2600 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Study time ! Dear Mike, Love it. robert --- "m. nease" wrote: > , you would be the most > > fruitful, > > A fruit fly, maybe? This reminds me of a funny story: > When I lived at the Foreign Yogis' Quarters at a > meditation center in Rangoon, someone once left a > cantaloupe as an offering for the monks. Before I > could get to it to offer it to them, the fruit flies > found it and it was pretty well infested. I couldn't > resist (well, I've told you my meditation was no > good--I had to do SOMETHING)--I wrote on a slip of > paper, "TIME FLIES LIKE AN ARROW--FRUIT FLIES LIKE A > CANTALOUPE" and left it on the table. What a > controversy this started! I hadn't reflected that I > was the only native English-speaker there. I was > observing silence and everyone wanted an > explanation--everyone was discussing the meaning--you > could've cut the papańca with a knife... > > Thanks for the kind words--just thought you might find > this amusing... > > Apologies, Moderators! > > mike 2601 From: amara chay Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 1:19pm Subject: Re: Study time ! > A fruit fly, maybe? This reminds me of a funny story: > When I lived at the Foreign Yogis' Quarters at a > meditation center in Rangoon, someone once left a > cantaloupe as an offering for the monks. Before I > could get to it to offer it to them, the fruit flies > found it and it was pretty well infested. I couldn't > resist (well, I've told you my meditation was no > good--I had to do SOMETHING)--I wrote on a slip of > paper, "TIME FLIES LIKE AN ARROW--FRUIT FLIES LIKE A > CANTALOUPE" and left it on the table. What a > controversy this started! I hadn't reflected that I > was the only native English-speaker there. I was > observing silence and everyone wanted an > explanation--everyone was discussing the meaning--you > could've cut the papańca with a knife... > > Thanks for the kind words--just thought you might find > this amusing... Dear Mike, Scrumptious!!! (- the story, not the cantaloupe!!!) Amara 2602 From: Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 3:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] dear sir mike, dont worry about the orientations.Please keep the discussion-thread alive. Every internal orientation(towards laylife or towards monklife) needs to be paid attention and examined. 00 7 \/ regds. 2603 From: Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 3:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Study time ! Ö \/ mmmph.... hahaha.. 00 7 \/ mmmph....hehehe 2604 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 5:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] Dear Mike, An initial reaction of mine sometime ago was, "Go ahead Mike, become a monk. I think you will be a good one. The sangha in it's present state, needs someone with your kind of dedication to keep check, however little, it's force of decline." I thought that Sarah's and others' opinion on this matter would only be healthy suggestions, keeping in your awareness the various pitfalls that you might otherwise overlook. It is my opinion (which I hope is not a burden to me), that 2500 yrs. is a very short time; in fact at some moments it seems just like yesterday, for the sangha as an institution, and hence the vinaya, and parts of the sutta addressed mainly to monks, to become obsolete. I think firstly that the institution of monkhood should be seen as being on a different plane. That we laypeople must be careful about using 'our' normal everyday sense of judgement to view 'their' normal everyday life. And even to use our understanding of dhamma to make any conclusion about them. It is true that monks and laypersons are ultimately the same, in that we are the 'five khandhas', and hence it being valid that we have the same point of reference from which to view their understanding. What I do however see as an important point of departure, is that the layperson decides to forgo of the 'known past' to embrace a new way of life, a world in which all his past ways of reacting to stimuli has to change. Surely along the way, since past accumulations are so tough, it is possible that he might develop along the path even more slow than he himself might, had he remained a layperson. But none is 'born' a monk, and the decision has to be made. That decision is made, when we are very young, perhaps by force of circumstance, or when we are older, without any, little or relatively high understanding. But once we are in it, the world changes. We may bring in various degrees of the world along with us, and we might even complicate our world even more when we are in it. But this is all a matter of each persons kamma as it is in the layperson's world. But the rules ARE different, because the world IS different. I think that this discussion is important for me. I need to learn from everyone's opinion, because I think I have so many unquestioned ditthi, infact I have so little confidence in my own view that I would not have written had you not suggested to keep this topic off-list. My interest has been in part due to my own wish that I become a monk in my next life,(perhaps because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence),and also because I feel the need for the institution of monkhood to flourish in order that laypersons like myself, may come in contact and be inspired by the Triple Gem. I am certain that, had there not been good monks out there, I would not be here today. Lately I've noticed how my thinking is so conditioned by certain habitual ways of reasoning. I tend to overlook certain subjects which are so obvious to others. Especially with this group, where thinking in terms of 'elements' is done with so much ease, I am still stuck with thinking in terms of 'events' happening in 'time'. I'm sure it has been the case here too. That is why it is so important to 'discuss'. And so I will now comment on some of your points; > Shouldn't that be the goal of us all? How could we > have any understanding of the dhamma and not aspire to > the life of an arahat? As I stated above, the world is different for both.The difference here I think is that the monk has this goal more or less constantly in mind, whereas we have other things to 'think' about. > Granted, observation without understanding will not > result in understanding and its attendant eradication > of ignorance. But if the precepts are strictly > observed, even without understanding, how can akusala > acts be said to have been committed? As I commented to someone at our 'saturday discussion' here, that while observing a precept (without understanding), we are at that moment, 'thinking about observing' and hence postponing the observing of reality arising at that moment. However it is my opinion that there are many degrees of panna, we do not need to have complete understanding of the vinaya to observe them, but only enough to realize that they were handed down by Sammasambuddha and hence perfect for its purpose. Secondly, understanding that all these rules are for the development of perfect sila which would enhance a side by side development of panna, I think there is no reason to follow any rule unwillingly. Ofcourse our accumulations exist and there are many many more moments when moha, dosa and lobha take rein, but panna also can. The little panna that says,"This is your life now, if you do this, that will be. If you do that, this will be." > It isn't that one would want them--it's that a huge > amount of the Buddha's time was spent exhorting people > to adopt them. This is my central point. Yes, since you say it (I haven't read anything mysel),I think so too. > So we have nothing > left to go on but the abhidhamma and an a handful of > suttas, after only half the sasana. Maybe that really > is true, and maybe I'll come around to it > eventually. My personal opinion is; read the abhidhamma for the fact about ultimate reality, and read the sutta for case examples about it's manifestations in the conventional world, in order that we might have a 'better' understanding of the ultimate realities. > Yes, but he certainly considered it less stressful > than the householders life (he often joked about > this). Yes I think so too, but for me it may be the case of the grass being greener. > Indeed--and, as always, the Buddha had different > answers to that question for monks and householders > (except in the case of individual instructions to > extraordinary householders). I don't know, but I would assume that he did. But I am curious now, about these cases where the teaching was specifically for monks and the so called 'extraordinary householders', can you please give examples? > True! As you know, that's the hardest (material) > thing for me to relinquish, at present... It seems to me that you are at this point, not willing to give up your present world. The computer is just a source of the teachings and discussion. Do you wish that you could become a monk and at the same time be able to surf the net? > I'm not, at all. Robes are just a practical solution > to reducing one's need for clothing to a reasonable > minimum. I don't believe the Buddha ever meant them > to be anything else (aside for some peripheral > symbolic uses). I do not think Acharn Sujin meant it this way either. I think that she meant by the 'yellow cloth' to mean the whole idea of becoming a monk. > Scrupulous observation of the 226 precepts is equal to > not committing kamma-pathas. Easier to follow with some necessary understanding. > I truly think you're too kind. I don't see myself > being able to guide others for years, if ever. As for > the rest, call me crazy, but my biggest motivation > comes just from having read the suttas--the > instructions are quite unambiguous. Maybe they're > also obsolete, I don't know...if so, my good > intentions regarding the rest are probably out the > window too... Like it has been pointed out before, the dhamma is so deep that any interpretation is bound to fall short of intended meaning. We can't question the Buddha's teachings, but we can express our understanding and test it. > Are you sure? The group is so utterly lay-oriented--I > can't help thinking it might be better to continue > off-list, for those who are interested. I am lay Mike, only because I can't become a monk. > Thanks for your continued interest and for forcing me > to continually re-examine my thinking on this... Same here from you. Hope I didn't bore anyone with this long post. Sukin. 2605 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 5:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Mike, Dan & friends, I just came across a reference to the 'four kinds of fear' in BB's translation of the commentary notes to the Samannaphala Sutta: (p.63 for those who have it) .....herein, there are four inds of fear: fear as mental anxiety (citt'utrasabhaya), fear as knowledge (nanabhaya), fear as a fearful object (arammanabhaya) and fear as moral dread (ottappabhaya)... Fear as mental anxiety is the kind of dosa we're all too familiar with (and this is the one in the passage that King Ajatasattu experiences as he approaches the Buddha) Fear as knowledge is the one Robert and Amara have given full details on. Here in the Comy it also quotes the passage from the Vis, stressing 'it does not fear' Fear as a fearful object is 'something from which fear arises' Moral dread is the one I discussed- the 'moral shame' in akusala. This is an area where there can be and is a lot of misunderstanding I think...as in your fire and brimstone story..... Sarah Mike (or Fruitfly Sir if you prefer), I'm about to start back to my teaching so there may be delays to other posts and I can see this is going to be one of those busy post months...so apologies for any delays in advance. Alex, so good to have you back with your humour and kind & constructive comments. Do hope your father's doing o.k.... When I switched on my list here on yahoo today there was an advertisement at the top above the list which said "Ultimate Reminders'.....(actually an ad for calendars, but just the heading that caught my eye)...if we have to have ads, this seems pretty appropriate! --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for the helpful comments. > > --- Sarah Procter Abbott > wrote: > > > The Buddha never recommended any kinds of dosa > > (aversion). I wonder if you are referring here to > > hiri > > and ottappa often translated as moral shame and > fear > > of blame? > > Very likely, yes. I first heard this a long time > ago. > The (very decent) monk I heard it from was of a > somewhat anti-scholastic bent, and was possibly not > very careful of the translation. > > > From the English translations it can sound > > as if these are kinds of aversion about misconduct > > which is why we have to study the meaning of the > > Pali. > > This is the way I took him to mean it. He also > placed > a great deal of emphasis on sila (much more than on > samadhi or pańńa) and I suspect would not have > minded > people (monks especially!) feeling fear associated > with the idea of akusala kamma--though I may have > misunderstood him. > > > The translation as fear can be misleading. S'times > > hiri is translated as conscience or conscientious > > scruples and ottappa as seeing the danger in > blame. > > Maybe these sound more 'wholesome'. > > Well, these do make sense, don't they? In fact, > 'seeing danger in the slightest transgression', for > example, isn't exactly the same as fear. In fact, I > find it reassuring, a sort of sense of security. > > > In fact these are both sobhana cetasikas > (wholesome > > or > > beautiful) accompanying each sobhana citta > > (wholesome > > consciousness) so there can be no aversion > involved. > > Well then, I guess we can be sure that, if we're > experiencing domanassa, we're not experiencing hiri > or > ottappa. Interestingly, that was the downfall of > this > monk's dhamma talk; it tended to (I think) try to > inspire fear and shame, kind of like a puritanical > fire-and-brimstone sermon. Never seemed quite > right, > to me... > > > Hiri refers to shame of akusala (unwholesomeness) > > and > > ottappa refers to fear of blame or seeing the > danger > > of blame. The opposites (ahirika and anottappa) > are > > shamelessness and recklessness. The more > > undestanding > > sees the danger and impurity of akusala, in a > > wholesome sense, the more hiri and ottappa will be > > developed. > > I guess if you see (and heed) the warning sign, you > don't have to experience the fear of driving off the > cliff! > > > In the Vis., it talks about them as the > > proximate condition for sila: > > > > ...For when conscience (hiri) and shame (ottappa) > > are > > in existence, virtue arises and persists; and when > > they are not, it neither arises nor persists... > > > > I highly recommend the chapter on these in > Cetasikas > > by NVG which I think you've bought. > > Yes, I do have a copy, but have to finish AIDL > first! > This may take a while (at the rate I'm going...!) > > > Hope this helps > > Definitely! > > > and apologies if I misunderstood you > > as always! > > Not at all--thanks again. > > Rgds back at you! > > mike > > 2606 From: amara chay Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 6:08pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > It isn't that one would want them--it's that a huge > amount of the Buddha's time was spent exhorting people > to adopt them. This is my central point. Dear Mike, If I am not mistaken, the Buddha did not spend most of his life exhorting people to become Bhikkhu, although he did highly praise the ordained life. He also praised brahmas and devas for their virtues which does not mean that he meant for people to become those beings, he was stating a fact. You will have seen that he taught laypeople according to their status as well, how to be anything from a good robber to a good king, not to mention father, mother, sons, daughters, husbands and wives, students and everything else when he was asked. He did praise the ordained life to bhikkhus, and the majority of his teachings were for them since they were the ones that surround him and followed him to hear his teachings to others as well. And at first they were mainly arahantas or those with accumulations to become one, as he alone could really tell. You will notice that he also told many laypeople in those days not to become bhikkhus, as they could live the dhamma in daily life, according to their accumulations. It may be > true that the dhammavinaya is so obsolete that that > large portion of the suttapitaka can be chucked. (It > would certainly streamline things--if it were reduced > to only the instructions he gave to householders, it > would fit conveniently into a handbook!) I'm not even > saying this isn't true. You've all come a long way > toward convincing me that it IS true. If so, out with > the vinaya and most of the suttanta. (The dhamma as > the Buddha taught it to bhikkus was inseparable from > the vinaya--the dhammavinaya). So we have nothing > left to go on but the abhidhamma and an a handful of > suttas, after only half the sasana. I don't see why you would want to waste such a collection of knowledge which could all add to your understanding of the truth as it really is, it's as if you don't need the encyclopedia to go to work each day so let's chuck it all, surely you don't mean that! Even in the vinaya there are rules that could make any society run more smoothly, if anyone cared to apply them, some are even normal social graces such as not chewing noisily. The thing is that while a lot of the rules might come naturally for some people today, some are things natural only to the arahanta or the anagami- although some anagami in the times of the Buddha were also laypeople who never became ordained. For the arahanta, they would naturally enter the order and just as naturally live the life of the bhikkhu, vinaya and the rest to be added to or not, their inclinations would never be for anything outside the vinaya anyway. This is not so for most bhikkhus today, as far as I see they seek ways to 'modernize' the rules, in other words break or bend them towards what they consider convenient. The vinaya says no gold or silver, what about bank accounts? Had the Buddha lived till now, the vinayas would have grown with the ways people try to just beat the fine prints, I would say. All of the teachings are about kilesa, and how to attenuate our accumulations of them, so every word is useful, depending on our level of understanding them, or even to read them. Maybe that really > is true, and maybe I'll come around to it > eventually. At this point, the enormity of that > conclusion is more than I'm prepared for. According to predictions, you don't have to worry about the Vinaya or the Sutta, the first book to disappear, just because people will cease to study it, will be the Abhidhamma. Which is why we are extremely lucky to be alive while it is still more or less intact. No need to chuck anything out, time and others will do it for you, in the meantime before they all disappear, take the opportunity to study as much of anything as you want, you never know when you will get to see anything again! Anumodana in your wanting to preserve the vinaya, most bhikkus wouldn't even want to study even that these days, much less observe all of the over 200 of them! Amara 2607 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 6:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Very helpful Amara, I'll just add alittle: > > > > It isn't that one would want them--it's that a huge > > amount of the Buddha's time was spent exhorting people > > to adopt them. This is my central point. > > > Dear Mike, > > If I am not mistaken, the Buddha did not spend most of his > life > exhorting people to become Bhikkhu, although he did highly > praise > the ordained life. He also praised brahmas and devas for > their > virtues which does not mean that he meant for people to become > those > beings, he was stating a fact. You will have seen that he > taught > laypeople according to their status as well, how to be > anything from > a good robber to a good king, not to mention father, mother, > sons, > daughters, husbands and wives, students and everything else > when he > was asked. > > He did praise the ordained life to bhikkhus, and the majority > of his > teachings were for them since they were the ones that surround > him > and followed him to hear his teachings to others as well. And > at > first they were mainly arahantas or those with accumulations > to > become one, as he alone could really tell. You will notice > that he > also told many laypeople in those days not to become bhikkhus, > as > they could live the dhamma in daily life, according to their > accumulations. _________ VERy good. Just one point "he also told many laypeople not to become bhikkhus" - is that accurate. Or is it that he only recommended monkhood for those with accumulations. Certainly when you read all the suttas he met so many laypeople - many of whom were sotapanna-anagami or about to becoem it and he didn't tell them to become monks. Why not? he knew it wasn't the right life for them. Related to this in a couple of suttas a layman listens to the buddha and then says "well must go now". later the Buddha comments "if that man had listened for another short while he would have become sotapanna". Now you might wonder why the Buddha didn't entreat the person to stay. It is because of the anattaness of dhammas. Even the buddha can't make someone have awreness- it depends on conditions. people find this hard to accept; so, for example, we have all these exhortations to sit and concentrate as if this is all it takes to have satisampajana. So easy also to think that the monks life must make it easy to have satipatthana. >___________ > > It may be > > true that the dhammavinaya is so obsolete that that > > large portion of the suttapitaka can be chucked. (It > > would certainly streamline things--if it were reduced > > to only the instructions he gave to householders, it > > would fit conveniently into a handbook!) I'm not even > > saying this isn't true. You've all come a long way > > toward convincing me that it IS true. If so, out with > > the vinaya and most of the suttanta. (The dhamma as > > the Buddha taught it to bhikkus was inseparable from > > the vinaya--the dhammavinaya). So we have nothing > > left to go on but the abhidhamma and an a handful of > > suttas, after only half the sasana. > > > I don't see why you would want to waste such a collection of > knowledge which could all add to your understanding of the > truth as > it really is, it's as if you don't need the encyclopedia to go > to > work each day so let's chuck it all, surely you don't mean > that! > Even in the vinaya there are rules that could make any society > run > more smoothly, if anyone cared to apply them, some are even > normal > social graces such as not chewing noisily. > > The thing is that while a lot of the rules might come > naturally for > some people today, some are things natural only to the > arahanta or > the anagami- although some anagami in the times of the Buddha > were > also laypeople who never became ordained. For the arahanta, > they > would naturally enter the order and just as naturally live the > life > of the bhikkhu, vinaya and the rest to be added to or not, > their > inclinations would never be for anything outside the vinaya > anyway. _______ Yes Khun sujin recommends study of the vinaya for laypeople. It is the outward sign of a life of satipatthana . >_________________ > This is not so for most bhikkhus today, as far as I see they > seek > ways to 'modernize' the rules, in other words break or bend > them > towards what they consider convenient. The vinaya says no > gold or > silver, what about bank accounts? Had the Buddha lived till > now, > the vinayas would have grown with the ways people try to just > beat > the fine prints, I would say. All of the teachings are about > kilesa, > and how to attenuate our accumulations of them, so every word > is > useful, depending on our level of understanding them, or even > to > read them. > > > Maybe that really > > is true, and maybe I'll come around to it > > eventually. At this point, the enormity of that > > conclusion is more than I'm prepared for. > > > According to predictions, you don't have to worry about the > Vinaya > or the Sutta, the first book to disappear, just because people > will > cease to study it, will be the Abhidhamma. Which is why we > are > extremely lucky to be alive while it is still more or less > intact. > No need to chuck anything out, time and others will do it for > you, > in the meantime before they all disappear, take the > opportunity to > study as much of anything as you want, you never know when you > will > get to see anything again! > > Anumodana in your wanting to preserve the vinaya, most bhikkus > > wouldn't even want to study even that these days, much less > observe > all of the over 200 of them! TOO much generalisation. there are still most Bhikkhus who study the vinaya to some degree. robert --- 2608 From: amara chay Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 6:47pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > TOO much generalisation. there are still most Bhikkhus who study > the vinaya to some degree. Dear Robert, What I meant by study is also to understand and observe the Vinaya in which case I would also like to amend that to ALMOST ALL bhikkhus do not study the rules, which is why we have all the scandals in karaokes. The latest in Thailand is a picture of monks fishing in a river in Kanchanaburi, by the way. Amara 2610 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 7:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Robert, Very important point here; > Related to this in a couple of suttas a layman listens to the > buddha and then says "well must go now". later the Buddha > comments "if that man had listened for another short while he > would have become sotapanna". Now you might wonder why the > Buddha didn't entreat the person to stay. It is because of the > anattaness of dhammas. Even the buddha can't make someone have > awreness- it depends on conditions. people find this hard to > accept; so, for example, we have all these exhortations to sit > and concentrate as if this is all it takes to have > satisampajana. So easy also to think that the monks life must > make it easy to have satipatthana. Thanks a lot. Sukin. 