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Jagkrit, (Alex, Tep & all), > > Many excellent comments and quotes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jagkrit2012" wrote: > > > JJ: I quite agree with Scott that the meaning of "by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned" should mean that craving which arises and falls away can be the object of sati to experience its reality until panna directly understands its nature completely and automatically abandons craving. Not relying on craving in the sense that applying more and more craving to become arahant to abandon craving of all. > > And this should be the same as self view and conceit. > > ================================