2611 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 7:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] dear Sukin, A lovely honest and modest post. See my comments. --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Mike, > An initial reaction of mine sometime ago was, "Go ahead Mike, > become a monk. I think you will be a good one. The sangha in > it's present state, needs someone with your kind of dedication > to keep check, however little, it's force of decline." _____ I still think this way! _____ > I thought that Sarah's and others' opinion on this matter > would > only be healthy suggestions, keeping in your awareness the > various > pitfalls that you might otherwise overlook. > It is my opinion (which I hope is not a burden to me), that > 2500 yrs. is a very short time; in fact at some moments it > seems > just like yesterday, for the sangha as an institution, and > hence the > vinaya, and parts of the sutta addressed mainly to monks, to > become obsolete. _____ Yes, not obsolete. The attakattha says though that the sasana will only last 5000 years. And before that time the bhikkhu sangha will disappear. Already 1000 years ago the bhikkhuni sangha became extinct. ________ I think firstly that the institution of > monkhood > should be seen as being on a different plane. That we > laypeople > must be careful about using 'our' normal everyday sense of > judgement to view 'their' normal everyday life. And even to > use > our understanding of dhamma to make any conclusion about > them. It is true that monks and laypersons are ultimately the > same, > in that we are the 'five khandhas', and hence it being valid > that > we have the same point of reference from which to view their > understanding. What I do however see as an important point of > departure, is that the layperson decides to forgo of the > 'known > past' to embrace a new way of life, a world in which all his > past ways of reacting to stimuli has to change. _________ This could be superficial? There are only dhatus, elements. How can anyone just change? Could someone who loves the taste of mango, for instance, just stop liking it. This is what people think - become monk and I will be different, I will stop having desires. It can't work that way. It is just khandas as you said. Now there are stimuli happening all the time - but only by satipatthana is there a gradual change in reaction. That is why those who develop satipatthana are said to be like bhikkhu. You know that we revere the triple gem: Buddha, dhamma, and sangha . The meaning of sangha here is the 4pairs of enlightened ones - and this includes laywoman and men and excludes any unenlightened monks. ________ > Surely along the way, since past accumulations are so tough, > it > is possible that he might develop along the path even more > slow > than he himself might, had he remained a layperson. But none > is > 'born' a monk, and the decision has to be made. That decision > is made, when we are very young, perhaps by force of > circumstance, or when we are older, without any, little or > relatively > high understanding. But once we are in it, the world changes. ______ Does it change? Only if satipatthana is developed. _____ > We may bring in various degrees of the world along with us, > and > we might even complicate our world even more when we are in > it. > But this is all a matter of each persons kamma as it is in the > layperson's > world. But the rules ARE different, because the world IS > different. > I think that this discussion is important for me. I need to > learn from > everyone's opinion, because I think I have so many > unquestioned > ditthi, infact I have so little confidence in my own view that > I would > not have written had you not suggested to keep this topic > off-list. > My interest has been in part due to my own wish that I become > a monk in my next life,(perhaps because the grass is greener > on > the other side of the fence),and also because I feel the need > for > the institution of monkhood to flourish in order that > laypersons > like myself, may come in contact and be inspired by the Triple > Gem. I am certain that, had there not been good monks out > there, I would not be here today. ________ You are here because of many conditions but especially because of accumulations of wisdom. ________ > Lately I've noticed how my thinking is so conditioned by > certain > habitual ways of reasoning. I tend to overlook certain > subjects > which are so obvious to others. Especially with this group, > where > thinking in terms of 'elements' is done with so much ease, I > am > still stuck with thinking in terms of 'events' happening in > 'time'. __________ So good that you see this already sukin. This is what change means in the deeper sense. A gradual wearing away of atta-sanna and a gradual development of anatta-sanna. This is not dependent on being a monk. ______ > I'm sure it has been the case here too. That is why it is so > important > to 'discuss'. And so I will now comment on some of your > points; > > > Shouldn't that be the goal of us all? How could we > > have any understanding of the dhamma and not aspire to > > the life of an arahat? > > As I stated above, the world is different for both.The > difference > here I think is that the monk has this goal more or less > constantly > in mind, whereas we have other things to 'think' about. > > > Granted, observation without understanding will not > > result in understanding and its attendant eradication > > of ignorance. But if the precepts are strictly > > observed, even without understanding, how can akusala > > acts be said to have been committed? > > As I commented to someone at our 'saturday discussion' here, > that while observing a precept (without understanding), we are > at that moment, 'thinking about observing' and hence > postponing > the observing of reality arising at that moment. However it is > my > opinion that there are many degrees of panna, we do not need > to have complete understanding of the vinaya to observe them, > but only enough to realize that they were handed down by > Sammasambuddha and hence perfect for its purpose. Secondly, > understanding that all these rules are for the development of > perfect sila which would enhance a side by side development > of panna, I think there is no reason to follow any rule > unwillingly. _______ yes, for the monk who develops satipatthana the rules of the order are so helpful. ___ > Ofcourse our accumulations exist and there are many many more > moments when moha, dosa and lobha take rein, but panna also > can. The little panna that says,"This is your life now, if you > do > this, that will be. If you do that, this will be." > > > It isn't that one would want them--it's that a huge > > amount of the Buddha's time was spent exhorting people > > to adopt them. This is my central point. > > Yes, since you say it (I haven't read anything mysel),I > think so too. > > So we have nothing > > left to go on but the abhidhamma and an a handful of > > suttas, after only half the sasana. Maybe that really > > is true, and maybe I'll come around to it > > eventually. > > My personal opinion is; read the abhidhamma for the fact > about ultimate reality, and read the sutta for case examples > about it's manifestations in the conventional world, in order > that we might have a 'better' understanding of the ultimate > realities. ----------- that is much as I see it too. _________ > > Scrupulous observation of the 226 precepts is equal to > > not committing kamma-pathas. > > Easier to follow with some necessary understanding. > 2613 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Thank you amara, well said!! --- amara chay wrote: > > I think that the most useful way is that the laypeople study > more > dhamma and become less attached to the rites and rituals, > making the > bhikkhu more conscient of their real role as guide and fellow > student in the Buddha's teachings. If they refuse to teach > the > dhamma in the Tipitaka, or even to study them, their lives > would > produce more bad vipaka than good for them without fail. And > if we > had bhikkhu who could teach the Tipitaka so that others really > understand the Buddha's teachings, life would be that much > purer in > the Sankha as well. Without right understanding, even the > Vinaya > would not keep the bhikkhu from even wrong practice, without > the > development of panna that is the real aim of ordination after > all. > > Amara > 2614 From: Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 9:47pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Amara, Thanks for your insightful post about bhaya-nana! I think if you carefully read my posts, you'll find that we are virtually in full agreement, viz. that bhaya-nana is not about dosa as such but knowledge about the dangers of illusions, that fear must be "studied" as another form of dosa, and that fear itself should not be taken as a sign of wisdom arising in itself. In the context of a more lengthy discussion with Mike and Robert about "fear," I wrote "only after the practice has advanced a considerable amount does the 'knowledge of fear' (bhay'upatthana-nyana) arise, at which point the arising of fear is a signpost along straight-and-narrow journey, indicating that the meditator has indeed made good progress." Thank you for correcting my careless misstatement here. It is not the arising of fear that indicates wisdom, it is the arising a certain set of conditions derived from bhanga-nana that in turn give rise to fear which is then viewed wisely giving rise to the insight that "These formations are indeed fearful," which we then call bhaya-nana. The point I had been trying to make for several posts is that the arising of fear is not necessarily an indicator that the practice has gone awry; and that sometimes the arising of fear is associated with advances in insight. There is indeed a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear that arises and serves as a basis for bhaya-nana. In the course of practice, as bhanga-nana matures, the "soul" is suddenly rocked by the realization that "itself" does not exist but is merely a continually changing conglomeration of formations that relentlessly pass away. There is no thought of "Hmmm...The 'I' is an illusion," instead the realization springs up forcefully and automatically when the conditions are ripe. In response, the "I" shudders. The illusory "soul" reacts with fear at this insight; but the dosa is quickly recognized in another flash of insight, and it is realized that fear is a typical response to the notion that "soul" is an empty concept, that non-clinging to formations endangers the "soul", that "soul" is little other than clinging to formations, and that fear generates formations and is used as a tool of the "soul" to perpetuate itself. In reviewing the experience, the mind conceptualizes the fear thus: "It has become clear that not only do the formations [and their dissolution] generate fear, but that the fear itself generates the formations." Mahasi aptly summarizes the conceptualization thus: "These formations are indeed fearful." [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html#ch6.6] He also writes: "At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless," which accords with the notion that the bhaya-nana is derived from a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear. I don't know any Tipitaka references to this, and I wouldn't even know where to look because my reading has been so limited. Clearly, you have much wider knowledge of Tipitaka than I, and I am hoping you can help me with Tipitaka references about the bases of bhaya-nana. You cited a book "Summary of Paramatthadhamma" that I am unfamiliar with. Is it part of the Tipitaka? Dan 2615 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 9:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear mike, > Some points: > 1. none of the sutta or vinaya is obsolete. The > bhikkhu sangha > is still valid. I may join the Bhikkhu sangha myself > oneday, who > can tell the future. Either way I study the vinaya > at times and > find it very useful. Glad to hear it... > 2. If one is a monk, understands correctly and > follows the > vinaya correctly and strictly then there is no > commiting of > akusala kamma pattha. Also if a layperson > understands correctly > and keeps the 5 precepts strictly there is no > committing of > akusala kamma pattha. But there can still be an idea > of "I" who > is doing all this; superficial, as sarah said. Not only can be, but must be, at least most of the time, until stream-entry...right? Monks same as everyone else in this regard, and surely have been--at least since the days of the arahats... > 3. This is not a layperson oriented group as far as > I am > concerned. Whenever I went to listen to khun sujin > in wat > boworniwet there were always monks and nuns in the > audience. Yes but, presumably, encouraged to disrobe? Surely not to remain ordained... mike 2616 From: Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 10:02pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Robert, Greetings! Thanks for the wonderful reference from Vissuhimagga! Buddhagosa wrote: "It does not fear for it is simply the mere judgement that past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease...it is called 'appearance as terror' only because formations in all kinds of becoming ..are fearful in being bound for destruction.." The terror arises with great frequency in everyday living, so much so as to be virtually ubiquitous. In bhaya-nana, the mind recognizes this fact, viz. that the passing away of formations induces terror. This is not a trivial realization because formations pass away continuously, so it is a realization that the mind is virtually continually gripped by terror because of its clinging to the notion of self and the death of that self from moment to moment. Most of the time the terror is not noticed, but in bhaya-nana it is seen clearly as terror because for a time the mind is able to respond wisely to the terror and realize its true nature. True vision of the terror is a mark of progress. 2617 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 10:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > 3. This is not a layperson oriented group as far as > > I am > > concerned. Whenever I went to listen to khun sujin > > in wat > > boworniwet there were always monks and nuns in the > > audience. > > Yes but, presumably, encouraged to disrobe? Surely > not to remain ordained... I don't think so. Acharn santi a monk who used to sit on the panel (at wat Bovorn) with Khun sujin did eventually disrobe. But he had been a student or hers as a monk for over 7years (if I remember correctly, it might have been even longer). So if he was encouraged to disrobe it sure took a long time. What is encouraged is satipatthana and keeping vinaya in accordance with satipatthana. She commented to me on how carefully Santi kept the vinaya and how good this was (when he was still a monk). In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to khun Sujin and realise they were not properly living the monks life and so disrobe. Khun Sujin makes it clear that living the monks life wrongly is not productive - that could be construed as encouragement to disrobe by some too. Actually i intend taking this whole area up with her in more detail when I get to thailand. Robert > mike > > 2618 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hari tau hou! Jody et. Al, Happy New Years and Sawasdee Pee Mai!!! Looks like we are off to a good start with many interesting threads of discussions. Your post provoked some thoughts stated below here.... --- "JODY PAUL,PIRRET" wrote: > Traditionally, Maaori looked at time as cycles not as a measurement. I wonder if someone would answer what time in the Buddhist sense is? From my understanding, it appears to be that since Nama and rupa rise and fall away immediately: it does not stay, and the same one cannot ever arise again. Therefore, time is, in a sense, series of moment of nama-rupa rising and falling away. Therefore, no such thing as "time travel", but there can be many moments of retrospection (pannati, vitaka, etc.), or actual poramattha (experienced through the mind door, by people with Jhana). The smallest unit would be the submoments of citta: there is no point going any finer grained than that since there is no "event" that arises and falls faster than that. > In > addition, > time was like a person looking backwards into the past. The past > filled > one's > consciousness through the teachings of one's sub-tribe and tribe. The > contents of one's > consciousness was then utilised to live in the present and avert > mistakes > made in the past. Here, the Buddhist explanation would be: all past accumulations lead to the present state. "We" accumulate everything: bad and good teachings, and in fact, we accumulate ONLY the nama that have arisen and fallen. Bad teachings can cause Miccha ditthi and other kilesa to arise, we then accumulate kilesa. Good teachings can cause Samma ditthi and other kusala dhamma to arise, we then accumulate kusala dhamma. The group from Cambodia came back and told me this: Tan Ajarn Sujin explained that panna rising to understand the realities (not at the satipatthana level, but at the thinking/understanding level) and panna rising with Satipatthana are accumulated and carried over from life to life. However, sanna of pannati (stories of dhamma, without the actual understanding) does not. Does this apply even to the Oppapatika pugala (those who were born whole: deva, brahma, and other dukkhati pugala)? As a deva, even memory (but not the actual panna) of the dhamma that was listened to would be useless to the deva? Memory of dhamma in this life is sometimes beneficient: you can consider (think about) the rising/falling of dhammas at the present based on the memory and you may develop additional understanding based on the memory. The future was behind the person looking into the > past, > unable to be seen. Though Maaori did believe in clairvoyancy, magic, > and, > deities. > For example, there were accounts of Tohunga (specialised Masters) who > foretold the > coming of the Pakeha (in this case, the British), to the point of > building > apparatus > which the Pakeha would bring, such as a boat and some kitchen > implements, if > I remember rightly. My coverage in the tipitika is very limited, and I have only heard that only the Buddha actually have the nana that can predict the future. Does any other entities in the tipitka has such power? Is it punna power (power as the result of (non-jhana) kamma)? Is it power developed (jhana)? If you have such power in previous life, maybe the remnants of it carries over to the human plane and that would explain some of these phenomenan (besides calling them all fake)??? > to the accepted, things are changing fast. There seems to be a real > awakening > to the fact that all things are impermanent not static, and to the > idea that > the > "self" is a conditioned reality. Now, if we can only realize that for more than a few seconds per day... Anumodhanna to everybody who helps out each other... kom 2619 From: amara chay Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 11:33pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > There is indeed a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear that arises and > serves as a basis for bhaya-nana. In the course of practice, as > bhanga-nana matures, the "soul" is suddenly rocked by the realization > that "itself" does not exist but is merely a continually changing > conglomeration of formations that relentlessly pass away. There is no > thought of "Hmmm...The 'I' is an illusion," instead the realization > springs up forcefully and automatically when the conditions are ripe. > In response, the "I" shudders. The illusory "soul" reacts with fear at > this insight; but the dosa is quickly recognized in another flash of > insight, and it is realized that fear is a typical response to the > notion that "soul" is an empty concept, that non-clinging to > formations endangers the "soul", that "soul" is little other than > clinging to formations, and that fear generates formations and is used > as a tool of the "soul" to perpetuate itself. In reviewing the > experience, the mind conceptualizes the fear thus: "It has become > clear that not only do the formations [and their dissolution] generate > fear, but that the fear itself generates the formations." Mahasi aptly > summarizes the conceptualization thus: "These formations are indeed > fearful." > [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html#ch6.6] > > He also writes: "At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and > seems helpless," which accords with the notion that the bhaya-nana is > derived from a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear. I don't know any > Tipitaka references to this, and I wouldn't even know where to look > because my reading has been so limited. Clearly, you have much wider > knowledge of Tipitaka than I, and I am hoping you can help me with > Tipitaka references about the bases of bhaya-nana. You cited a book > "Summary of Paramatthadhamma" that I am unfamiliar with. Is it part of > the Tipitaka? > > > > Dan Dear Dan, The 'Summary' is not part of the Tipitaka, but the clearest introduction of the Tipitaka I have read, with no controversy in the explanations of the extremely complex matter. For example to say that real fear is part of the realization of anatta with wisdom would be a contradiction to the Visuddhimagga which Robert so aptly quoted when he wrote: Moments of vipassana are all maha-kusala and they can only arise with pleasant feeling or neutral feeling. According to the visuddhimagga XXI32about the stage of 'terror', an advanced stage of vipassana: "but does the knowledge of appearance as terror fear or does it not fear? It does not fear for it is simply the mere judgement that past formations have ceased, present ones are ceasing, and future ones will cease... it is called 'appearance as terror' only because formations in all kinds of becoming ..are fearful in being bound for destruction.." (Thank you Robert for the timely reference) The dhamma is a very intricate and interrelated matter, witness all the paccaya connection between the citta and the cetasika, the accumulated kamma and their vipaka over the innumerable lifetimes. If one were not extemely conscientious in studying one could misunderstand the teachings, but the Buddha did leave us a guideline as to how to determine which is the right interpretations is right, we have refer them against other teachings in the Tipitaka on the matter, as Mike once posted for us, sorry but I couldn't find the exact letter, perhaps Mike could post it again. All the right dhamma would not oppose one another, they must explain one another to the fullest, not like in the Bible where you have an eye for an eye in the same teaching as turn the other cheek. In the case you mentioned, what you quoted is not affirmed by the Visuddhimagga, nor in accordance with other descriptions of the kusala citta, much less the mahakusala citta. Knowledge also has many levels, so while thinking that there is no self could be fearful for those who had never even heard of such a concept before or have but did not think about all the consequences. But these are only thougts experienced through the mind dvara, the experience of things as they really are is not in the least terrifying, is just reality as it truly is, no one there at all, and so supremely liberating, according to the scriptures. But this has to be with the realization of whatever is appearing at that instant, not long trains of thoughts and analysis, no soul nor I to shudder or think, there is just the reality that appears, through the six dvara, sight, seeing, sound, hearing, smell, sense of smell, etc., experienced fully as they really are, such reality with such characteristic, even thought, and not the self at all. No terror, only freedom from the self, and the realization that there is still so much more to learn, that this is only the first step. Even at deeper levels, according to the explanations in the Tipitaka, it is just the realization of arising and falling away, and the disillusionment of clinging to such display of falling away. And it is said there could also be piti at having learned the truth, at having at last experienced what we have been studying about. I am not as widely read as many of the people on this list but what I understand of the teachings is that anyone can prove the teachings for himself and what the Buddha taught about all through the Tipitaka are about our six senses which are the causes for us to believe that there is a soul or an I since all that we could ever experience and remember as an I are through these and only these six dvara. Without any of them at all there would be no soul or memory of the soul. In fact what we take for the world around us and even our selves are just things experienced through the six senses, even now of you close your eyes you would see the differences of the moments when seeing arises and when it does not. This is the difference between having just the rupa, or realities that can experience nothing, such as a dead body, or light or invisible gasses, and having the nama, or the reality that can experience things, such as sight, hearing, thinking, remembering. In reality, what other things are there other than these two? Yet we take them for the self, it is still I who am reading this. In order to see the truth more and more clearly, first on the intellectual level then on the realization from experience level, the Buddha teaches us to study realities that appear, for example now through the eyes, the visible object is so different in characteristics from sound, smell, taste, touch or thinking. Or from the seeing itself. They are all different realities that arise and fall away, no two different moments are exactly alike, and none could control them, bring past moments back to be studied. Once they are gone one has lost the opportunity to study them forever, new ones are forever arising and if we are preoccupied with trying to do something, the chance to study them as they arise or while we are studying would be gone, likewise the chance to add to out knowledge of things as they really are. Only panna that is fully developed to a certain level could attain the experience of anatta without having to think about it, it arises automatically. The first level of such higher knowledge would be to start with experiencing nama as nama, and rupa as rupa, and never be in doubt again of which is which, only afterwards could one realize the arising and falling away that leads to deeper realization of the harm of being deluded by the illusion of the self or anything permanent, lasting. If you are starting your study of the Tipitaka, I highly recommend the 'Summary' as an introduction, for the reason I mentioned: so far no one has ever been able to prove that any of the explanations deviate from the Tipitaka in the slightest, as well as being the most coherent in the descriptions of the complex realities. The most important contemporary book in my life, and one of the most influential, for me. Amara 2620 From: amara chay Date: Wed Jan 3, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > Yes but, presumably, encouraged to disrobe? Surely > not to remain ordained... Dear Mike, Never, you misunderstand: like for everyone else, encouraged to study and understand correctly. Mainly to understand themselves and their true accumulations as well. One of her students is an absolutely brilliant abbot of a tiny wat up country who is the eldest brother to generals. He is now 70 and has been a bhikkhu for a very long time, and I don't believe anything could make him disrobe, but he has right understanding and accumulations, I believe. He is the exception I think of when I said that almost all monks are not interested in studying the dhamma for right understanding itself. Again only the individual concerned could really know, and even then not as accurately as the Buddha would, Amara 2621 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 0:12am Subject: Re: Hari tau hou! > The group from Cambodia came back and told me this: Tan Ajarn Sujin > explained that panna rising to understand the realities (not at the > satipatthana level, but at the thinking/understanding level) and panna > rising with Satipatthana are accumulated and carried over from life to > life. However, sanna of pannati (stories of dhamma, without the actual > understanding) does not. Does this apply even to the Oppapatika pugala > (those who were born whole: deva, brahma, and other dukkhati pugala)? > As a deva, even memory (but not the actual panna) of the dhamma that > was listened to would be useless to the deva? Memory of dhamma in this > life is sometimes beneficient: you can consider (think about) the > rising/falling of dhammas at the present based on the memory and you > may develop additional understanding based on the memory. Happy New Year, Kom!!! Great to hear from you! On the subject of instantaneous and fully developed rebirth (as opposed to transition in the womb or an egg), Khun Aa Nipat had just been talking to me about a bhikkhu who had died and been reborn a deva who did not realize that he had changed lifetimes, still thinking he was a bhikkhu and behaving as one until someone showed him that he had indeed changed lives and was just a deva. Interestingly, a deva or any higher being could not become ordained, although there are said to be a sala sudhamma in all the heavens except one, I think, where there are dhamma discussion. In fact you could probably give the references to the appropriate passages in the teachings about this! And yes, I agree that right memory is a wonderful asset that you can take with you no matter where! Anumodana with all your studies, Amara 2622 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 0:37am Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eight Thoughts of a Great Person Mike, Thanks for catching up on this thread. With your message, I had the opportunity to go back and read the sutta. Many moments of piti, and lobha... --- "m. nease" wrote: > > In other words, is this stating that the Dhamma will > > not appear to > > those that have not accumulated the right > > conditions? > > I don't know. I am told that past kamma has a lot to > do with whether or not you hear the Buddhdhamma. > Probably others in the group can explain this much > better than I can. In general, any dhamma will not appear to a person if the person doesn't accumulate enough accumulations: be it kusala vipaka, akusala vipaka, kusala, akusala, or kiriya. This is beause all dhammas are conditioned: without all the conditions that cause the dhamma to arise, it won't arise. Hearing is vipaka. When someone tells you something that is true or that is helpful, it is a kusala vipaka. Buddha taught the ultimate truth, truth that will bring about the cessation of dukkhas. Hearing/Reading about it I think is the ultimate kusala vipaka: there is no better teaching. Also consider ther rarity of this kind of opportunities: there are time when kappas and kappas go by without any sammasambuddhas. We are living in the time of Buddha whose sasana lasts for only 5000 years (a very very very short time). We can understand his teaching. We get the chance to hear it. We have people who understand his teachings to help us along. I can see no better gift, no better opportunities, no better vipaka. > > And is the > > "great person" an araahant? > > I don't think so--it seems too much directed to one > cultivating the path--don't you think so? The arahat > is finished with that. I have the following observations: 1) Anuruddha dera thought of the 7 thoughts out of the 8. 2) Buddha taught him the 8th. 3) The text implied (to me) that the 8th contributed to his reaching the enlightenment. 4) An Arahant has all 8 qualities. kom 2623 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 1:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Sati (awareness) arises with each kusala (wholesome) > > citta. So at a moment of dana or of sila (abstaining > > from killing for example), there is sati at the > > level > > of dana or sila which is 'mindful' of the object. In > > these case as you rightly point out, concept is the > > object. There is giving to a person, though there is > > no wrong view at the moment of giving. There is no > > understanding of the value of giving at that moment > > either, so although the wholesome cittas are > > accumulated they are not developed. Is that > > confusing? > > Ah--so, if the dana had been performed with sati > arising with the dana, rather than with the panyatti, > the citta (what citta, by the way) would have been > 'accumulated' and developed? Sati arises with all Sobhana cittas including dana, samatha bhavana, and satipathana. During the danna, panna may or may NOT arise with it. Without the panna, you do not "develop" the stronger tendency to give dana. The (maybe inaccurate) example would, one is likely to give dana if one knows explicitly why giving dana is good and beneficial. The stronger panna will develop the tendency more strongly. Take the following reasons why to give dana and guess which ones are stronger: giving dana is good, giving dana to those who can't fend for themself is good, giving dana will give me many good returns, and giving dana lets go of the akusala and is a condition for the reaching of Nibhanna. Samatha bhavana is "developed" as the cittas during such time always arise with BOTH sati and panna. However, since panna doesn't cognize the poramattha dhamma (Samatha has pannati as aramana), it is not satipatthana, and the development toward Nibhanna is not occuring at such time, but the development to temporary freedom from kilesa IS being developed. Satipatthana is "developed" always, as it also arises with panna. It has the poramatha as aramana. It is the only path toward Nibhanna. Note that for those bent on Samatha bhavana development (including Anuruddha dera), if they listened and understood Buddha, they most likely develop BOTH Samatha bhavana and Satipatthana. Although Samatha bhavana is NOT satipatthana, it can be a condition for Satipatthana to arise (in many different ways). > In other words, if (after sati arises) upadana arises, > sati doesn't arise...? Upadana is associated with akusala (lobha). There can be no sati or panna arising with akusala cittas. Sati always arises with kusala cittas (and other sobhana cittas). kom 2624 Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 1:45am Subject: Re: Study time ! Dear Sir Mike, The story is very funny and charming. I just love it. Anumodana for your great sense of humor, Alex 2625 Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 1:50am Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > Alex, so good to have you back with your humour and > kind & constructive comments. Do hope your father's > doing o.k.... Dear Ms. P.A., Thank you. My father feels sad from time to time. Most of the time, he's doing fine. I'm glad that the list is as ... fruitful as ever. I just love Sir Mike's joke. :-))) Anumodana to your great work and Happy New Year, Alex 2626 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 4:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Khun Amara, Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You're probably right. mike 2627 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 4:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Dan, I know next to nothing about all this, so just let me say, very interesting post. Please excuse my earlier misimpression. mike --- wrote: > Dear Amara, > Thanks for your insightful post about bhaya-nana! I > think if you > carefully read my posts, you'll find that we are > virtually in full > agreement, viz. that bhaya-nana is not about dosa as > such but > knowledge about the dangers of illusions, that fear > must be "studied" > as another form of dosa, and that fear itself should > not be taken as a > sign of wisdom arising in itself. > > In the context of a more lengthy discussion with > Mike and Robert about > "fear," I wrote "only after the practice has > advanced a considerable > amount does the 'knowledge of fear' > (bhay'upatthana-nyana) arise, at > which point the arising of fear is a signpost along > straight-and-narrow journey, indicating that the > meditator has indeed > made good progress." Thank you for correcting my > careless misstatement > here. It is not the arising of fear that indicates > wisdom, it is the > arising a certain set of conditions derived from > bhanga-nana that in > turn give rise to fear which is then viewed wisely > giving rise to the > insight that "These formations are indeed fearful," > which we then call > bhaya-nana. > > The point I had been trying to make for several > posts is that the > arising of fear is not necessarily an indicator that > the practice has > gone awry; and that sometimes the arising of fear is > associated with > advances in insight. > > There is indeed a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear > that arises and > serves as a basis for bhaya-nana. In the course of > practice, as > bhanga-nana matures, the "soul" is suddenly rocked > by the realization > that "itself" does not exist but is merely a > continually changing > conglomeration of formations that relentlessly pass > away. There is no > thought of "Hmmm...The 'I' is an illusion," instead > the realization > springs up forcefully and automatically when the > conditions are ripe. > In response, the "I" shudders. The illusory "soul" > reacts with fear at > this insight; but the dosa is quickly recognized in > another flash of > insight, and it is realized that fear is a typical > response to the > notion that "soul" is an empty concept, that > non-clinging to > formations endangers the "soul", that "soul" is > little other than > clinging to formations, and that fear generates > formations and is used > as a tool of the "soul" to perpetuate itself. In > reviewing the > experience, the mind conceptualizes the fear thus: > "It has become > clear that not only do the formations [and their > dissolution] generate > fear, but that the fear itself generates the > formations." Mahasi aptly > summarizes the conceptualization thus: "These > formations are indeed > fearful." > [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html#ch6.6] > > He also writes: "At that time, his mind itself is > gripped by fear and > seems helpless," which accords with the notion that > the bhaya-nana is > derived from a real, honest-to-goodness dosa fear. I > don't know any > Tipitaka references to this, and I wouldn't even > know where to look > because my reading has been so limited. Clearly, you > have much wider > knowledge of Tipitaka than I, and I am hoping you > can help me with > Tipitaka references about the bases of bhaya-nana. > You cited a book > "Summary of Paramatthadhamma" that I am unfamiliar > with. Is it part of > the Tipitaka? > > > > Dan > > 2628 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 4:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] Dear Robert, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to > khun Sujin and > realise they were not properly living the monks life > and so > disrobe. Good for her--and them. > Khun Sujin makes it clear that living the > monks life > wrongly is not productive - that could be construed > as > encouragement to disrobe by some too. And no doubt rightly, in many cases. > Actually i > intend taking > this whole area up with her in more detail when I > get to > thailand. I'll look forward to the Q&A. Thanks again, mike 2629 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 4:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hari tau hou! Dear Kom, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Tan Ajarn Sujin > explained that panna rising to understand the > realities (not at the > satipatthana level, but at the > thinking/understanding level) and panna > rising with Satipatthana are accumulated and carried > over from life to > life. However, sanna of pannati (stories of dhamma, > without the actual > understanding) does not. Very interesting! This is not how I had understood it. > Anumodhanna to everybody who helps out each other... That would certainly include you, Sir... mike 2630 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 4:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Khun Amara, --- amara chay wrote: > Never, you misunderstand: like for everyone else, > encouraged to study > and understand correctly. Of course, pardon the presumption. mike 2631 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 7:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Abhidhamma - Then & now Dear Jonothan, Glad to finally get to responding to this post: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > People In The Buddha’s Time > Vs. People Now > This is something which, as far as I know, is not > discussed in the texts (but then, nor was the > original > question – ie. What is the need to study the > Abhidhamma if it’s all in the suttas anyway?). No--but I'm becoming more and more comfortable with the idea that abhidhamma was very carefully and correctly extracted from the discourses. And, in the abscence of verification from the Four Great References, I think it's fair enough to accept it on the strength of the Kalama Sutta' These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.' (Bhikku Bodhi's translation). > I’m sure you are right when you say that people are > essentially the same now as in the Buddha’s time. > But > I believe that there is also one important > difference, > namely that there were many, many people then with > much higher accumulated panna than any person has > now. This seems to me to be a fair speculation, just on the strength of the numbers who attained nibbana. Though I must say, I don't think the effect of direct instruction of a Buddha and a bunch of arahats can be underestimated. Guess what I'm speculating is, that if we could bring the Buddha to today in a time machine, I can't help thinking he might be able to awaken a few... > Firstly, and this is admittedly an assumption on my > part, a Buddha (other than a Pacchekka Buddha) > arises > in an age when there are many people who are capable > of understanding the teachings and ripe for > attaining > enlightenment. A fair enough assumption--I wouldn't dispute it. > Looked at from another angle, the > chance to hear the teaching from the lips of a > Buddha > is kusala vipaka of the very highest degree, vipaka > accruing to those who have developed panna of a very > high level. Yes, or at least have performed incredibly good kamma--would that be adequate, do you think, without the high degree of pańńa? > And we do know from the commentaries > that > after the Buddha’s death the teachings enter a long > period of decline, which obviously goes hand-in-hand > with a lessening grasp of those teachings. Perfectly good logic, even without the commentaries--and also supported (predicted) by the discourses. > However, one can also get an idea of this difference > in levels of understanding from the suttas > themselves. > In many suttas the Buddha asks his listeners ‘Is > seeing now permanent or impermanent?’ and they are > able to answer ‘Impermanent’ (and the same for > visible object, contact, the feeling arising from > that > contact etc). O.K. But isn't an affinity for impermanence and the other characterisics, one of the things that attracts us to the Dhamma now? > These answers were not given from knowledge learnt > but > from direct experience. Otherwise the listeners > would > not have been able to attain enlightenment during > the > discourse. They had levels of panna which > understood > the momentary nature of consciousness. How would > we, > if we had not ever studied Dhamma before, have > answered the same questions? Would the questions > even > have had any meaning to us? Certainly not without have heard some Dhamma first. > The Need To Study Abhidhamma > In Order To Understand The Suttas > I agree with most of your comments on this point. > Looking again at my post I realise that I did not > choose my words well, for which I must apologise. I > certainly did not mean to suggest that knowledge by > direct experience of the whole or even a substantial > portion of the Abhidhamma was necessary for > enlightenment, either then or now. And as you aptly > put it, it is depth of insight that breaks the chain > of conditioned origination. > > My point was simply that, without a certain > knowledge > of the Abhidhamma, we would not be capable of > understanding the suttas correctly, as in the > example > of the passage referred to above. True. There are certainly details of conditioned origination I'd never have understood (I don't think) intuitively. It's this fact that's attracted me to and kept me with this group. > Hence the need to > study (=know) abhidhamma to a certain level. This > does not mean that there has to be study in the > commonly understood sense of the word. We need to > acquire a certain amount of abhidhamma knowledge. > This could be by discussion or reading posts on this > list, for example. > > Interestingly, the subject of Abhidhamma study, and > the need to keep it in a proper perspective, was a > fairly constant theme of the discussions among our > group in Cambodia. It was emphasised that the > proper > purpose of studying Abhidhamma must be to help us > understand the true nature of the reality appearing > at > he present moment. Accordingly, only such knowledge > as can be related to one’s present understanding of > realities can be of real use. Anything more is > intellectual understanding (and, more importantly, > not > necessarily pariyatti) and is lost to us at death > anyway. (Would others who were at the discussions > like to supplement here?) > > As we are all beginners, the degree of Abhidhamma > knowledge that we can fully benefit from must > actually > be of a fairly basic level. > > It has always rather intrigued me that this group > has > attracted the label of an Abhidhamma group. Among > people I think of as real Abhidhamma scholars we are > perceived as being more concerned with the practice > than with the intricacies of the Abhidhamma as a > subject for study in its own right! Yes, that makes sense. This group isn't characterized by the kind of rigid scholasticism with which abhidhamma is often associated. I take this to be because of the insistence on relating it to the present moment, rather than memorizing volumes of vocabulary, lists etc. > Mike, I hope I have addressed your points. Please > feel free to draw my attention to anything I have > not > covered. > Thanks as usual for bringing up the subject. There is > a > lot more in this for further discussion. The thanks go to you (and others) for you patient and thoughtful responses to these questions. Certainly this discussion could go on indefinitely, but I think it's by nature somewhat speculative. Maybe enough to say that, if abhidhamma helps to condition penetrating understanding of paticcasamuppada, then its study doesn't require any more justification. However, I do think these are crucial questions which are sure to arise again and again, especially with people new to this approach. mike 2632 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi Dear Khun Amara, (Still trying to catch up): --- amara chay wrote: > universally characterized by the > tilakkhana (three > characteristics) of impermanence, ever falling away > and therefore non > self (uncontrollable by anyone). Thanks for reminding me of the pali! Dukkha, anicca and anatta, yes? > This is the > reversal to me, in that > other teachings focus on the person Very apt, thanks as always... mike 2633 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi Dear Khun Amara, --- amara chay wrote: All the experienceable (is there such a > word?) ['experiential' works, I think] mike 2634 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] List 1st anniversary Well-said, Sir. mike --- wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > I wish the group a happy birthday , a happy > anniversary , a happy new year > > lets keep on helping each other do what is needed to > be done , to finish what is > needed to be finished. > > Dear moderators, > > Thank you very much for pioneering this and serving > the purpose, so that these > dynamically like-minds of a group who have been > mothers,fathers,brothers,sisters > of each other for countless times could have yet > another chance to help each > other. > > > Rgds > > =^-^= > _/\_ > > > > > 2635 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:23am Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > > In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to > > khun Sujin and > > realise they were not properly living the monks life > > and so > > disrobe. Strange! Why don't they make a change to lead a proper living way of monkhood rather than disrobe? Unless they think they can't. Just to be pondered: 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the sangha order as they have all done? 3. What makes the monkhood so special that they, the arahants, have no second thought of it? 4. We are encourage to follow the wise, are we? Taking robes ia actually a practise of letting go, letting go of our desires towards the worldlings. Although it is not necessarily true nowadays. But, shouldn't we stick to the ordinary one? If thinking that observing 226 precepts is stressful, it seems to me that taking robes is just an extra idea of getting rid of lobha etc. And what kind of thoughts that gave rise to the thought that "it is stressful". Is is the thought that "I don't want to be tied up by the rules"? By the way, taking robes is not just the matter of self realization but also to enhance the Buddhasasana. Afterall, these are only my own personal viewpoints. Please forgive me if the words sound rude. Please correct me if I am wrong. Lee 2636 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: Request -- Samma Ditthi > All the experienceable (is there such a > > word?) > > ['experiential' works, I think] Dear Mike, Thanks for all your kind remarks, and for this word, although I think the meaning is a bit wider than what I intended: in my 10th ed. Webster's Collegiate it says 'relating to, derived from, or providing experience'. (It's only the providing part I tried to convey!) Would love other suggestions, by the way! Thanks in advance, Amara 2637 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 0:18pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? Dear Lee, The wisest, except for the Buddha (and Paccekhabuddha), in the panna to know things as they really are and not live in a world of illusion. > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the sangha order as > they have all done? In this world, that is the natural state for them, in a way they have 'nothing to live for' any more except to live for others since nothing can make them suffer even when they have bodily pains like everyone else. > 3. What makes the monkhood so special that they, the arahants, have > no second thought of it? Why don't we have second thoughts about waking up each morning? It just happens (or not). > 4. We are encourage to follow the wise, are we? Their paths, yes, but they have reached the end of their journey and we have just started to walk. The Buddha taught us to study things as they really are, and the knowledge accumulating the realities around us as they appear through the six dvara, right now as we experiece them even as we sit here before the computer, could gradually grow and lead to higher and higher levels of experiences, clearer and clearer realizations of the fact that there is no self. The process may take countless lifetimes, but who remembers when anyone had started the journey and who is just beginning? All we know, each of us, is that this is the right way and this is where we are. All we have to do is keep walking, and one day we would reach that level of wisdom too. And that if we stop, we would never get there. There is no way to bypass the work and the levels of attainment, or else the Buddha would not stress this ekka-maggo. > > Taking robes ia actually a practise of letting go, letting go of our > desires towards the worldlings. Although it is not necessarily true > nowadays. But, shouldn't we stick to the ordinary one? If thinking > that observing 226 precepts is stressful, it seems to me that taking > robes is just an extra idea of getting rid of lobha etc. And what > kind of thoughts that gave rise to the thought that "it is > stressful". Is is the thought that "I don't want to be tied up by the > rules"? > > By the way, taking robes is not just the matter of self realization > but also to enhance the Buddhasasana. > > Afterall, these are only my own personal viewpoints. Please forgive > me if the words sound rude. Please correct me if I am wrong. Excellent observations from my view, anumodana, Amara 2638 From: Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:27am Subject: Re: lay life v. monk's life Dear Mike and Sukin, May I add my observations to your discussion about the lay life v. the monk's life. While observing the monkhood since my son became a monk 6 years ago, I have begun to formulate the following conclusions about the monkhood here in Thailand. I cannot speak for the monkhood elsewhere, having had no direct experience with it. I agree that the conditions are the same for monks as well as lay people, i.e., that both are part of the 5 khandas, but also feel that following the path of vipassana and sathipatthana may be equally as difficult both for the monk as for the layperson. For the monk, the adulation and respect he receives is a prime cause for mana to develop: there is an underlying assumption in Theravada tradtion that the monk's life is superior to that of the layperson. In addition, there has been a deterioration in the strict practice of the Vinaya for the Sangha all throughout the country. For instance: some monks do have computers and cell phones, and can have lay people "buy" substitute money orders in the post office so monks can "buy" necessities if they go on trips outside their temples. Furthermore, we are all aware of the increasing scandals recently found in the monkhood and of the rise of sects like Dhammakaya whose beliefs are based on quite a bit of avijja. For the layperson, the increased attachments to the worldwide consumer culture have made it more difficult for him to come to study and understand dhamma. All of this has been conditioned and is part of the process of deterioration predicted by the Buddha. Therefore, the decision to become a monk is dependent on one's accumulations and it should be understood that the monk's life is not necessarily an easier path to learn dhamma than that of the layperson, nor is it superior to that of the layperson. It is just different and has its own set of stresses that the life of the layperson does not have. With metta, Betty PS: Please note, I have also met an impressive number of monks whose wisdom and understanding of dhamma are of great inspiration. Though there is deterioration of the monkhood on the one hand, there is an equally profound learning and understanding among the monks as well. As in the lay community, there are both "good" and "bad". __________________________ Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 2639 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 3:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: lay life v. monk's life Dear Betty, Thanks for your letter. It reminded me of my mana and the impersonal nature of all realities. So far I had still been stuck with the notion that "I" could decide what the best condition would be for me. That "I" would be able to discriminate between a good teacher and a bad one. That I would be able to find the perfect temple to join where I would be wisely guided by the supposedly good teacher. All along I felt as though the conditions around me; partly created by the teacher and partly by my own sincerity and determination(now translated as mana), would be conducive to development of understanding. It was my mana that kept on telling me that I would not fall into the same traps as other monks have been. But I am reminded now that moha, lobha and dosa would lead me more or less exactly where it has all those unfortunate, though once upon a time, sincere monks. Robert yesterday, said that even the Buddha himself cannot make someone have awareness, and that even a momentary lapse off attention can make all the difference in the world regarding whether one is going to understand or not. How can moha, lobha and dosa predict anything? Also upon reflection; though this is just thinking along the lines I have been used to, it occured to me that the order of the monks was probably formed around the Buddha as a natural outcome of his having been there. It definitely was not something that the Buddha himself formed, thinking that it would enhance understanding in his followers. But once it was formed it was there, and since it was so close to him, the members had the chance of being instructed first hand. And when he died they still had many of his enlighttened disciples to guide them. And it was natural that this was bound to decline as further it got away in time, from the living presence of the Buddha himself. I may be wrong about this, but I am reminded here that that the Buddha would not advocate any unnatural activity.The bhikkhu sangha may exist now, and people may become monks, but this must come naturally. Am I ready for it now? Is there any use to think that I might be ready in my next life or even tomorrow? Anumodana, Sukin. "Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: > Dear Mike and Sukin, > May I add my observations to your discussion about the lay life v. the > monk's life. While observing the monkhood since my son became a monk 6 > years ago, I have begun to formulate the following conclusions about the > monkhood here in Thailand. I cannot speak for the monkhood elsewhere, having > had no direct experience with it. > > I agree that the conditions are the same for monks as well as lay people, > i.e., that both are part of the 5 khandas, but also feel that following the > path of vipassana and sathipatthana may be equally as difficult both for the > monk as for the layperson. > > For the monk, the adulation and respect he receives is a prime cause for > mana to develop: there is an underlying assumption in Theravada tradtion > that the monk's life is superior to that of the layperson. In addition, > there has been a deterioration in the strict practice of the Vinaya for the > Sangha all throughout the country. For instance: some monks do have > computers and cell phones, and can have lay people "buy" substitute money > orders in the post office so monks can "buy" necessities if they go on trips > outside their temples. Furthermore, we are all aware of the increasing > scandals recently found in the monkhood and of the rise of sects like > Dhammakaya whose beliefs are based on quite a bit of avijja. For the > layperson, the increased attachments to the worldwide consumer culture have > made it more difficult for him to come to study and understand dhamma. All > of this has been conditioned and is part of the process of deterioration > predicted by the Buddha. > > Therefore, the decision to become a monk is dependent on one's accumulations > and it should be understood that the monk's life is not necessarily an > easier path to learn dhamma than that of the layperson, nor is it superior > to that of the layperson. It is just different and has its own set of > stresses that the life of the layperson does not have. > > With metta, > Betty > > PS: Please note, I have also met an impressive number of monks whose wisdom > and understanding of dhamma are of great inspiration. Though there is > deterioration of the monkhood on the one hand, there is an equally profound > learning and understanding among the monks as well. As in the lay community, > there are both "good" and "bad". > > __________________________ > Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala > 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road > Bangkok 10900, Thailand > tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 > 2640 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 5:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Lee, greetings for the New year. --- wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > wrote: > > > > > In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to > > > khun Sujin and > > > realise they were not properly living the monks life > > > and so > > > disrobe. > > Strange! Why don't they make a change to lead a proper living > way of > monkhood rather than disrobe? Unless they think they can't. ____________ Good point! I should have been more explicit. You know the sutta (soory no reference) where the Buddha was telling the 180 monks that even if they accept the daily food in accordance with the Vinaya BUT they eat it greedily without proper reflectance, that this can result in them being reborn in hell. 60 of those monks immediately disrobed; the Buddha didn't try to stop them. Another 60 spewed blood through shock and were mortally ill. the other 60 became arahants. everyone reacts differently when they hear Dhamma. khun sujin puts the Dhamma beautifully and clearly, when some realise it more they learn that their reason for being a monk is not right and they see that a laylife is better for them at this time. Of course, as you indicate, others listen and become strenghtened and live the monks life with renewed purity and diligence. We are all so different in our accumulations. I think the main benefit of these discussions is to learn how profound the life of a monk is and that we can't just become a monk and expect to progress faster in Dhamma. Much more complex than most realise. For those who do understand this, do have the accumualtions for a monks life then it is of great benefit. It goes perfectly in hand with the development of satipatthana. It is wide open and free for the growth of merit. You also perhaps know the sutta where one of the 80 leading arahant disciples of the buddha was living far away. he had a laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to ordain but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as amonk is hard" This happened several times. Each time the layman would lose his urge to ordain for a while. But it kept coming back. Eventually he persuaded the monk to ordain him.. Do you have a reference for this sutta anyone? i think the laymans monk name was punna. I too am just putting my very imperfect and ignorant views on this issue. It is very deep and way beyond my capacity to really understand. Robert > > > Just to be pondered: > > 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the sangha order > as > they have all done? > 3. What makes the monkhood so special that they, the arahants, > have > no second thought of it? > 4. We are encourage to follow the wise, are we? > > Taking robes ia actually a practise of letting go, letting go > of our > desires towards the worldlings. Although it is not necessarily > true > nowadays. But, shouldn't we stick to the ordinary one? If > thinking > that observing 226 precepts is stressful, it seems to me that > taking > robes is just an extra idea of getting rid of lobha etc. And > what > kind of thoughts that gave rise to the thought that "it is > stressful". Is is the thought that "I don't want to be tied up > by the > rules"? > > By the way, taking robes is not just the matter of self > realization > but also to enhance the Buddhasasana. > > Afterall, these are only my own personal viewpoints. Please > forgive > me if the words sound rude. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Lee > 2641 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 7:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear robert , Yes it shows how dangerous the samsara is...... rgds. Robert Kirkpatrick on 01/04/2001 03:43:34 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Lee, greetings for the New year. --- wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > wrote: > > > > > In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to > > > khun Sujin and > > > realise they were not properly living the monks life > > > and so > > > disrobe. > > Strange! Why don't they make a change to lead a proper living > way of > monkhood rather than disrobe? Unless they think they can't. ____________ Good point! I should have been more explicit. You know the sutta (soory no reference) where the Buddha was telling the 180 monks that even if they accept the daily food in accordance with the Vinaya BUT they eat it greedily without proper reflectance, that this can result in them being reborn in hell. 60 of those monks immediately disrobed; the Buddha didn't try to stop them. Another 60 spewed blood through shock and were mortally ill. the other 60 became arahants. everyone reacts differently when they hear Dhamma. khun sujin puts the Dhamma beautifully and clearly, when some realise it more they learn that their reason for being a monk is not right and they see that a laylife is better for them at this time. Of course, as you indicate, others listen and become strenghtened and live the monks life with renewed purity and diligence. We are all so different in our accumulations. I think the main benefit of these discussions is to learn how profound the life of a monk is and that we can't just become a monk and expect to progress faster in Dhamma. Much more complex than most realise. For those who do understand this, do have the accumualtions for a monks life then it is of great benefit. It goes perfectly in hand with the development of satipatthana. It is wide open and free for the growth of merit. You also perhaps know the sutta where one of the 80 leading arahant disciples of the buddha was living far away. he had a laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to ordain but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as amonk is hard" This happened several times. Each time the layman would lose his urge to ordain for a while. But it kept coming back. Eventually he persuaded the monk to ordain him.. Do you have a reference for this sutta anyone? i think the laymans monk name was punna. I too am just putting my very imperfect and ignorant views on this issue. It is very deep and way beyond my capacity to really understand. Robert > > > Just to be pondered: > > 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the sangha order > as > they have all done? > 3. What makes the monkhood so special that they, the arahants, > have > no second thought of it? > 4. We are encourage to follow the wise, are we? > > Taking robes ia actually a practise of letting go, letting go > of our > desires towards the worldlings. Although it is not necessarily > true > nowadays. But, shouldn't we stick to the ordinary one? If > thinking > that observing 226 precepts is stressful, it seems to me that > taking > robes is just an extra idea of getting rid of lobha etc. And > what > kind of thoughts that gave rise to the thought that "it is > stressful". Is is the thought that "I don't want to be tied up > by the > rules"? > > By the way, taking robes is not just the matter of self > realization > but also to enhance the Buddhasasana. > > Afterall, these are only my own personal viewpoints. Please > forgive > me if the words sound rude. Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Lee > 2642 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 7:39pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Hi Amara, I appreciate your well considered comments, and anumodana for studying scripture so carefully! It is wonderful to hear from you. I must say, though, that I must not have expressed myself clearly enough in my posts because as I see it there is absolutely no contradiction between what I wrote and what Buddhagosa wrote in the quote Robert so aptly cited. The fear is obviously not the knowledge of fear, as I have written over and over and over again and as Buddhagosa so very clearly wrote and as Robert wrote and as you wrote. There is no disagreement here. However, knowledge of fear (bhaya-nana) arises from wise attention to a real fear; it arises very soon after a real fear; it is conceptualized very rapidly after it is realized. This is something that can be experienced very clearly. How to put proper words on the experience is not easy, and I would like to find some Tipitaka support. Unfortunately, Buddhagosa's quote is utterly silent on this point (putting aside the fact that Vissudhimagga is not in Tipitaka). Mahasi's quote confirms it, but he is even more removed in time from Tipitaka. 2643 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 7:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Thanks Gayan, Excuse my denseness but could you be a little more specific with the reference to what I said. robert --- wrote: > > Dear robert , > > Yes it shows how dangerous the samsara is...... > > rgds. > > > Robert Kirkpatrick on > 01/04/2001 > 03:43:34 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] > > Dear Lee, > greetings for the New year. > --- wrote: > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > > wrote: > > > > > > > In fact, it does happen that some monks listen to > > > > khun Sujin and > > > > realise they were not properly living the monks life > > > > and so > > > > disrobe. > > > > Strange! Why don't they make a change to lead a proper > living > > way of > > monkhood rather than disrobe? Unless they think they can't. > ____________ > Good point! I should have been more explicit. You know the > sutta > (soory no reference) where the Buddha was telling the 180 > monks > that even if they accept the daily food in accordance with the > Vinaya BUT they eat it greedily without proper reflectance, > that > this can result in them being reborn in hell. 60 of those > monks > immediately disrobed; the Buddha didn't try to stop them. > Another 60 spewed blood through shock and were mortally ill. > the > other 60 became arahants. > everyone reacts differently when they hear Dhamma. khun sujin > puts the Dhamma beautifully and clearly, when some realise it > more they learn that their reason for being a monk is not > right > and they see that a laylife is better for them at this time. > Of > course, as you indicate, others listen and become strenghtened > and live the monks life with renewed purity and diligence. > We are all so different in our accumulations. I think the main > benefit of these discussions is to learn how profound the life > of a monk is and that we can't just become a monk and expect > to > progress faster in Dhamma. Much more complex than most > realise. > For those who do understand this, do have the accumualtions > for > a monks life then it is of great benefit. It goes perfectly in > hand with the development of satipatthana. It is wide open and > free for the growth of merit. > You also perhaps know the sutta where one of the 80 leading > arahant disciples of the buddha was living far away. he had a > laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to > ordain > but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as > amonk is hard" This happened several times. Each time the > layman > would lose his urge to ordain for a while. But it kept coming > back. Eventually he persuaded the monk to ordain him.. > Do you have a reference for this sutta anyone? i think the > laymans monk name was punna. > I too am just putting my very imperfect and ignorant views on > this issue. It is very deep and way beyond my capacity to > really > understand. > Robert > > > > 2644 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 8:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Yes robert, in you post-> "This can result in them being reborn in hell" this alone says about the danger. These all 180 people, surely they were really extraordinary,with HUGE accumulations, to be born whe actually a time a buddha is roaming the earth, to actually hear dhamma from him, and to be monks in his sasana..etc etc.. yet there is no way that they will be safe from utter dukkha in Hell conditions. Remember what happened to the monk who entertained some greed for his robe at his death moment...? The Buddha must have seen the necessary moment that he should tell the monks about this 'being reborn in hell'.. And being dilligent ,they (all 180 )took the advice by heart. And if a single crook monk( like a chabbaggiya bhikkhu) was there I am sure he would have not taken the buddha seriously and just silently laugh at his remarks. the 60 who were mortally wounded were had such remorse upon what buddha has told about their conduct ( they believed it ) and that should have triggered the mortal wound. [ I hope this tells what I thought about it...but it may not be very clear...] and also in you post--> "he had a > laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to > ordain > but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as > amonk is hard" This happened several times." With his infinite 'asaadhaarana' knowledge buddha saw what is good for that particular person and what is not good for him.And that particular person had such accumulations to be in a position where he had the buddha to advice him... yet he didnt realise the value of what buddha said.. and WE dont have such luck ( completely due to our own fault ) of being adviced personally by the Buddha.. dont these really show how dangerous the samsara is...how thick the ignorance can get?? rgds. 2645 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear gayan, great- got you. Sorry to make you write all this out but it does help us. actually there is one point where my careless writing style lead to a minor confusion: --- wrote: > and also in you post--> > "he had a > > laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to > > ordain > > but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life > as > > amonk is hard" This happened several times." > > With his infinite 'asaadhaarana' knowledge buddha saw what is > good for that > particular person and what is not good for him.And that > particular person had > such accumulations to be in a position where he had the buddha > to advice him... > yet he didnt realise the value of what buddha said.. ___________________ The full text of what I said was this: You also perhaps know the sutta where one of the 80 leading arahant disciples of the buddha was living far away. he had a laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to ordain but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as amonk is hard" This happened several times. Each time the layman would lose his urge to ordain for a while. But it kept coming back. Eventually he persuaded the monk to ordain him.. Do you have a reference for this sutta anyone? i think the laymans monk name was punna. The Buddha wasn't advising the layman. it was another monk who was was the teacher of this layman. I just can't remember all the details here. But what was interesting to me is that an arahant monk should advise (at least initially) someone not to ordain. And yet this someone later did ordain and become an arahant himself. There is another case: Two brothers entered the order. the first one (mahaculla was his name maybe?) became arahant. But the other was slow and couldn't even meomorise a stanza. The arahant told his younger brother to leave the temple and (I think) also the monkhood. Later the Budha saw the slow brother sobbing, taught him and he too became arahant. The monks wondered why an arahant should tell someone to leave the monkhood. the Buddha said it was because he respected the Dhamma so much and thought that his brother had not the understanding to benefit the order or the dhamma (or something like that). Points here: I think we can't ultimately rely on anyone to tell us what to do. (Except for the buddha but he is no longer around). Neither can we rely on 'ourselves' to make right decisions (as Sukin pointed out today). What we can do is learn about dhammas that are arising now. Then understanding grows and then there becomes less of ME who is doing anything, including making decisions. Very slowly the atta-sanna is sanded down. Then the spinning of the paticasamupada is being trimmed .. Samsara loses its sting in many ways (even while we are still at the beginning stage) because less and less is anything taken as self. Robert 2646 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:42pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Robert, Mike et al. Didn't Buddha say that after he passed away, the sangha should (or was it "could") abolish the minor rules? Not knowing which rules were "minor rules," the sangha was at a loss, so changed nothing. If my recollection of this story is correct, then part of the vinaya is indeed obsolete and has been for 2500 years. Which part? Beats me! I guess we just have to keep it, obsolete parts and all! > Dear mike, > Some points: > 1. none of the sutta or vinaya is obsolete. The bhikkhu sangha > is still valid. I may join the Bhikkhu sangha myself oneday, who > can tell the future. Either way I study the vinaya at times and > find it very useful. > > 2. If one is a monk, understands correctly and follows the > vinaya correctly and strictly then there is no commiting of > akusala kamma pattha. Also if a layperson understands correctly > and keeps the 5 precepts strictly there is no committing of > akusala kamma pattha. But there can still be an idea of "I" who > is doing all this; superficial, as sarah said. > 3. This is not a layperson oriented group as far as I am > concerned. Whenever I went to listen to khun sujin in wat > boworniwet there were always monks and nuns in the audience. > > Robert > > > 2647 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: lay life v. monk's life AN V, 80 Dear Betty, Thanks for the 'up close and personal' report on the Thai order. It reminded me a little of the fourth Anagata-bhayani (Future Dangers) Sutta: "Furthermore, in the course of the future there will be monks desirous of fine lodgings. They, desirous of fine lodgings, will neglect the practice of living in the wilds; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal capitals, taking up residence there. For the sake of lodgings they will do many kinds of unseemly, inappropriate things." Anguttara Nikaya V.80 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an5-77.html Though it doesn't mention cell phones or computers or even money, it does remind me that the Buddha always had monks stay in forests and secluded places. All of your points are well-taken and a timely caution for anyone considering this line of endeavour. Thank you, Ma'am, mike 2648 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 9:58pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Thanks Dan (and thanks for putting yourself on first name basis), --- wrote: > Dear Robert, Mike et al. > Didn't Buddha say that after he passed away, the sangha should > (or was > it "could") abolish the minor rules? Not knowing which rules > were > "minor rules," the sangha was at a loss, so changed nothing. _______________ The arahants at the first council actuslly rebuked Ananda for not asking the Buddha which of the rules could be abolished. Since they didn't know they were not going to change anything. _If my > recollection of this story is correct, then part of the vinaya > is > indeed obsolete and has been for 2500 years. Which part? Beats > me! I > guess we just have to keep it, obsolete parts and all! ________________ Yep, I concur. Who are we to second guess the buddha. This is my approach to the tipitika and commentaries too. So many these days think they can tell which parts are 'later' and which are earlier . They can discern, they think, which parts of the commentaries are accurate and which aren't (funny how the parts that are accurate always agree with their own views?). Me - I'm prepared to accept that there could be a few errors in there, here and there. But I sure don't imagine I have the wisdom to know which parts. robert 2649 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: lay life v. monk's life Not always Mike. Upali wanted to live as a forest monk but was asked not to by the Buddha so that he could be one who studied Vinaya properly. ' Robert --- "m. nease" wrote: > AN V, 80 > > Dear Betty, > > Thanks for the 'up close and personal' report on the > Thai order. It reminded me a little of the fourth > Anagata-bhayani (Future Dangers) Sutta: "Furthermore, > in the course of the future there will be monks > desirous of fine lodgings. They, desirous of fine > lodgings, will neglect the practice of living in the > wilds; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness > dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal > capitals, taking up residence there. For the sake of > lodgings they will do many kinds of unseemly, > inappropriate things." > > Anguttara Nikaya V.80 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an5-77.html > > Though it doesn't mention cell phones or computers or > even money, it does remind me that the Buddha always > had monks stay in forests and secluded places. > > All of your points are well-taken and a timely caution > for anyone considering this line of endeavour. > > Thank you, Ma'am, > > mike > 2650 From: Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:07pm Subject: "...first name basis" > Thanks Dan (and thanks for putting yourself on first name > basis), You know, I'm not sure how everyone else got their name to show up in the "Author" column while my e-mail address is there instead. I must have incorrectly filled out the sign-up form for the forum. Also, I don't think I had much to do with "putting myself on first name basis." I believe Mike was the one to do it. Of course, you may call me anything that gets my attention (but I'd recommend not breaking the precepts when you do so!) "dhd5" is fine, or "Dan" if you prefer. 2651 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:18pm Subject: ex-samanera's experience Hi! May you all be well and happy.I'm new around here.I wish to share my experience as a samanera in relation to the recent discussion. Although not a full fledge monk, the pressure is already present.As long as the ordained ones are of the practising Buddhist lineage, one would be very careful of ones conduct for the warning from the Theras of old keep resounding in his/her conscience as an ordained. I keep remembering the fact that the things that i use was offered by people to accumulate kusala kamma. If i were to use them unmindfully, then i would not be worthy of their offerings and would be like a thief using things that was not intended for him. Unwholesome kamma would ripen. Even though unperfect in nature, I try to do my best in the monastic duties(eg.sweeping the temple) and meditation.If i were to laze around in robes, then more unwholesome kamma would result.Every opportunity to share and learn the Dhamma with lay person and fellow monastic mates was rarely missed. I would also go for alms round , even though it was rarely practised by the Bhantes residing there(except for the Vassa period). I reflected that there are people out there that lacks the chance to perform meritorious deeds. the only was to reach them through alms round. I was also quite restrained in the senses because of the monastic environment.Once a person is in the robes , he/she is also the guardian of the Dhamma and the reputation of the Triratana is in their hands. reflecting on these facts , being in the robes is a tougher training than climbing Mt.Himalaya.As a senior monk put it:one can conquer a whole mountain easily, but how many can conquer the defilements of the mind? 2652 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] ex-samanera's experience Dear Kelvin, Lovely. Anumodana! robert --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > Hi! > May you all be well and happy.I'm new around here.I wish to > share my > experience as a samanera in relation to the recent discussion. > > Although not a full fledge monk, the pressure is already > present.As long as > the ordained ones are of the practising Buddhist lineage, one > would be very > careful of ones conduct for the warning from the Theras of old > keep > resounding in his/her conscience as an ordained. > > I keep remembering the fact that the things that i use was > offered by people > to accumulate kusala kamma. If i were to use them unmindfully, > then i would > not be worthy of their offerings and would be like a thief > using things that > was not intended for him. Unwholesome kamma would ripen. > > Even though unperfect in nature, I try to do my best in the > monastic > duties(eg.sweeping the temple) and meditation.If i were to > laze around in > robes, then more unwholesome kamma would result.Every > opportunity to share > and learn the Dhamma with lay person and fellow monastic mates > was rarely > missed. > > I would also go for alms round , even though it was rarely > practised by the > Bhantes residing there(except for the Vassa period). I > reflected that there > are people out there that lacks the chance to perform > meritorious deeds. the > only was to reach them through alms round. > > I was also quite restrained in the senses because of the > monastic > environment.Once a person is in the robes , he/she is also the > guardian of > the Dhamma and the reputation of the Triratana is in their > hands. reflecting > on these facts , being in the robes is a tougher training than > climbing > Mt.Himalaya.As a senior monk put it:one can conquer a whole > mountain easily, > but how many can conquer the defilements of the mind? > 2653 From: selamat Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 10:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] ex-samanera's experience Dear Kelvin, anumodana. ----- Original Message ----- From: kelvin liew peng chuan Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:18 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] ex-samanera's experience > Hi! > May you all be well and happy.I'm new around here.I wish to share my > experience as a samanera in relation to the recent discussion. > > Although not a full fledge monk, the pressure is already present.As long as > the ordained ones are of the practising Buddhist lineage, one would be very > careful of ones conduct for the warning from the Theras of old keep > resounding in his/her conscience as an ordained. > > I keep remembering the fact that the things that i use was offered by people > to accumulate kusala kamma. If i were to use them unmindfully, then i would > not be worthy of their offerings and would be like a thief using things that > was not intended for him. Unwholesome kamma would ripen. > > Even though unperfect in nature, I try to do my best in the monastic > duties(eg.sweeping the temple) and meditation.If i were to laze around in > robes, then more unwholesome kamma would result.Every opportunity to share > and learn the Dhamma with lay person and fellow monastic mates was rarely > missed. > > I would also go for alms round , even though it was rarely practised by the > Bhantes residing there(except for the Vassa period). I reflected that there > are people out there that lacks the chance to perform meritorious deeds. the > only was to reach them through alms round. > > I was also quite restrained in the senses because of the monastic > environment.Once a person is in the robes , he/she is also the guardian of > the Dhamma and the reputation of the Triratana is in their hands. reflecting > on these facts , being in the robes is a tougher training than climbing > Mt.Himalaya.As a senior monk put it:one can conquer a whole mountain easily, > but how many can conquer the defilements of the mind? > 2654 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:18pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > I must say, though, that I must not have expressed myself clearly > enough in my posts because as I see it there is absolutely no > contradiction between what I wrote and what Buddhagosa wrote in the > quote Robert so aptly cited. > > The fear is obviously not the knowledge of fear, as I have written > over and over and over again and as Buddhagosa so very clearly wrote > and as Robert wrote and as you wrote. There is no disagreement here. > However, knowledge of fear (bhaya-nana) arises from wise attention to > a real fear; it arises very soon after a real fear; it is > conceptualized very rapidly after it is realized. Dear Dan, I'm afraid that this is not according to my studies: the nana do not arise without a certain order in their arising; the bhaya nana does not arise before the nama-rupa-paricheda-nana, in fact no other nana can since it is the first and weakest one. Having no uncertainty of which is nama and which rupa, the next nana would follow upon accumulation of panna about things as they really are to another level of realization, the arising and falling away of things that appear through the six dvara, and upon much more accumulation of right understanding, the realization of the harm of taking things that arise and fall away for anything at all, much less the self, because of their impermanence. This does not require any 'real' fear or dosa to arise to be studied and known, anything that is the object of the nana would reveal its harmfulness and reconfirm the universal characteristics of the tilakkhana, the theory of which has been already understood. If you wish to try out the theories, right now things are arising and falling away, sight as you see right now changes all the time, sounds, the hearing, touches, at deeper moments of sati you could already see that all these realities have their specific characteristics the study of which automatically accumulates your knowledge of things as they really are, which, when a certain level is reached will spectacularly confirm the knowledge and eliminate a certain level of uncertainty. As visible object appears now, where is the self? Does this tiny, fleeting glimpse of anatta bring any degree of dosa, much less fear? Was it preceeded by any fear? Fear never was a prerequisite for bhayanana to arise, but prior nana are. This is something > that can be experienced very clearly. How to put proper words on the > experience is not easy, and I would like to find some Tipitaka > support. Unfortunately, Buddhagosa's quote is utterly silent > on this point (putting aside the fact that Vissudhimagga is not in > Tipitaka). Mahasi's quote confirms it, but he is even more removed in > time from Tipitaka. Personally I am a Buddhist and therefore interested mainly in what the Buddha taught, mainly in the Tipitaka, and the Commentaries, which are in Thai versions included in the Tipitaka, especially things that I can test for myself at the present moment, not wait for a special place or time. I am especially impressed by the fact that he taught about realities that appear at all times, through the six senses, and their different characteristics. Still most of the theories about where this study leads is very coherent and logical, not haphazard and inexplicable. If you about the paccaya, for example, the citta must arise in a certain order, and the order that leads to the bhaya nana does not require fear to arise, but prior nana and the realization that things arise and fall away. Without study of the present moment, not just thinking (akusala thoughts since there is fear) about anatta, there could not be even deeper sati arising, without that the realization of nama as nama, the first and weakest of nana, could not arise, and so on. This is how I understand it, sorry if it is not what you expected to hear. I would of course be interested to know if you could find any deviation from the Tipitaka in this analysis, Amara 2655 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Sarah and Robert, Sarah's hit the nail on the head: --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: [responding off-list to an off-list message] --- mike wrote: > > I'd surely prefer concord with the > > rest of you... sounds like attachment to that concord...! Bingo. Thanks for putting my side of this discussion into proper perspective. In fact, none of my participation in this has really had anything to do with ordination (itself just a big idea) at all. I've been going on and on for days, driven by nothing more (or less) than craving for the acceptance and approval of the group, which is, of course, a pure fantasy. Hah! Wotta chump! Well, back to the 'business at hand'... See you in the funny papers, mike 2656 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:30pm Subject: Re: ex-samanera's experience > May you all be well and happy.I'm new around here.I wish to share my > experience as a samanera in relation to the recent discussion. Hi and welcome! Thank you for sharing, and anumodana... May I ask why you are an ex-samanera? Was it because of the pressures you mentioned? Amara 2657 From: amara chay Date: Thu Jan 4, 2001 11:43pm Subject: Cause for anumodana Dear all, Today an anonymous pledge has been made towards the printing of 'Summary', may it be cause for kusala citta to arise and anumodana, and once Shin has started her list I hope she could report from time to time from now on, Amara 2658 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 2:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Dan, --- wrote: > Dear Robert, Mike et al. > Didn't Buddha say that after he passed away, the > sangha should (or was > it "could") abolish the minor rules? I do remember reading this, though I can't cite it. It's been a head-scratcher for a long time! mike 2659 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: lay life v. monk's life Good point, Robert, thanks for this exception. mike --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Not always Mike. Upali wanted to live as a forest > monk but was > asked not to by the Buddha so that he could be one > who studied > Vinaya properly. ' > Robert > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > AN V, 80 > > > > Dear Betty, > > > > Thanks for the 'up close and personal' report on > the > > Thai order. It reminded me a little of the fourth > > Anagata-bhayani (Future Dangers) Sutta: > "Furthermore, > > in the course of the future there will be monks > > desirous of fine lodgings. They, desirous of fine > > lodgings, will neglect the practice of living in > the > > wilds; will neglect isolated forest and wilderness > > dwellings; will move to towns, cities, and royal > > capitals, taking up residence there. For the sake > of > > lodgings they will do many kinds of unseemly, > > inappropriate things." > > > > Anguttara Nikaya V.80 > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an5-77.html > > > > Though it doesn't mention cell phones or computers > or > > even money, it does remind me that the Buddha > always > > had monks stay in forests and secluded places. > > > > All of your points are well-taken and a timely > caution > > for anyone considering this line of endeavour. > > > > Thank you, Ma'am, > > > > mike > > 2660 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] ex-samanera's experience Dear Peng Chuan (did I get that right?), Pleased to meet you! Thanks for this personal recollection. You would have been good company in the monastery. mike --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > Hi! > May you all be well and happy.I'm new around here.I > wish to share my > experience as a samanera in relation to the recent > discussion. > > Although not a full fledge monk, the pressure is > already present.As long as > the ordained ones are of the practising Buddhist > lineage, one would be very > careful of ones conduct for the warning from the > Theras of old keep > resounding in his/her conscience as an ordained. > > I keep remembering the fact that the things that i > use was offered by people > to accumulate kusala kamma. If i were to use them > unmindfully, then i would > not be worthy of their offerings and would be like a > thief using things that > was not intended for him. Unwholesome kamma would > ripen. > > Even though unperfect in nature, I try to do my best > in the monastic > duties(eg.sweeping the temple) and meditation.If i > were to laze around in > robes, then more unwholesome kamma would > result.Every opportunity to share > and learn the Dhamma with lay person and fellow > monastic mates was rarely > missed. > > I would also go for alms round , even though it was > rarely practised by the > Bhantes residing there(except for the Vassa period). > I reflected that there > are people out there that lacks the chance to > perform meritorious deeds. the > only was to reach them through alms round. > > I was also quite restrained in the senses because of > the monastic > environment.Once a person is in the robes , he/she > is also the guardian of > the Dhamma and the reputation of the Triratana is in > their hands. reflecting > on these facts , being in the robes is a tougher > training than climbing > Mt.Himalaya.As a senior monk put it:one can conquer > a whole mountain easily, > but how many can conquer the defilements of the > mind? > > > > 2661 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 6:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] Dear Sukin, --- sukinderpal wrote: Dear Mike, An initial reaction of mine sometime ago was, "Go ahead Mike, become a monk. I think you will be a good one. The sangha in it's present state, needs someone with your kind of dedication to keep check, however little, it's force of decline." I thought that Sarah's and others' opinion on this matter would only be healthy suggestions, keeping in your awareness the various pitfalls that you might otherwise overlook. It is my opinion (which I hope is not a burden to me), that 2500 yrs. is a very short time; in fact at some moments it seems just like yesterday, for the sangha as an institution, and hence the vinaya, and parts of the sutta addressed mainly to monks, to become obsolete. „h It seems that way to me, too. I think firstly that the institution of monkhood should be seen as being on a different plane. That we laypeople must be careful about using 'our' normal everyday sense of judgement to view 'their' normal everyday life. And even to use our understanding of dhamma to make any conclusion about them. It is true that monks and laypersons are ultimately the same, in that we are the 'five khandhas', and hence it being valid that we have the same point of reference from which to view their understanding. What I do however see as an important point of departure, is that the layperson decides to forgo of the 'known past' to embrace a new way of life, a world in which all his past ways of reacting to stimuli has to change. Surely along the way, since past accumulations are so tough, it is possible that he might develop along the path even more slow than he himself might, had he remained a layperson. „h Entirely possible, I think. Certainly life in a strict monastery can condition the arising of a lot of aversion (or desire, depending on one's bent). These 'accumulations' become very evident (to everyone!) in that setting. But none is 'born' a monk, and the decision has to be made. That decision is made, when we are very young, perhaps by force of circumstance, or when we are older, without any, little or relatively high understanding. But once we are in it, the world changes. We may bring in various degrees of the world along with us, and we might even complicate our world even more when we are in it. But this is all a matter of each persons kamma as it is in the layperson's world. But the rules ARE different, because the world IS different. I think that this discussion is important for me. I need to learn from everyone's opinion, because I think I have so many unquestioned ditthi, in fact I have so little confidence in my own view that I would not have written had you not suggested to keep this topic off-list. My interest has been in part due to my own wish that I become a monk in my next life,(perhaps because the grass is greener on the other side of the fence), and also because I feel the need for the institution of monkhood to flourish in order that laypersons like myself, may come in contact and be inspired by the Triple Gem. I am certain that, had there not been good monks out there, I would not be here today. „h Ditto! Lately I've noticed how my thinking is so conditioned by certain habitual ways of reasoning. I tend to overlook certain subjects which are so obvious to others. Especially with this group, where thinking in terms of 'elements' is done with so much ease, I am still stuck with thinking in terms of 'events' happening in 'time'. „h So am I-- I'm sure it has been the case here too. „h Definitely, in my case! That is why it is so important to 'discuss'. And so I will now comment on some of your points; > Shouldn't that be the goal of us all? How could we > have any understanding of the dhamma and not aspire to > the life of an arahat? As I stated above, the world is different for both. The difference here I think is that the monk has this goal more or less constantly in mind, whereas we have other things to 'think' about. „h Agreed--the point of the requisites is to eliminate the need for 'contention for the things of the world'. > Granted, observation without understanding will not > result in understanding and its attendant eradication > of ignorance. But if the precepts are strictly > observed, even without understanding, how can akusala > acts be said to have been committed? As I commented to someone at our 'saturday discussion' here, that while observing a precept (without understanding), we are at that moment, 'thinking about observing' and hence postponing the observing of reality arising at that moment. „h Surely! However it is my opinion that there are many degrees of panna, „h I think that opinion's also been expressed recently by both Robert and Jonathan, if I understood them correctly. we do not need to have complete understanding of the vinaya to observe them, but only enough to realize that they were handed down by Sammasambuddha and hence perfect for its purpose. „h Agreed! Secondly, understanding that all these rules are for the development of perfect sila which would enhance a side by side development of panna, I think there is no reason to follow any rule unwillingly. Of course our accumulations exist and there are many many more moments when moha, dosa and lobha take rein, but panna also can. The little panna that says,"This is your life now, if you do this, that will be. If you do that, this will be." > It isn't that one would want them--it's that a huge > amount of the Buddha's time was spent exhorting people > to adopt them. This is my central point. Yes, since you say it (I haven't read anything myself), I think so too. „h You know, having said that, I think I may have overstated it. Certainly he did often speak approvingly of 'going forth', and most of his discourses were addressed to those who he expected to be keeping 226 precepts. However, when he spoke, for example, of the three characteristics of the khandas, the elements, the five pairs, etc., etc., I don't recall there being a significant difference between the way he spoke to monks or householders (someone better-read might be able to correct me on this). I think this point is pertinent to this topic and particularly to this group, whose emphasis is clearly (and correctly, I believe) on these points. > So we have nothing > left to go on but the abhidhamma and an a handful of > suttas, after only half the sasana. Maybe that really > is true, and maybe I'll come around to it > eventually. My personal opinion is; read the abhidhamma for the fact about ultimate reality, and read the sutta for case examples about it's manifestations in the conventional world, in order that we might have a 'better' understanding of the ultimate realities. „h This was a rather stupid comment of mine--may I take it back? And I do agree with you, though there are lots of good reasons to read the suttas (and the vinaya). > Yes, but he certainly considered it less stressful > than the householders' life (he often joked about > this). Yes I think so too, but for me it may be the case of the grass being greener. „h Well, I've been there, in a limited way, and I actually found it a lot browner. It was not an easy life, by any standard. > Indeed--and, as always, the Buddha had different > answers to that question for monks and householders > (except in the case of individual instructions to > extraordinary householders). „h I'm not sure now what I was referring to here, but I don't think this was true at all of paramattha dhammas. If I said or suggested as much, my apologies. I don't know, but I would assume that he did. But I am curious now, about these cases where the teaching was specifically for monks and the so called 'extraordinary householders', can you please give examples? „h This is a tough one--I could more easily come up with examples of discourse directed at ordinary householders. Maybe someone else in the group can suggest one? > True! As you know, that's the hardest (material) > thing for me to relinquish, at present... It seems to me that you are at this point, not willing to give up your present world. The computer is just a source of the teachings and discussion. Do you wish that you could become a monk and at the same time be able to surf the net? „h Well, you may have something, there--however, almost the only thing I use my computer for is communicating with this group, and it's precisely for that reason that I'm reluctant to give it up. Web-surfing (except sutta-surfing!) I could give up in a heartbeat! > I'm not, at all. Robes are just a practical solution > to reducing one's need for clothing to a reasonable > minimum. I don't believe the Buddha ever meant them > to be anything else (aside for some peripheral > symbolic uses). I do not think Acharn Sujin meant it this way either. I think that she meant by the 'yellow cloth' to mean the whole idea of becoming a monk. > Scrupulous observation of the 226 precepts is equal to > not committing kamma-pathas. Easier to follow with some necessary understanding. „h Certainly easier, and incomparably better. > I truly think you're too kind. I don't see myself > being able to guide others for years, if ever. As for > the rest, call me crazy, but my biggest motivation > comes just from having read the suttas--the > instructions are quite unambiguous. Maybe they're > also obsolete, I don't know...if so, my good > intentions regarding the rest are probably out the > window too... Like it has been pointed out before, the dhamma is so deep that any interpretation is bound to fall short of intended meaning. We can't question the Buddha's teachings, but we can express our understanding and test it. > Are you sure? The group is so utterly lay-oriented--I > can't help thinking it might be better to continue > off-list, for those who are interested. I am lay Mike, only because I can't become a monk. „h No offense intended, Sukin! Just a little more of my own stupidity. > Thanks for your continued interest and for forcing me > to continually re-examine my thinking on this... Same here from you. Hope I didn't bore anyone with this long post. „h I found your post thoughtful and thought-provoking--but then, I seem to have but one string to my bow, latelyˇK mike 2664 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 6:20am Subject: [please excuse the multiple (and lengthy) post and the weird formatting. Looked fine, before I sent it...! 2665 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 8:13am Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Robert, Shin Nen Omedeto gozaimasu. Happy New Year! How was the New Year Celebration In Japan this year? > Good point! I should have been more explicit. You know the sutta > (soory no reference) where the Buddha was telling the 180 monks > that even if they accept the daily food in accordance with the > Vinaya BUT they eat it greedily without proper reflectance, that > this can result in them being reborn in hell. 60 of those monks > immediately disrobed; the Buddha didn't try to stop them. > Another 60 spewed blood through shock and were mortally ill. the > other 60 became arahants. > everyone reacts differently when they hear Dhamma. khun sujin > puts the Dhamma beautifully and clearly, when some realise it > more they learn that their reason for being a monk is not right > and they see that a laylife is better for them at this time. Of > course, as you indicate, others listen and become strenghtened > and live the monks life with renewed purity and diligence. > > We are all so different in our accumulations. I think the main > benefit of these discussions is to learn how profound the life > of a monk is and that we can't just become a monk and expect to > progress faster in Dhamma. Much more complex than most realise. > For those who do understand this, do have the accumualtions for > a monks life then it is of great benefit. It goes perfectly in > hand with the development of satipatthana. It is wide open and > free for the growth of merit. > > You also perhaps know the sutta where one of the 80 leading > arahant disciples of the buddha was living far away. he had a > laydisciple who was very wise. the layman kept asking to ordain > but the great monk said "it is better to stay layman, life as > amonk is hard" This happened several times. Each time the layman > would lose his urge to ordain for a while. But it kept coming > back. Eventually he persuaded the monk to ordain him.. > Do you have a reference for this sutta anyone? i think the > laymans monk name was punna. > > I too am just putting my very imperfect and ignorant views on > this issue. It is very deep and way beyond my capacity to really > understand. > Robert _____________________________ An interesting sutta but I haven't come across it yet. Few days ago, there is a paragraph in an mandarin article written by a taiwanese reverend that I read which sounds: "Try to encourage buddhist to enter the sangha order. But when they want to take robes, discourage them and tell them that it is not easy to become a monk. In return, only those who are good will remain and enter the sangha order." I think this goes along with those good teachers say:"Layhood is easier." But there is one thing, they never think of disrobe! Guess why. We might not have enough past accumulations for us to become a monk today but certainly we can accumulate them now at the present. Make an aspiration! I believe we can achieve it if we dare to strive for it! By the way, the story that I mentioned days ago about a monk practised for one day and died and reborned in deva realms, it is from Mahayana sutta which titled "The Merits of Become A Monk". I don't think any of us can find it in the Pali tipitaka. Lee 2666 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 9:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] new year's greeting where it belongs Bruce, Great to hear from you, and shinnen omedetoo gozaimas'! Hope you can find time to keep in touch... mike 2667 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:11am Subject: Why am I an X-samanera Q)May I ask why you are an ex-samanera? Was it because of the pressures you mentioned? A)It wasn't about the pressure. For your information, I'm an ethnic Chinese in Malaysia.The Buddha Sasana here still is still not that strong although there has been some awareness on the true characteristics of the sasana among the lay people here. When I seeked my parents permission to become a samanera, i was allowed only one week, and that was gained only after much persuation and explanation on the merits and benefits of it.It was also my wish to transfer merits of ordination to my newly departed grandmother. My mother was sad the day before I went to the temple and worried that I may leave lay life to enter the order of Sangha for the rest of my life.She cried the whole night and during the ordination ceremony.I'm sure the innitial reaction of other Buddhist parents in prevalent Theravada countries would be the exact opposite. During the one week training at the local temple(Mahasi tradition),my parents came everyday to visit and this have some pros and cons too.The positive part is, my parents learnt to give alms to the great fields of merit.I even spared the time to share some Dhamma with them. The negative part was somehow less severe but nevertheless the frequent visits disrupted the schedule of my monastic practice timetable.I let this happen as the Lord often teach us that we must honour our parents as they are worthy to the extent of being the Bhrahma gods at home.If it was not for their consent, I would not have the extra Dhamma experience that i now have. Another reason why I'm back to lay life is the Buddha clearly mentioned that a child must have the parents permission to enter the Sangha ( hope you can recall the Rahula episode)So, as my parents allowed one week for the first ordination and two weeks when i requested another, I must truely appreciate their consent.i can't just join without proper approval as it will mean hurting my parents deeply and may as i see it,accrue more akusala than kusala. 2668 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Why am I an X-samanera Dear Peng Chuan (am I getting this right?) --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > Q)May I ask why you are an ex-samanera? Was it > because of the > pressures you mentioned? > > A)It wasn't about the pressure. For your > information, I'm an ethnic Chinese > in Malaysia.The Buddha Sasana here still is still > not that strong although > there has been some awareness on the true > characteristics of the sasana > among the lay people here. I've been to Malaysia, though briefly, and have some idea of what you're talking about. > When I seeked my parents permission to become a > samanera, i was allowed > only one week, and that was gained only after much > persuation and > explanation on the merits and benefits of it.It was > also my wish to transfer > merits of ordination to my newly departed > grandmother. > > My mother was sad the day before I went to the > temple and worried that I may > leave lay life to enter the order of Sangha for the > rest of my life. She > cried the whole night and during the ordination > ceremony. I'm sure the > innitial reaction of other Buddhist parents in > prevalent Theravada countries > would be the exact opposite. This sort of thing has happened since the beginning. I've been trying, and failed, to find on-line a sutta I remember as having to do with someone named Sudinna , or something like that, in which a 'young man of good family' nearly had to starve himself to death before his parents would let him ordain. Actually, I think I remember, isn't this in the Vinaya? I'll let you know if I can find it. > During the one week training at the local > temple (Mahasi tradition), my > parents came everyday to visit and this have some > pros and cons too.The > positive part is, my parents learnt to give alms to > the great fields of > merit.I even spared the time to share some Dhamma > with them. > > The negative part was somehow less severe but > nevertheless the frequent > visits disrupted the schedule of my monastic > practice timetable.I let this > happen as the Lord often teach us that we must > honour our parents as they > are worthy to the extent of being the Bhrahma gods > at home.If it was not for > their consent, I would not have the extra Dhamma > experience that i now have. > > Another reason why I'm back to lay life is the > Buddha clearly mentioned that > a child must have the parents permission to enter > the Sangha ( hope you can > recall the Rahula episode)So, as my parents allowed > one week for the first > ordination and two weeks when i requested another, I > must truely appreciate > their consent.i can't just join without proper > approval as it will mean > hurting my parents deeply and may as i see it,accrue > more akusala than > kusala. I wish I had as good an excuse! In a nutshell, I left to be with my friends (though it's a little more complicated than that)--a weakness which still binds me to this lovely group. mike 2669 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:13am Subject: Re: Why am I an X-samanera > My mother was sad the day before I went to the temple and worried that I may > leave lay life to enter the order of Sangha for the rest of my life.She > cried the whole night and during the ordination ceremony.I'm sure the > innitial reaction of other Buddhist parents in prevalent Theravada countries > would be the exact opposite. Dear Kelvin, Not in my sister's case! My nephew once became ordained for a few weeks in the a very strict order and as the monk who headed the ceremonies spoke of the delight of parents whose sons were ordained, she was weeping continuously but it was because she knew the physical hardships her only son would have to endure, although he thoroughly enjoyed the experience he did come back with bleeding feet because they had to walk for miles for alms, barefoot in the countryside, sometimes on gravel roads. The people were very appreciative of the tiny wat where he stayed- three monks and a samanera were there if I remember correctly, but the abbot is well revered and my nephew gained weight, even with all the hard work as a monk, he tried to have a little of the different kinds of offerings they bring. He frantically worked it off back in Bangkok afterwards. > During the one week training at the local temple(Mahasi tradition),my > parents came everyday to visit and this have some pros and cons too.The > positive part is, my parents learnt to give alms to the great fields of > merit.I even spared the time to share some Dhamma with them. I suppose you know that that is one of the highest merit you could have done: the dhamma being the greatest gift possible and your parents being as you say like brahma, or even the arahanta to their children. > The negative part was somehow less severe but nevertheless the frequent > visits disrupted the schedule of my monastic practice timetable.I let this > happen as the Lord often teach us that we must honour our parents as they > are worthy to the extent of being the Bhrahma gods at home.If it was not for > their consent, I would not have the extra Dhamma experience that i now have. > > Another reason why I'm back to lay life is the Buddha clearly mentioned that > a child must have the parents permission to enter the Sangha ( hope you can > recall the Rahula episode)So, as my parents allowed one week for the first > ordination and two weeks when i requested another, I must truely appreciate > their consent.i can't just join without proper approval as it will mean > hurting my parents deeply and may as i see it,accrue more akusala than > kusala. Anumodana in your great kusala. But even without being ordained I think it is possible to talk to your parents or anyone else interested about the dhamma, which is about the truth or reality, and gradually show them the good of knowing about it, even as a layperson. The five precepts could only bring good results in daily life, for example the finer points of such a thing as not to lie: it also includes not to say harsh words or not to talk frivolously, or lie even for fun. Perhaps if you set a good example as a good layperson, even if only the sotapanna could keep the five precepts without the slightest blemish at all times, naturally in their daily lives, it would already be good for the people around you not to mention to your own self. Thank you for telling us more about yourself, and anumodana in your great kusala in studying the dhamma, Amaara 2670 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:28am Subject: Re: "...first name basis" > You know, I'm not sure how everyone else got their name to show up in > the "Author" column while my e-mail address is there instead. I must > have incorrectly filled out the sign-up form for the forum. Dear Dan and all those with the same problem, If you would like to change anything please go to and click on 'my profile' (in the yellow band towards the top, to the right of the band,) that will take you to the page where you could change anything you want. You will also notice that you could post messages and read them from the site as well, and access the archives very easily from the 'main page'. Enjoy, Amara 2671 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:30am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Dear Kom, I am, as always, nearly overwhelmed by your post (not that I imagine that you care!): --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Without the panna, you do not "develop" the > stronger tendency to > give dana. In other words, it's the pańńaa that makes it a condition for future kamma? > The (maybe inaccurate) example would, > one is likely to give > dana if one knows explicitly why giving dana is good > and beneficial. > The stronger panna will develop the tendency more > strongly. Take the > following reasons why to give dana and guess which > ones are stronger: > giving dana is good, giving dana to those who can't > fend for themself > is good, giving dana will give me many good returns, > and giving dana > lets go of the akusala and is a condition for the > reaching of Nibhanna. I will guess: If you mean stronger as a present motivation for most of us, then (c) giving dana will give me many good returns; if you mean stronger as a greater kusaladhamma, then (d) giving dana lets go of the akusala and is a condition for the reaching of Nibhanna > Samatha bhavana is "developed" as the cittas during > such time always > arise with BOTH sati and panna. However, since > panna doesn't cognize > the poramattha dhamma It doesn't?! > (Samatha has pannati as > aramana), Always?! [by the way, if this is a categorical statement, I think it refutes many 'outside' arguments to 'our' perspective--that is, samatha vs. vipassana bhavana] > it is not > satipatthana, and the development toward Nibhanna is > not occuring at > such time, but the development to temporary freedom > from kilesa IS > being developed. Is this the same thing as saying that kilesa can be supressed but not eradicated by samatha? > Satipatthana is "developed" always, as it also > arises with panna. It > has the poramatha as aramana. It is the only path > toward Nibhanna. > > Note that for those bent on Samatha bhavana > development (including > Anuruddha dera), if they listened and understood > Buddha, they most > likely develop BOTH Samatha bhavana and > Satipatthana. Jonothan mentioned recently that the two CAN support each other--I was glad to hear this, as I've always understood them BOTH as the 'samadhi' section of the eightfold path. > Although > Samatha bhavana is NOT satipatthana, it can be a > condition for > Satipatthana to arise (in many different ways). > > > In other words, if (after sati arises) upadana > arises, > > sati doesn't arise...? > Upadana is associated with akusala (lobha). There > can be no sati or > panna arising with akusala cittas. Sati always > arises with kusala > cittas (and other sobhana cittas). Kom, your posts are a living (?) example of why it's a DAMNED (pardon my French) good idea to study abhidhamma. mike 2672 From: Shaiu-in Lin Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 245 Dear Leonardo, Anumodana to your kusula citta and kamma. At this moment, everything is not completely settle yet. We will have a meeting this Saturday and will finalize everything. From there, K.Amara will inform all us in the website. Thankyou. with metta, Shin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leonardo Neves" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 245 > Dear Shin Lin, > > I would love the opportunity to collaborate. Let me know how. As I live in Brazil > I don't know how. > > Thank you very much to the chance of making dana. > > Metta, > Leonardo > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shaiu-in Lin" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Digest Number 245 > > > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > My email is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=061015020185018132172218026077053012134048234051209113079 or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=061015020237194237036158085064231090136058066192197079172142172194143142083 If any one > > would like to contribute anything for the printing of the book, pls feel > > free to contact me. > > with regards, > > Shin Lin > > > > > > > 2673 From: Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:57am Subject: Re: monks/laylife, again Dear Kelvin, Anumodhana and welcome to the group. It was wonderful to read your description of the "pressures" you faced as a samanera. Where did this experience take place and why did you finally disrobe? To me, your description of all the aspects of the monk's life that you were led to contemplate were very much what the Buddha may have intended in his teachings. Your description of the elder monks there, and their admonitions to you, sounded very wise to me. For it is contemplation such as you described that would begin to build the conditions that would later lead to sati and panna arising. I don't know how much of the Abhidhamma you have studied, or how much you understand of satipatthana, but rather than calling what you were admonished as pressures, they were "invitations", so to speak, to contemplate and allow sati and panna to arise. You were so very fortunate to have had that experience. But, as was shown in several letters by other members, different persons react differently when lessons in dhamma are presented to them, depending on their accumulations throughout the myriad of lifetimes experienced. However, that you found our group, and that you are indeed still "searching for answers", as implied by your writing to the group, means that perhaps you can still have the experience again, with better understanding the second time around. With metta, Betty __________________________ Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 2674 From: Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:03pm Subject: Re: monks/laymen again Dear Mike, Anumodhana and many thanks for your reference from the Anguttara Nikaya. Just shows that the Buddha foresaw the future very accurately. But please read the wonderful account by Kelvin of his experiences as a samanera: one would have to search far and wide to find monks like the ones he met. With metta, Betty __________________________ Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 2675 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: Digest Number 245 At this moment, everything is > not completely settle yet. We will have a meeting this Saturday and will > finalize everything. From there, K.Amara will inform all us in the website. > Thankyou. > with metta, > Shin Dear Shin, Have you had the chance to set things up with Nong Lan? I hope you realize there will be two different groups participating, one here in this list, where the orders go to Sukin and Jonothan's friend, and the donations to you. The meeting is for the people who use our website without joining this discussion group, and the announcements will go on the website and not here, as the conditions will be slightly different, a little more formal and conventional, perhaps. If you have the accounts already you could tell everyone how to contribute right now in this list, Anumodana in your kusala cetana, Amara 2676 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Lee, Nice to hear from you again!!! I know you were responding to Robert, but: --- wrote: > Just to be pondered: > > 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the > sangha order as > they have all done? If memory serves (corrections, please), an arahat can't break (because of no motivation to do so) any of the 226 precepts. So, besides already being perfect bhikkus, why not ordain? > 3. What makes the monkhood so special that they, the > arahants, have > no second thought of it? Not sure I understand your question, here... > 4. We are encourage to follow the wise, are we? ...or here? > Taking robes ia actually a practise of letting go, > letting go of our > desires towards the worldlings. I guess to me, it is a practice of relinquishing (letting go) THE SATISFACTION OF our desires for the things of the world, (not to mention our desires for 'attractive worldlings!!!')--all concepts). > Although it is not > necessarily true > nowadays. But, shouldn't we stick to the ordinary > one? If thinking > that observing 226 precepts is stressful, it seems > to me that taking > robes is just an extra idea of getting rid of lobha > etc. Yes, you may well be right, sir. > And what kind of thoughts that gave rise to the > thought that "it is stressful". Is is the thought > that "I don't want to be tied up by the rules"? > > By the way, taking robes is not just the matter of > self realization > but also to enhance the Buddhasasana. Saadhu! > Afterall, these are only my own personal viewpoints. > Please forgive > me if the words sound rude. Please correct me if I > am wrong. > > Lee I know you weren't asking me, but I found your viewpoints AND your words lovely. Saadhu, Lee... mike 2677 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: monks/laymen again Dear Betty, --- "Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: > Dear Mike, > Anumodhana and many thanks for your reference from > the Anguttara Nikaya. > Just shows that the Buddha foresaw the future very > accurately. But please > read the wonderful account by Kelvin of his > experiences as a samanera: one > would have to search far and wide to find monks like > the ones he met. [Or samaneras like he was! mn] Oh, I have! And it reminded me of having been (almost) there myself, with all that situation's attendant and, I think, inherent kusala and akusala. Mudita to you and your son, Ma'am, mike p.s. [pretty good predicting for TWENTY-FIVE CENTURIES ahead, don't you think?!] 2678 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Ah yes robert , It was my mistake. [ the off-time from office hours is always somewhat messy.. :o)..the lobha for the thought of going home ] The other story you mentioned is about the two brothers , maha pantaka and culla pantaka. The younger one had such accumulations that he won arahantship while looking at a piece of cloth which went from clean to dirty ... Thanks 2679 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 0:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Why am I an X-samanera Dear kelvin, Our feelings are mutual here, and I understand you. The only reason why I couldnt go from 8 to 227 (yet) is my parents( the attachment to 'my parents'). In dhammapada buddha has categorically said that the bond of the 'loved ones ' is the hardest of bonds to break. Thanks 2680 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Dear Mike, I think your being nearly "overwhelmed" is probably because you are getting bits and pieces at a time instead of some bigger (and better, clearer) chunks. BTW, Khun Amara's Summary to Poramattha dhamma has 2 chapters dealing specifically with Samatha Bhavana and Vipassana. --- "m. nease" wrote: > In other words, it's the pańńaa that makes it a > condition for future kamma? Yes, it could certainly condition kusala dhamma (including Kusala kamma) to arise. Knowing that listening to Dhamma, understanding dhamma are conditions for Satipathana to arise, wouldn't you say that this would condition one to listen to Dhamma? > I will guess: If you mean stronger as a present > motivation for most of us, then (c) giving dana will > give me many good returns; if you mean stronger as a > greater kusaladhamma, then (d) giving dana lets go of > the akusala and is a condition for the reaching of > Nibhanna Yes, there is a Sutta that addresses this question, although I don't have a reference. c) is less than d) because c) is miccha-patipaddha (on the birth side: pattichasamupadha) and d) is samma-patipaddha (on the reverse side). > > > Samatha bhavana is "developed" as the cittas during > > such time always > > arise with BOTH sati and panna. However, since > > panna doesn't cognize > > the poramattha dhamma > > It doesn't?! For all the samatha aramana that I can remember, the condition for reaching the jhana is that you be able to think (vittaka) of your samatha object constantly. For example, if the red color is your aramana, you probably stare at it until the concept of redness becomes very steadfast in your mind. You can actually hold this concept of redness in your mind even after you close your eyes. Now, in poramattha term, when you close your eyes, you mostly just don't see. Thinking about something is definitely not experiencing the poramattha characteristic of that thing. > > > (Samatha has pannati as > > aramana), > > Always?! [by the way, if this is a categorical > statement, I think it refutes many 'outside' arguments > to 'our' perspective--that is, samatha vs. vipassana > bhavana] I am almost sure that this is. Even the samatha development using anapanasati (breath) as aramana, the samatha object is still a concept. There is definitely poramatha characteristics of breath, but they are not the samatha aramana. In fact, the breath eventually becomes so fine (that you cannot experience its poramatha chracteristics), but yet the person will still need an aramana to continue with the samatha development. The fact that poramatha characteristics are not appearing certainly wouldn't be a hindrance!!! > > it is not > > satipatthana, and the development toward Nibhanna is > > not occuring at > > such time, but the development to temporary freedom > > from kilesa IS > > being developed. > > Is this the same thing as saying that kilesa can be > supressed but not eradicated by samatha? Yes. On the other hand, any time the citta arising is kusala, kilesa is being "suppressed", just not in such extended period as when Jhana cittas are arising. > Jonothan mentioned recently that the two CAN support > each other--I was glad to hear this, as I've always > understood them BOTH as the 'samadhi' section of the > eightfold path. When we talk about the eightfold path, I think we would be talking STRICTLY about the cetasikas arising with the citta cognizing poramatha aramana (Satipatthana). When Samatha Bhavana citta is arising, it is NOT the 8-fold path, but it can condition the 8-fold path. > Kom, your posts are a living (?) example of why it's a > DAMNED (pardon my French) good idea to study > abhidhamma. Yes. In fact, I think this is true for anything, even with things not strictly related to Vipassana/Satipatthana/Samatha Bhavana. For example, how does one develop kusala when one does not understand the differences between kusala and akusala? How does one build a good bridge if one doesn't know the differences between a good bridge and a bad bridge? Satipatthana and the 8-fold path is harder to understand than that: it takes a Buddha to understand it without teachings. kom 2681 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:18pm Subject: Re: Cambodia - a personal account & SATI > BTW, Khun Amara's Summary to Poramattha dhamma has 2 > chapters dealing specifically with Samatha Bhavana and Vipassana. Dear K. Kom, Just to say that would be a great honor if I could say that the 'Summary' is mine, in fact Tan Ajaan wrote the great book a long time ago and Varee and I only translated it, with the help of K. Jeed and K. Ruk. I really enjoy your posts, by the way, anumodana, Amara 2682 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the > > sangha order as > > they have all done? > > If memory serves (corrections, please), an arahat > can't break (because of no motivation to do so) any of > the 226 precepts. So, besides already being perfect > bhikkus, why not ordain? The story I hear is that a person achieving an arahatship will not survive more than 7 days without being ordained. I have never heard (but have not asked enough) of anybody giving an explanation (that I can understand) of why this is. My (wild) guess is that the person has absolutely no reason to fend for himself (to live), and being a layperson, in order to live, you have to fend for yourself (cloth, food, roof over head, medicine, etc). Being a monk is the way to sustain the 5-khandas acceptably, and by basically being the immeasurable field of merits: an arahat only lives for others. The answer in Mirinda panha is something like: a layperson life cannot sustain an arahat as being arahat is "heavy". Only a life of an umblemished Sangha (a "heavy" profession) can sustain such a heavy person. kom 2683 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 3:33pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > The story I hear is that a person achieving an arahatship will not > survive more than 7 days without being ordained. I have never heard > (but have not asked enough) of anybody giving an explanation (that I > can understand) of why this is. My (wild) guess is that the person has > absolutely no reason to fend for himself (to live), and being a > layperson, in order to live, you have to fend for yourself (cloth, > food, roof over head, medicine, etc). Being a monk is the way to > sustain the 5-khandas acceptably, and by basically being the > immeasurable field of merits: an arahat only lives for others. > > The answer in Mirinda panha is something like: a layperson life cannot > sustain an arahat as being arahat is "heavy". Only a life of an > umblemished Sangha (a "heavy" profession) can sustain such a heavy > person. Dear K. Kom, That is the general belief, the seven day period, but from what Tan Ajaan and our experts say, this passage has never been located in the Tipitaka (and/or Commentaries). Actually it is interesting that a person could probably not survive longer without water, still in those days most people really rejoiced to have bhikkhu to teach them and be as you say, 'immeasurable field of merits'. Amara 2684 From: bruce Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 7:45pm Subject: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas hi all i've been meaning to open up this topic, as many of you may remember....now that tobacco withdrawal symptoms have pretty much abated (10 days and counting...phew!!...thanks for all the kind words of support...) i feel like i can put a short, relatively coherent email together (and send it to the right forum!)... note: i put the subject <"vs"> in quotes because i don't think the two are necessarily in opposition...i gather from recent discussions that members may agree... for starter questions: -- for those of you who do: what are the benefits of daily sitting practice? -- for those of you who don't: what are your reasons for not sitting? -- as for sitting practice: can we simply call what everybody out there in the world is doing when they sit simply: samatha? does anybody actually sit and "do" vipassana?? from what i've read and heard, one can sit and "do" samatha, by giving the mind a single aramana and continually bringing it back to that aramana when it wanders... since the aramana of vipassana is only limited in that it must be a paramattha dhamma appearing at one of the six dvaras, i wonder: can one also sit and "do" vipassana? or does vipassana arise in some way independent of sitting down and "trying to do it"? -- i've heard it mentioned several times on the list that samatha can be condition for satipathana to arise....can anyone explain why and how? ========================== i'm also quite curious about some excerpts from some recent mails re: vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas: kom wrote: > For all the samatha aramana that I can remember, the condition for > reaching the jhana is that you be able to think (vittaka) of your > samatha object constantly. For example, if the red color is your > aramana, you probably stare at it until the concept of redness becomes > very steadfast in your mind. You can actually hold this concept of > redness in your mind even after you close your eyes. Now, in > poramattha term, when you close your eyes, you mostly just don't see. > Thinking about something is definitely not experiencing the poramattha > characteristic of that thing. ----------------------- i know vitakka and vicara are usually translated as "applied thought" and "sustained thought", but i never understood these as meaning conceptualizing or ruminating *about* the object, which i equate with papanca; i thought that these terms referred to the, for lack of better terms, "movement" of the mind toward and then "continued contact" of the mind with the aramana... i'd be curious to know the pali etymologies of vitakka and vicara : does anybody on this list also happen to know the derivation of these two words? kom/mike/kom wrote: > > > (Samatha has pannati as > > > aramana), > > > > Always?! [by the way, if this is a categorical > > statement, I think it refutes many 'outside' arguments > > to 'our' perspective--that is, samatha vs. vipassana > > bhavana] > I am almost sure that this is. Even the samatha development using > anapanasati (breath) as aramana, the samatha object is still a concept. > There is definitely poramatha characteristics of breath, but they are > not the samatha aramana. In fact, the breath eventually becomes so > fine (that you cannot experience its poramatha chracteristics), but yet > the person will still need an aramana to continue with the samatha > development. The fact that poramatha characteristics are not > appearing certainly wouldn't be a hindrance!!! ----------------------- does everyone agree that samatha can only have pannati as aramana? i need to review the list of objects for samatha meditation subjects in VSM, but i had thought many were chosen because they provided the meditator with one or more paramattha dhammas on which to focus...colors, touch of breath, revulsion-cetasika of corpses, the brahma vihara cetasikas; but then again there are ones which seem much more like pannati: recollection of the qualities of the Buddha would surely be conceputalization, yes? and the nimitta of any kasina seems as though it must certainly be pannati, but there is no nimitta for anapana, is there? also: if vitakka and vicara indeed are "thinking about" the object, and are, as is said, the first jhana-factors to be abandoned as one progresses into finer material states, then once those jhana factors are abandoned, it would be impossible to "think about" the aramana, and samatha bhavana would occur without this thinking-about, yes? what would the object of samatha then be? is the object always the chosen meditation object? if one moves the mind to contemplate the jhana factors themselves, wouldn't that constitute vipassana?? i've rather gotten away from my original sitting/non-sitting idea, and the questions seem to be branching out of their own accord...sorry for the papanca!! feel free to break these questions up into separate responses if necessary -- i probably should be editing this into 2 mails....so much for short and coherent! looking forward to responses from all.... yours in the incomparable Dhamma mettacittena bruce 2685 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 8:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Bruce, great to hear from, nice that you are out from the smoke clouds now. I am a little busy recently so just a few little points before others (sarah, jon?) go into details. --- bruce wrote: > the world is doing when they sit simply: samatha? samattha Bhavana is the development of kusala to a very high degree. It takes more than simply sitting to develop it correctly. Some types of samattha do not need to the sitting posture. Others, (eg anapanasati) do. does > anybody actually > sit and "do" vipassana?? from what i've read and heard, one > can sit and > "do" samatha, by giving the mind a single aramana and > continually bringing > it back to that aramana when it wanders... since the aramana > of vipassana > is only limited in that it must be a paramattha dhamma > appearing at one of > the six dvaras, i wonder: can one also sit and "do" vipassana? > or does > vipassana arise in some way independent of sitting down and > "trying to do it"? ______ Great question - kom, amara and others will answer. > > -- i've heard it mentioned several times on the list that > samatha can be > condition for satipathana to arise....can anyone explain why > and how? > > ========================== yes, this is right but takes quite a bit of explanation. Kom? Briefly for those with high accumulations they can master jhana and use that as a basis for vipassana. the process is still essentially the same - there must be understanding of nama and rupa. Also all kusala assists to some degree. So even giving can be a supporting condition (to some degree), likewise samattha. Confusions start when people think samattha is a main condition- then they don't realise the importance of panna. > : > > ----------------------- > does everyone agree that samatha can only have pannati as > aramana? ____________ The arammana are mostly pannati but not all. Even the color discs are used as pannati, as Kom explained. I went into some detil a while back about anapanasati and how it is usually a concept but it can be known (possibly) in some ways as paramattha by those with extraordinary accumulations (but not when developed to a high degree as an object of samattha). The 4 elements are not pannati but they can be used as objects for samattha. They are seen as simply earth element or hardness but there is still not the understanding of anattaness that goes with vipassana. Robert 2686 From: bruce Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 8:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas hi robert you wrote: > > does everyone agree that samatha can only have pannati as > > aramana? > ____________ > The arammana are mostly pannati but not all. Even the color > discs are used as pannati, as Kom explained. I went into some > detil a while back about anapanasati and how it is usually a > concept but it can be known (possibly) in some ways as > paramattha by those with extraordinary accumulations (but not > when developed to a high degree as an object of samattha). The 4 > elements are not pannati but they can be used as objects for > samattha. They are seen as simply earth element or hardness but > there is still not the understanding of anattaness that goes > with vipassana. thanks, i'd like to try to find the thread in the archives...assuming you haven't saved every one of your outgoing messages: does anyone remember the title of this thread? even something close, and i'll try variations with egroups not-so-trusty search engine... i really should go back and read the year's worth or posts...ahh for more hours in the day... bruce 2687 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 8:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas dear bruce, here is the post I meant. Actually I am not at all knowledgeable on this area. In thai they have whole series of talks discussing it in fine detail. This is just what I glean.: [DhammaStudyGroup]Breath was teaching resources & vipassana Dear Mike, Almost always breath is concept when we are aware of it. Especially when it is used as an object for samattha and a nimitta arises this is obviously concept. And even during vipassana when there is awareness of the different namas and rupas that arise almost simultaneoulsy with breath - the breath itself is not an object for satipatthana. However breath is actually composed of rupas that are conditioned ONLY by citta (citta-samutthana-rupa). Only special type of wisdom can actually distinguish between the rupas that are citta-samutthana -rupa and say those that are utu -samutthana-rupa. Thus we might think we are experiencing the rupas that are conditioned by citta but actually be observing other types - it is exceedingly hard to know. And most of the time whatever rupa we experience is seen only with vinnana(consciousness) and sanna (perception) but not with panna (wisdom). Breath is a real hard one. (Isn't it all?) Robert --- bruce wrote: > hi robert > > you wrote: > > > > does everyone agree that samatha can only have pannati as > > > aramana? > > ____________ > > The arammana are mostly pannati but not all. Even the color > > discs are used as pannati, as Kom explained. I went into > some > > detail a while back about anapanasati and how it is usually a > > concept but it can be known (possibly) in some ways as > > paramattha by those with extraordinary accumulations (but > not > > when developed to a high degree as an object of samattha). > The 4 > > elements are not pannati but they can be used as objects for > > samattha. They are seen as simply earth element or hardness > but > > there is still not the understanding of anattaness that goes > > with vipassana. > > thanks, i'd like to try to find the thread in the > archives...assuming you > haven't saved every one of your outgoing messages: does anyone > remember the > title of this thread? even something close, and i'll try > variations with > egroups not-so-trusty search engine... > > i really should go back and read the year's worth or > posts...ahh for more > hours in the day... > > bruce > > > > 2688 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 9:22pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Amara, Thanks again for sharing your knowledge of the Tipitaka and the "Summary..." Most of what you write is very closely derived from the Tipitaka or its authoritative commentaries, and I am delighted by that. Sometimes, though, the Tipitaka is silent about certain topics. For example, there is apparently no explicit mention of whether bhaya-nana refers to wisdom about real, directly experienced fear, or wisdom about an abstract, rationated fear or even a recollected fear from sometime before nama-rupa-paricheda-nana arises. Thinking about it for a moment, it seems clear that it HAS to be wisdom about real, directly experienced fear. But that is just rational thinking and may or may not be correct. Tipitaka is apparently silent here, so we can't get direct confirmation. I don't know for sure, but the commentaries may also be silent on this detail. Mahasi clearly indicated that the bhaya-nana is knowledge of a directly experienced fear: "[The yogi's] mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless." This accords more closely to my reasoning and experience than do your deviations from Tipitaka. Your deviation from Tipitaka is writing that the bhaya-nana is not derived from a real, directly experienced fear, that it is not wisdom regarding a real, directly experienced fear. Please note that I do not say that you contradict Tipitaka, only that you are extrapolating or deviating from Tipitaka. Your extrapolation differs from Mahasi's, and it differs from mine, but to the best of my knowledge, none of the extrapolations contradicts Tipitaka. In closing, you wrote: > This is how I understand it, sorry if it is not what you expected to > hear. I would of course be interested to know if you could find any > deviation from the Tipitaka in this analysis, I don't know that I was expecting to hear anything in particular. I was HOPING that someone would fill in some details that I haven't been able to find in Tipitaka. I learn a great deal hearing about and thinking about your extrapolations and conceptions and enjoy the interaction with you. Please don't feel that you need to apologize. 2689 From: Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:06pm Subject: Papańca [again] I was looking for a different discourse (addressing contention for the things of the world) when I ran across this one. I'd read it before, but had forgotten its unusual emphasis on papańca and its place in paticcasamuppada. Having recently experienced more than my share of papańca, I thought I'd pass this along. I loved Stick-In- Hand the Brahmin's response. I think I remember reading somewhere that 'Stick-In-Hand's' name did NOT refer to a walking-stick. I think this is an example of the Buddha matching his teaching to the (contentious, in this case) character of his audience. "If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of complication [papańca] assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the underlying tendencies to passion, to irritation, to views, to uncertainty, to conceit, to passion for becoming, & to ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling." Majjhima Nikaya 18 Madhupindika Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn18.html 2690 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:27pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > Thanks again for sharing your knowledge of the Tipitaka and the > "Summary..." Most of what you write is very closely derived from the > Tipitaka or its authoritative commentaries, and I am delighted by > that. > > Sometimes, though, the Tipitaka is silent about certain topics. For > example, there is apparently no explicit mention of whether bhaya-nana > refers to wisdom about real, directly experienced fear, or wisdom > about an abstract, rationated fear or even a recollected fear from > sometime before nama-rupa-paricheda-nana arises. Thinking about it for > a moment, it seems clear that it HAS to be wisdom about real, directly > experienced fear. But that is just rational thinking and may or may > not be correct. Tipitaka is apparently silent here, so we can't get > direct confirmation. While the Tipitaka may not give all the details, the Attasalini does, I can't remember the exact quote, but the gist is as I explained earlier. The fear is not about any dosa but the continuation of the deepening process of accumulated wisdom about things as they really are: first the study of the characteristics of nama and rupa is accumulated to the point where there is perfectly clear and spectacularly unforgetable experience of the rupa that is the aramana at that instant as rupa, then the experience of the nama through the mano dvara that is normally never experienced in daily life, immediately after: none of which is the self. As panna is accumulated and grows to the next level, sati-patthana would continue to study the characteristics of realities and grow until perfect for the next nana to arise to experience the arising and falling away, first there is nothing, then reality arises, then nothing again. Right memory of anattaness accumulates, but there is still the warmth of feeling that there is something there to cling to, until the bhaya nana arises. The bhaya nana not only clearly experiences the arising and falling away even more clearly, but experiences the harm, the nothingness of what arises and falls away, which leads to the end of clinging to the self in the higher nana, ultimaately the sotapanna. I don't know for sure, but the commentaries may > also be silent on this detail. In the Atthasalini and others there are many clear detail, will look them up tomorrow at the foundation. Mahasi clearly indicated that the > bhaya-nana is knowledge of a directly experienced fear: "[The yogi's] > mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless." This accords more > closely to my reasoning and experience than do your deviations from > Tipitaka. Your deviation from Tipitaka is writing that the bhaya-nana > is not derived from a real, directly experienced fear, that it > is not wisdom regarding a real, directly experienced fear. Dosa, fear or terror of any kind is akusala, they could never arise in a process of wisdom or panna, it is impossible. Please note > that I do not say that you contradict Tipitaka, only that you are > extrapolating or deviating from Tipitaka. Only if you say that the commentaries deviate and not this book of yours, and I much prefer the commentaries, which are much more coherent. Your extrapolation differs > from Mahasi's, and it differs from mine, but to the best of my > knowledge, none of the extrapolations contradicts Tipitaka. The Commentaries certainly do not, while saying that 'The yogi's mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless' in both full of the atta and dosa, and no panna whatever, how could you say that such akusala is necessary to panna? Never according to the Tipitaka and/or commentaries. > I don't know that I was expecting to hear anything in particular. I > was HOPING that someone would fill in some details that I haven't been > able to find in Tipitaka. I learn a great deal hearing about and > thinking about your extrapolations and conceptions and enjoy the > interaction with you. Please don't feel that you need to apologize. Then I am glad to tell you to read the Atthasalini instead of some strange book that associates dosa, an akusala citta, with panna, something impossible. We are not in a horror movie here! Have fun with the Atthasalini, Amara 2691 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Khun Amara, Thank you for the correction. Anumoddhana to your most excelent posts recently. kom --- amara chay wrote: > > > > The story I hear is that a person achieving an arahatship will not > > survive more than 7 days without being ordained. I have never > heard > > (but have not asked enough) of anybody giving an explanation (that > I > > can understand) of why this is. My (wild) guess is that the person > > has > > absolutely no reason to fend for himself (to live), and being a > > layperson, in order to live, you have to fend for yourself (cloth, > > food, roof over head, medicine, etc). Being a monk is the way to > > sustain the 5-khandas acceptably, and by basically being the > > immeasurable field of merits: an arahat only lives for others. > > > > The answer in Mirinda panha is something like: a layperson life > cannot > > sustain an arahat as being arahat is "heavy". Only a life of an > > umblemished Sangha (a "heavy" profession) can sustain such a heavy > > person. > > > Dear K. Kom, > > That is the general belief, the seven day period, but from what Tan > Ajaan and our experts say, this passage has never been located in > the Tipitaka (and/or Commentaries). Actually it is interesting that > a person could probably not survive longer without water, still in > those days most people really rejoiced to have bhikkhu to teach them > and be as you say, 'immeasurable field of merits'. > > Amara > 2692 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:36pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > i've been meaning to open up this topic, as many of you may remember....now > that tobacco withdrawal symptoms have pretty much abated (10 days and > counting...phew!!...thanks for all the kind words of support...) i feel > like i can put a short, relatively coherent email together (and send it to > the right forum!)... Dear Bruce, Bravo!!! So glad to hear from you and so coherently! Just a quick 'hi' and 'you did it', for now, except perhaps to comment that I am sitting down at this moment, and as I write moments of sati appear, even as I see visible objects on the screen now, hear sounds of the keyboard and the computer, etc. Would you call that 'sitting'? Anyway who does not physically take a seat in a day, and who's to say that satipatthana couldn't arise each time? Certainly arises often enough in front of the computer for me!!! More later, again, bravo, anumodana, Amara 2693 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:51pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > Thank you for the correction. Dear K. Kom, Hardly a correction, just a clarification to share a point only recently discussed at the English session- thought you might like to know, Amara 2694 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Hi Robert, Thanks for reposting. I have some questions for you. --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > [DhammaStudyGroup]Breath was teaching resources & vipassana > Dear Mike, > Almost always breath is concept when we are aware of it. > Especially when it is used as an object for samattha and a > nimitta arises this is obviously concept. You are saying here that in the beginning, the meditator (samatha bhavana) may have poramattha as aramana. However, since to develop the samatha bhanvana further, nimita must appear, and therefore, at this point, it becomes pannati. Is this about right? > And even during > vipassana when there is awareness of the different namas and > rupas that arise almost simultaneoulsy with breath - the breath > itself is not an object for satipatthana. However breath is > actually composed of rupas that are conditioned ONLY by citta > (citta-samutthana-rupa). Only special type of wisdom can > actually distinguish between the rupas that are citta-samutthana > -rupa and say those that are utu -samutthana-rupa. Thus we might > think we are experiencing the rupas that are conditioned by > citta but actually be observing other types - it is exceedingly > hard to know. Do you know of anyone who actually try to "observe" the differences between citta-samutthana and utu-samutthana rupa? Are the differences actually observable via Satipatthana? This is where I can understand how being unwise studying Abhidhamma could cause insanity... kom 2695 From: bruce Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas hi amara > Just a quick 'hi' and 'you did it', for now, except perhaps to comment > that I am sitting down at this moment, and as I write moments of sati > appear, even as I see visible objects on the screen now, hear sounds > of the keyboard and the computer, etc. Would you call that 'sitting'? > Anyway who does not physically take a seat in a day, and who's to say > that satipatthana couldn't arise each time? Certainly arises often > enough in front of the computer for me!!! haha! then you sure are lucky!:-) but why does it *feel* like i'm spinning out so much more panatti when i'm sitting in front of the computer than when i'm sitting attempting samatha bhavana?? bruce 2696 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:18pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > but why does it *feel* like i'm spinning out so much more panatti when i'm > sitting in front of the computer than when i'm sitting attempting samatha > bhavana?? Dear Bruce, Perhaps because you are not conscious of thinking as only thinking, word after word, thought after thought, and all so fast because the citta is as fast as at least 17 times the speed of light, since light is only rupa! As you 'spinning out so much more panatti sitting in front of the computer', billions of citta had arisen and fallen away and myriad rupa as well, even as you read this. Sight, sounds, thinking, and whole loads of bhavanga had fallen away, and others arise in their place when there are conditions for them to. Moments of your hand on the mouse, the hardness has its own characteristics different from sight and seeing, all these are knowledge of realities as they really are, just what appears, and then something else does. You cannot control them, they arise from conditions and fall away without you being able to do anything, by the time you recognize them, they are gone, never to return in exactly the same way again. To study them will confirm and add to the theoretic knowledge we have of the tilakkhana, and accumulate right understanding, so I say just know that with the right conditions sati can arise anywhere, especially when dhamma is discussed, for me. This is why I love talking to you all, Amara 2697 From: amara chay Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Re: Papańca [again] Dear Mike, I just remembered that I haven't gotten back to you on the mantra recital as per 'Birth,...', or have I? In any case K Sujin said that recitals are the general practice, (not for me, but I remember my mother taught me some ever since I learned to speak, so I am perhaps the exception) I think she does every night, and she says any reflection on the Buddha's beneficence is always good. Message delivered, Amara 2698 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 1:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Hi Bruce, I am glad you are succeeding with your efforts to quit smoking. --- bruce wrote: > -- for those of you who don't: what are your reasons for not sitting? By sitting, I assume you mean in two different contexts: samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. For samatha bhavana, the desired result of such practice is to attain the (temporary) freedom from kilesa at the uppana level. The conditions for attaining this level is severely strict: it's possible only when you live a recluse's life (you must be a very reclusive monk, for example). If you are "developing" samatha bhavana as a layperson, and you are doing this correctly, all you getting is maha-kusala cittas, not jhana cittas. This is a practice considered "micha-patipadha", as it does not lead to nibbhana. Only the development of Satipatthana/Vipassana nana can one reach nibbhana. So the answer why one may not want to develop samatha bhavana (for a layperson) is: why bother? Maha-kusala cittas arise during dana, sila, and studying realities. If arising with the right level of panna, these will lead to nibhana. Why develop anything that doesn't lead to Nibhana? For Vipassana bhavana, there is no where in the three tipitakas that mention that you MUST sit in order to develop it. Many people mentioned in the Sutta reached Nibbhana without such sitting practices (I believe Buddha's father became a sotapanna while standing up). Furthermore, the specific guidelines given by the schools that teach sitting/standing/walking as the way to develop vipassana cannot be traced to the tipitaka and the commentaries: they have uncertain sources at best if not downright unreliable. Given that Buddha's teachings are extremely refined and can be very easily mistaken (witness the many groups of beliefs even in Thailand where theravada is supposed to reign supreme) and even misterintpreted for personal gains, I think it should give all of us a shudder to be taking something as Buddha's teachings when it is not verifiable. Another question is, if following such guidelines (and interpreting the different signs as reaching certain nana) are so important, why did the Buddha bother teaching for 45 years? Why not just come up with the comprehensive retreat courses (like there are many out there nowadays) that will take you to Nibhana? One explanation that I heard was that: the buddha actually taught this, but it was lost. So someone actually "reclaimed" this knowledge by themself (or some other supernatural mean / perhaps through the devas???). I am afraid that I need to take that with a large grain of salt. There are still many of the Buddhas teachings that aren't lost and reclaimed. Although it MAY be possible that Satipatthana may actually arise during such sitting practice, the guidelines in such teachings are all meddled up about the conditions that would cause satipatthana to arise; sometimes, they could be just plainly wrong. An example of the right conditions is listening to Dhamma; I can't see how you could dispute that. However, one of the guidelines that I came across (when learning about the vipassana in one sitting school that I thought was the real thing) is to "observe" the sitting "rupa". There is, in fact, no such poramattha dhamma that can be classified or interpreted as sitting rupa. All you will be doing to observe sitting is to be accumulating papanca about "I", "my posture", and sanna of non-realities. Worse yet, you are thinking that you are in fact developing panna while you are just developing refined micha-dithi. Developing micha-dithi just have to be the worst of all the papanca. I am only giving one example. Are you sure there are no others? > > the world is doing when they sit simply: samatha? There are also wrong samatha bhavana. When one does not know the difference between kusala and akusala, kusala (which samatha bhavana must be) can simply not be developed. Again, one could be developing the refined lobha (of the vedana associated with sitting) and moha here. A lot of Thai people take the absense of thinking about things that are bothering them in their daily lives (you wouldn't believe how many Thai women go on such a retreat to have an escape from the problems they are having with their boyfriends/spouses) as samatha bhavana. Worse than that, they think it is the way to nibhana. > does anybody > actually > sit and "do" vipassana?? I did that once. I think some people in this list do. There are other people who also do. But do you know that they are doing the right thing? Do you understand what satipatthana is? Do you know what are the conditions contributing to the rising of Satipatthana? Do you understanding the differences between pannati and poramatha dhamma? I am not asking these questions because I don't think you do, but because I think we need to understand those issues before we can be certain that the "practice" that "we" follow is the right practice. I will send another message about my understandings in other areas that you have asked. Right now, duty is calling... kom 2699 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 1:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Kom and Amara, Kom wrote: >> The story I hear is that a person achieving an arahatship will not >> survive more than 7 days without being ordained. I have never heard >> (but have not asked enough) of anybody giving an explanation (that I >> can understand) of why this is. My (wild) guess is that the person >has >> absolutely no reason to fend for himself (to live), and being a >> layperson, in order to live, you have to fend for yourself (cloth, >> food, roof over head, medicine, etc). Being a monk is the way to >> sustain the 5-khandas acceptably, and by basically being the >> immeasurable field of merits: an arahat only lives for others. >> >> The answer in Mirinda panha is something like: a layperson life >cannot >> sustain an arahat as being arahat is "heavy". Only a life of an >> umblemished Sangha (a "heavy" profession) can sustain such a heavy >> person. Amara replies: >Dear K. Kom, > >That is the general belief, the seven day period, but from what Tan >Ajaan and our experts say, this passage has never been located in >the Tipitaka (and/or Commentaries). Actually it is interesting that >a person could probably not survive longer without water, still in >those days most people really rejoiced to have bhikkhu to teach them >and be as you say, 'immeasurable field of merits'. According to the Majjhimanikaaya commentary (MA iii 196 PTS) on MN 71, the period is the same day -- not seven days: . . . arahatta.m patvaa ta.m divasam eva pabbajati vaa parinibbaati vaa. after [a householder] reaches arahatship, he either goes forth that very day or reaches complete extinction of existence [dies]. See also the Kathaavatthu, IV.1 where some have argued that a householder can continue to be one after reaching arahatship. Best wishes, Jim Anderson 2700 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 1:51am Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > According to the Majjhimanikaaya commentary (MA iii 196 PTS) on MN 71, the > period is the same day -- not seven days: > > . . . arahatta.m patvaa ta.m divasam eva pabbajati vaa parinibbaati vaa. > > after [a householder] reaches arahatship, he either goes forth that very day > or reaches complete extinction of existence [dies]. > > See also the Kathaavatthu, IV.1 where some have argued that a householder > can continue to be one after reaching arahatship. Dear Jim, Welcome back! Thanks for the timely (as usual) quotation, but does it mean that he dies that very day too or that he becomes ordained that day only, does the grammatical structure tell? (or is this nit picking?) Anumodana in your kusala cetana, really great to hear from you, Amara 2701 Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 5:45am Subject: Re: Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Dear Kom, Mike and friends, >Even the samatha development using > anapanasati (breath) as aramana, the samatha object is still a concept. Good point! That's how the "vipassana" meditators get into samatha development while they think that they are doing "vipassana" meditation. > > Kom, your posts are a living (?) example of why it's a > > DAMNED (pardon my French) good idea to study > > abhidhamma. > Yes. In fact, I think this is true for anything, even with things not > strictly related to Vipassana/Satipatthana/Samatha Bhavana. For > example, how does one develop kusala when one does not understand the > differences between kusala and akusala? How does one build a good > bridge if one doesn't know the differences between a good bridge and a > bad bridge? With right view, of course! >Satipatthana and the 8-fold path is harder to understand > than that: it takes a Buddha to understand it without teachings. Sadhu... Anumodana, AT 2702 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Amara, >> According to the Majjhimanikaaya commentary (MA iii 196 PTS) on MN >71, the >> period is the same day -- not seven days: >> >> . . . arahatta.m patvaa ta.m divasam eva pabbajati vaa parinibbaati >vaa. >> >> after [a householder] reaches arahatship, he either goes forth that >very day >> or reaches complete extinction of existence [dies]. >> >> See also the Kathaavatthu, IV.1 where some have argued that a >householder >> can continue to be one after reaching arahatship. > > >Dear Jim, > >Welcome back! Thanks for the timely (as usual) quotation, but does it >mean that he dies that very day too or that he becomes ordained that >day only, does the grammatical structure tell? (or is this nit >picking?) > >Anumodana in your kusala cetana, really great to hear from you, > >Amara Thanks for welcoming me back and I'm glad to be participating again. I understand the quote: ". . . after [a householder] reaches arahatship, he either goes forth that very day or reaches complete extinction of existence [dies]" to mean that the householder (gihi) turned arahant has two alternatives: he either goes forth within the same day he reached arahatship or else he dies (enters into parinibbana). I assume that if he ordains he will be a monk for the remainder of his life and I think it unlikely that he will ordain and die on the same day. An example of a householder who became an arahant was Yasa (Vinaya Mahaavagga I.7) whom the Buddha ordained shortly afterwards and who continued to live on. But in the case of Baahiya (Udaana I.10), the Buddha did not grant him the going forth due to his past kamma. So instead of going forth he was killed by a mad cow shortly after he reached arahatship. This last example suggests that a householder/layperson may not be able to pick and choose which alternative will actually take place. Best wishes, Jim A. 2703 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear kom, see comments below: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Thanks for reposting. I have some questions for you. > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > [DhammaStudyGroup]Breath was teaching resources & vipassana > > Dear Mike, > > Almost always breath is concept when we are aware of it. > > Especially when it is used as an object for samattha and a > > nimitta arises this is obviously concept. > You are saying here that in the beginning, the meditator > (samatha > bhavana) may have poramattha as aramana. However, since to > develop the > samatha bhanvana further, nimita must appear, and therefore, > at this > point, it becomes pannati. Is this about right? > _________________ Certainly from the stage when the breath nimitta is taken as object it can only be pannati. But in fact it will be pannati almost always in the beginning too. I actually only brought up this whole thing just to show the exception, in case someone had doubts. ___________________> > > And even during > > vipassana when there is awareness of the different namas and > > rupas that arise almost simultaneoulsy with breath - the > breath > > itself is not an object for satipatthana. However breath is > > actually composed of rupas that are conditioned ONLY by > citta > > (citta-samutthana-rupa). Only special type of wisdom can > > actually distinguish between the rupas that are > citta-samutthana > > -rupa and say those that are utu -samutthana-rupa. Thus we > might > > think we are experiencing the rupas that are conditioned by > > citta but actually be observing other types - it is > exceedingly > > hard to know. _________________ > Do you know of anyone who actually try to "observe" the > differences > between citta-samutthana and utu-samutthana rupa? __________ I'm sure there will be those who will try. ______ Are the > differences > actually observable via Satipatthana? ____________ Well sariputta would be able to do it. maybe some of the other great disciples too. Us, these days....?. The thing with satipatthana anyway is that the heart is not about experiencing special subtle rupas that don't appear in daily life. Real satipatthana is about seeing that whatever appears now is conditioned and not self. This is where I can > understand > how being unwise studying Abhidhamma could cause insanity... ____________ Yes - if we try to stretch our understanding beyond its capacity we strain. And that doesn't help. Actually I just got a letter from nina saying that Khun Sujin stressed on the Cambodia trip that the whole purpose of Abhidhamma study was not book knowledge, not memorising many details and that while studying realising all the time as to how it helped understand this moment. It is counterproductive to try to know things that are beyond our understanding. Always there has to be a balance, the middle path, even when it comes to Abhidhamma. Robert > 2704 From: bruce Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas hi kom and robert question below > Dear kom, > see comments below: > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > Thanks for reposting. I have some questions for you. > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > wrote: > > > [DhammaStudyGroup]Breath was teaching resources & vipassana > > > Dear Mike, > > > Almost always breath is concept when we are aware of it. > > > Especially when it is used as an object for samattha and a > > > nimitta arises this is obviously concept. > > You are saying here that in the beginning, the meditator > > (samatha > > bhavana) may have poramattha as aramana. However, since to > > develop the > > samatha bhanvana further, nimita must appear, and therefore, > > at this > > point, it becomes pannati. Is this about right? > > _________________ > Certainly from the stage when the breath nimitta is taken as > object it can only be pannati. But in fact it will be pannati > almost always in the beginning too. I actually only brought up > this whole thing just to show the exception, in case someone had > doubts. i'd like to know more about the breath nimitta....doesn't nimitta mean sign? and doesn't this imply a visual image of the meditation object? how can a meditation subject of touch yield a visual image? this is something i've always wondered about, ie: is there a sign/counterpart sign associated with the breath, and if so, how is it described in the texts/commentaries? bruce 2705 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:55am Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > I assume that if he ordains he > will be a monk for the remainder of his life and I think it unlikely that he > will ordain and die on the same day. Dear Jim, Nor did I, actually: I really meant to ask whether if the arahanta would not ordain he would die the very same day, which in fact you already answered... Still I wonder if Baahiya had already attained arahantship before asking to be ordained, although he did before he died? (Not that he had any choice, of course, a very good point.) I will reread the passages you suggested, thanks again very much, Amara > An example of a householder who became an arahant was Yasa (Vinaya > Mahaavagga I.7) whom the Buddha ordained shortly afterwards and who > continued to live on. But in the case of Baahiya (Udaana I.10), the Buddha > did not grant him the going forth due to his past kamma. So instead of going > forth he was killed by a mad cow shortly after he reached arahatship. This > last example suggests that a householder/layperson may not be able to pick > and choose which alternative will actually take place. > > Best wishes, > Jim A. 2706 From: bruce Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 11:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas hi kom this is the smartest, clearest explanation i have read in a long time....no comments/further questions just yet....thanks so much for taking the time to work through these questions...you understood my questions exactly, as well as my own level of understanding... and you also hit the nail on the head when you said: >Do you > understanding the differences between pannati and poramatha dhamma? that's the crux of the whole matter, isn't it? anumodana bruce At 09:09 2001/01/05 -0800, you wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I am glad you are succeeding with your efforts to quit smoking. > > --- bruce wrote: > > -- for those of you who don't: what are your reasons for not sitting? > By sitting, I assume you mean in two different contexts: samatha > bhavana and vipassana bhavana. For samatha bhavana, the desired result > of such practice is to attain the (temporary) freedom from kilesa at > the uppana level. The conditions for attaining this level is severely > strict: it's possible only when you live a recluse's life (you must be > a very reclusive monk, for example). If you are "developing" samatha > bhavana as a layperson, and you are doing this correctly, all you > getting is maha-kusala cittas, not jhana cittas. This is a practice > considered "micha-patipadha", as it does not lead to nibbhana. Only > the development of Satipatthana/Vipassana nana can one reach nibbhana. > So the answer why one may not want to develop samatha bhavana (for a > layperson) is: why bother? Maha-kusala cittas arise during dana, sila, > and studying realities. If arising with the right level of panna, > these will lead to nibhana. Why develop anything that doesn't lead to > Nibhana? > > For Vipassana bhavana, there is no where in the three tipitakas that > mention that you MUST sit in order to develop it. Many people > mentioned in the Sutta reached Nibbhana without such sitting practices > (I believe Buddha's father became a sotapanna while standing up). > Furthermore, the specific guidelines given by the schools that teach > sitting/standing/walking as the way to develop vipassana cannot be > traced to the tipitaka and the commentaries: they have uncertain > sources at best if not downright unreliable. Given that Buddha's > teachings are extremely refined and can be very easily mistaken > (witness the many groups of beliefs even in Thailand where theravada is > supposed to reign supreme) and even misterintpreted for personal gains, > I think it should give all of us a shudder to be taking something as > Buddha's teachings when it is not verifiable. > > Another question is, if following such guidelines (and interpreting the > different signs as reaching certain nana) are so important, why did the > Buddha bother teaching for 45 years? Why not just come up with the > comprehensive retreat courses (like there are many out there nowadays) > that will take you to Nibhana? One explanation that I heard was that: > the buddha actually taught this, but it was lost. So someone actually > "reclaimed" this knowledge by themself (or some other supernatural mean > / perhaps through the devas???). I am afraid that I need to take that > with a large grain of salt. There are still many of the Buddhas > teachings that aren't lost and reclaimed. > > Although it MAY be possible that Satipatthana may actually arise during > such sitting practice, the guidelines in such teachings are all meddled > up about the conditions that would cause satipatthana to arise; > sometimes, they could be just plainly wrong. An example of the right > conditions is listening to Dhamma; I can't see how you could dispute > that. However, one of the guidelines that I came across (when learning > about the vipassana in one sitting school that I thought was the real > thing) is to "observe" the sitting "rupa". There is, in fact, no such > poramattha dhamma that can be classified or interpreted as sitting > rupa. All you will be doing to observe sitting is to be accumulating > papanca about "I", "my posture", and sanna of non-realities. Worse > yet, you are thinking that you are in fact developing panna while you > are just developing refined micha-dithi. Developing micha-dithi just > have to be the worst of all the papanca. I am only giving one example. > Are you sure there are no others? > > > > > the world is doing when they sit simply: samatha? > There are also wrong samatha bhavana. When one does not know the > difference between kusala and akusala, kusala (which samatha bhavana > must be) can simply not be developed. Again, one could be developing > the refined lobha (of the vedana associated with sitting) and moha > here. A lot of Thai people take the absense of thinking about things > that are bothering them in their daily lives (you wouldn't believe how > many Thai women go on such a retreat to have an escape from the > problems they are having with their boyfriends/spouses) as samatha > bhavana. Worse than that, they think it is the way to nibhana. > > > > does anybody > > actually > > sit and "do" vipassana?? > I did that once. I think some people in this list do. There are other > people who also do. But do you know that they are doing the right > thing? Do you understand what satipatthana is? Do you know what are > the conditions contributing to the rising of Satipatthana? Do you > understanding the differences between pannati and poramatha dhamma? I > am not asking these questions because I don't think you do, but because > I think we need to understand those issues before we can be certain > that the "practice" that "we" follow is the right practice. > > I will send another message about my understandings in other areas that > you have asked. Right now, duty is calling... > > kom > 2707 From: Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear, > For samatha bhavana, the desired result of such practice is to > attain the (temporary) freedom from kilesa at the uppana level. > The conditions for attaining this level is severely strict: it's > possible only when you live a recluse's life (you must be a very > reclusive monk, for example). If you are "developing" samatha > bhavana as a layperson, and you are doing this correctly, all you > getting is maha-kusala cittas, not jhana cittas. This is a practice > considered "micha-patipadha", as it does not lead to nibbhana. Only > the development of Satipatthana/Vipassana nana can one reach nibbhana. > So the answer why one may not want to develop samatha bhavana (for a > layperson) is: why bother? Maha-kusala cittas arise during dana, sila, > and studying realities. If arising with the right level of panna, > these will lead to nibhana. Why develop anything that doesn't lead to > Nibhana? ________________________ From my reading and understanding, for attaining the temporary freedom from kilesa at uppana level, it doesn't depend on whether one leads a reclusive life or whether a monk or a layperson, but depends on whether does the one whose practice aims for nibbana or not. If one aims for nibbana, very single effort will lead to the goal. The statement somehow, I feel, differs the effort between monk and layperson. I remember that the path is the same for EVERYONE who practise it correctly. I might be wrong but can I have a reference from tipitaka for the above statement. ________________________ Lee 2708 From: Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 0:35pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Mike and others, > Nice to hear from you again!!! I know you were > responding to Robert, but: > ____________________ I addressed to Robert just for ease. I will be glad if anyone who like to share with. ____________________ > > Just to be pondered: > > > > 1. Are arahants referred as wise people? > > 2. Why arahants, I would say, insist to enter the > > sangha order as > > they have all done? > > If memory serves (corrections, please), an arahat > can't break (because of no motivation to do so) any of > the 226 precepts. So, besides already being perfect > bhikkus, why not ordain? _____________________ I next question to this is: Why must they? As someone answered that arahant is "heavier" to layperson or arahant will "die" in seven days if he did not ordain. And someone mentioned that the seven-day statement has no reference. Someone mentioned that arahant needs to fend for his life and by entering the sangha will do for them. And arahants live for others, too. I think arahants live for no one but only for dhamma. From my hearsay (so please correct me if it is wrong), the seven-day period idea was introduced by the sangha community years after the Buddha Parinibbana for the sake to uphold the sangha status which is downfalling, besides there was an idea then that layperson can achieve the same fruitions and there is no need to be a monk. _____________________ Lee 2709 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 0:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear bruce, You have a knack of asking the questions that should be asked. A bit of a busy time for me though, so I can only say a little. (Sarah and Jon?). --- bruce wrote: > > but why does it *feel* like i'm spinning out so much more > panatti when i'm > sitting in front of the computer than when i'm sitting > attempting samatha > bhavana?? > > bruce This is related also to the mulapariyaya sutta which we discussed a little (and will have more about in the future). Panatti is far more than just thinking about something. Even when we are experiencing paramattha dhammas, there are always moments of pannatti coming in. One may be feeling very concentrated and calm, no obvious thinking, and yet still heaps of pannatti and papanca. Sometimes people think that it is easier to be aware of say rupas in the body than seeing and colour because when seeing we immediately think of people , tables, objects and so on. Touch seems less deceiving because it is easy to accept that there is only hardness , or heat etc. through the bodysense. Sound may also seem easier as it falls away so quickly whereas visible object doesn't change so much. But I wonder about this. It is true that when we perceive heat or hardness we can easily know that it is only hardness or heat. But do we still have a very slight idea of something being there? We may not think of person or body but even if we think of hardness as something like subatomic particles it is still a perception of permanence to a degree. And then who is perceiving, is it us or is it merely an element? Or do we have a subtle sense of controlling the perception; of being able to induce it - then we are again stuck in sakkyaditthi. We forget about the intricate conditions making up sankharakkhanda. So papanca can be there just as much as ever; but with the added delusion of believing we have none. The path is not as easy as sitting down and concentrating and following instructions. I wish it was ( but that is tanha and self wishing). Jonothan wrote something a while back which is worth reading again: The distinction between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana is an area that rewards closer study. It can help us to understand each of these 2 types of bhavana much better. Proper understanding at an intellectual level is a prerequisite to correct practice (as your recent experience exemplifies). Here are some points of comparison between samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana- 1. In samatha bhavana, the goal is the attainment of jhana and, on death, rebirth in one of the jhana planes, while in vipassana bhavana the goal is the release from this existence and from further rebirth. 2. The necessary impetus for samatha bhavana is seeing the danger in sense-door impressions and the akusala cittas conditioned by those impressions, while in vipassana bhavana the necessary impetus is seeing the unsatisfactoriness in the conditioned nature of this existence. 3. If samatha is developed correctly, a stage will be reached when the sense-door impressions are shut out. In vipassana bhavana, however, the sense doors, sense-door objects and the contact, feelings etc that arise dependant on the sense-door experiences are to be fully known (along with the mind door). 4. Both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are accompanied by panna. In samatha bhavana the panna is of a level that knows kusala-citta from akusala-citta but without seeing the essential characteristic of the citta. In vipassana bhavana the panna sees realities (all realities) as they really are. 5. Samatha bhavana leads to the temporary subduing of akusala citta (`Samatha' means peacefulness or tranquillity, in the sense of peacefulness from akusala), while vipassana bhavana leads to the final eradication of all kilesa including the latent tendencies. 6. The practice of samatha bhavana involves at some stage the citta becoming concentrated on a chosen object (the meditation subject), while in vipassana bhavana the aim is to know any paramattha dhamma that appears, as and when it appears. 7. The meditation subject in samatha bhavana is for the most part a concept, while in vipassana bhavana the object of the citta is a reality, a paramattha dhamma. 8. When samatha bhavana is developed to the level of jhana, the object of the jhana citta is one of the meditation subjects. When vipassana bhavana is developed to the level of Eightfold path consciousness, the object of the citta is nibbana. 9. In samatha bhavana, unwholesome distracting thoughts are an obstacle to progress and must be overcome by directing the mind elsewhere, while in vipassana bhavana any reality - nama, including even ignorance, or rupa - may be taken as the object of the satipatthana citta 10. The higher levels of samatha bhavana require very specific conditions, eg as to place, time, lifestyle, health even diet, to come to fruition. In vipassana bhavana none of these factors are specially relevant; there are no constraints on the time, place or circumstances in which vipassana bhavana may take place. These comparisons help us understand how the 2 kinds of kusala differ in their practice and accordingly lead to 2 quite different goals. I suspect that many people who teach samatha and/or vipassana do not clearly understand these differences, and so tend to confuse the two. Jonothan 2710 From: Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 1:33pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Hi Bruce and others, First of all, though I have followed hundreds of achieves yet I still cannot pick up terms like aramana, poramatha and so on. I must admit that I use to learn dhamma in mandarin.(That is why my english is weak too). But I will try and perhaps someone can correct me if I misinterpret something and I can learn from here. > note: i put the subject <"vs"> in quotes because i don't think the two are > necessarily in opposition...i gather from recent discussions that members > may agree... > > for starter questions: > > -- for those of you who do: what are the benefits of daily sitting practice? > > -- for those of you who don't: what are your reasons for not sitting? > > -- as for sitting practice: can we simply call what everybody out there in > the world is doing when they sit simply: samatha? does anybody actually > sit and "do" vipassana?? from what i've read and heard, one can sit and > "do" samatha, by giving the mind a single aramana and continually bringing > it back to that aramana when it wanders... since the aramana of vipassana > is only limited in that it must be a paramattha dhamma appearing at one of > the six dvaras, i wonder: can one also sit and "do" vipassana? or does > vipassana arise in some way independent of sitting down and "trying to do it"? > > -- i've heard it mentioned several times on the list that samatha can be > condition for satipathana to arise....can anyone explain why and how? > ========================== I'd say, with a "still mind", one can have a better focus for deeper vipassana practice. Of course, you can insight with focus on all dvaras if you have a high "still mind". ========================== > i'm also quite curious about some excerpts from some recent mails > re: vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas: > > kom wrote: > > > For all the samatha aramana that I can remember, the condition for > > reaching the jhana is that you be able to think (vittaka) of your > > samatha object constantly. ========================= I think it should be vicara here. ========================= > kom/mike/kom wrote: > > > > > (Samatha has pannati as > > > > aramana), > > > > > > Always?! [by the way, if this is a categorical > > > statement, I think it refutes many 'outside' arguments > > > to 'our' perspective--that is, samatha vs. vipassana > > > bhavana] > > I am almost sure that this is. Even the samatha development using > > anapanasati (breath) as aramana, the samatha object is still a concept. > > There is definitely poramatha characteristics of breath, but they are > > not the samatha aramana. In fact, the breath eventually becomes so > > fine (that you cannot experience its poramatha chracteristics), but yet > > the person will still need an aramana to continue with the samatha > > development. The fact that poramatha characteristics are not > > appearing certainly wouldn't be a hindrance!!! > ----------------------- > does everyone agree that samatha can only have pannati as aramana? i need > to review the list of objects for samatha meditation subjects in VSM, but i > had thought many were chosen because they provided the meditator with one > or more paramattha dhammas on which to focus...colors, touch of breath, > revulsion-cetasika of corpses, the brahma vihara cetasikas; but then again > there are ones which seem much more like pannati: recollection of the > qualities of the Buddha would surely be conceputalization, yes? and the > nimitta of any kasina seems as though it must certainly be pannati, but > there is no nimitta for anapana, is there? ============================= As I know, yes. ============================= > > also: if vitakka and vicara indeed are "thinking about" the object, and > are, as is said, the first jhana-factors to be abandoned as one progresses > into finer material states, then once those jhana factors are abandoned, it > would be impossible to "think about" the aramana, and samatha bhavana would > occur without this thinking-about, yes? what would the object of samatha > then be? is the object always the chosen meditation object? ============================ As the object is just the tool, you need no more tool when you reach your aim. In length, you don't need object as you gain jhana. ============================ > if one moves > the mind to contemplate the jhana factors themselves, wouldn't that > constitute vipassana?? =========================== Yes. =========================== Hope to learn something for you all. Lee 2712 From: Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 3:06pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear, > Sometimes people think that it is easier to be aware of say > rupas in the body than seeing and colour because when seeing we > immediately think of people , tables, objects and so > on. Touch seems less deceiving because it is easy to > accept that there is only hardness , or heat etc. > through the bodysense. Sound may also seem easier as it > falls away so quickly whereas visible object doesn't > change so much. > But I wonder about this. It is true that when we > perceive heat or hardness we can easily know that it > is only hardness or heat. But do we still have a very > slight idea of something being there? We may not > think of person or body but even if we think of > hardness as something like subatomic particles it is > still a perception of permanence to a degree. And then > who is perceiving, is it us or is it merely an > element? Or do we have a subtle sense of controlling > the perception; of being able to induce it - then we > are again stuck in sakkyaditthi. We forget about the > intricate conditions making up > sankharakkhanda. > So papanca can be there just as much as ever; but with the added > delusion of believing we have none. > The path is not as easy as sitting down and concentrating and > following instructions. I wish it was ( but that is tanha and > self wishing). ======================== Perceive (through dvaras) --> "accept" by mind --> compare, differentiate --> perception/conceptualize --> react(feelings arise) - -> .... I try to put it in a diagrammatic way. ======================== > Jonothan wrote something a while back which is worth reading > again: > The distinction between samatha bhavana and vipassana > bhavana is an area that rewards closer study. It can > help us to understand each of these 2 types of bhavana > much better. Proper understanding at an intellectual > level is a prerequisite to correct practice (as your > recent experience exemplifies). > > Here are some points of comparison between samatha > bhavana and vipassana bhavana- > > 1. In samatha bhavana, the goal is the attainment of > jhana and, on death, rebirth in one of the jhana > planes, while in vipassana bhavana the goal is the > release from this existence and from further rebirth. ======================== As I learned, samatha can use as a tool for vipassana bhavana, which means we can practise samatha bhavara with the aim to practise vipassana in the jhanas (up to the 4th jhana, as Buddha encouraged). ======================== > 2. The necessary impetus for samatha bhavana is > seeing the danger in sense-door impressions and the > akusala cittas conditioned by those impressions, while > in vipassana bhavana the necessary impetus is seeing > the unsatisfactoriness in the conditioned nature of > this existence. ======================== When "seeing", it is no more samatha bhavana. One seeing the danger in sense-door impressions and the akusala cittas conditioned by those impressions needs certain level of panna. ======================== > 3. If samatha is developed correctly, a stage will > be reached when the sense-door impressions are shut > out. In vipassana bhavana, however, the sense doors, > sense-door objects and the contact, feelings etc that > arise dependant on the sense-door experiences are to > be fully known (along with the mind door). ========================= In jhanas, the bodily sense doors are shut out but not the mind door. ========================= > 4. Both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are > accompanied by panna. In samatha bhavana the panna is > of a level that knows kusala-citta from akusala-citta > but without seeing the essential characteristic of the > citta. In vipassana bhavana the panna sees realities > (all realities) as they really are. ========================= Samatha bhavana can/or(??) go without panna. When you are knowing something (such as kusala-citta or akusala citta) in the samatha bhavana, you are no longer "one-pointedness" and you are not doing samatha bhavana, rather, vipassana bhavana. ========================= > 5. Samatha bhavana leads to the temporary subduing of > akusala citta (`Samatha' means peacefulness or > tranquillity, in the sense of peacefulness from > akusala), while vipassana bhavana leads to the final > eradication of all kilesa including the latent > tendencies. ========================= Samatha(==jhana ??), as I know, is "one-pointedness" in concentration. It is more than calm and peaceful mind. ========================= > 6. The practice of samatha bhavana involves at some > stage the citta becoming concentrated on a chosen > object (the meditation subject), while in vipassana > bhavana the aim is to know any paramattha dhamma that > appears, as and when it appears. > > 7. The meditation subject in samatha bhavana is for > the most part a concept, while in vipassana bhavana > the object of the citta is a reality, a paramattha > dhamma. > > 8. When samatha bhavana is developed to the level of > jhana, the object of the jhana citta is one of the > meditation subjects. When vipassana bhavana is > developed to the level of Eightfold path > consciousness, the object of the citta is nibbana. > > 9. In samatha bhavana, unwholesome distracting > thoughts are an obstacle to progress and must be > overcome by directing the mind elsewhere, while in > vipassana bhavana any reality - nama, including even > ignorance, or rupa - may be taken as the object of the > satipatthana citta ========================== I thing the point is here "distracting" thoughts. Samatha practise can continue together as thoughts(akulsala or kusala) arise as long as they are not distracting or being distracted. ========================== > 10. The higher levels of samatha bhavana require > very specific conditions, eg as to place, time, > lifestyle, health even diet, to come to fruition. In > vipassana bhavana none of these factors are specially > relevant; there are no constraints on the time, place > or circumstances in which vipassana bhavana may take > place. =========================== I am not sure whether higher levels of samatha bhavana require very specific conditions as mentioned. I'm doubt. I think, with enough practice and familiarity of jhana practice, the conditions will not affect much. =========================== > These comparisons help > us understand how the 2 kinds of kusala differ in > their practice and accordingly lead to 2 quite > different goals. > > I suspect that many people who teach samatha and/or > vipassana do not clearly understand these differences, > and so tend to confuse the two. > > Jonothan > Hope to hear some comments and learn from you all. Lee 2713 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 4:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Bruce, --- bruce wrote: > from what i've read and heard, one can sit > and > "do" samatha, by giving the mind a single aramana and continually > bringing > it back to that aramana when it wanders... since the aramana of > vipassana > is only limited in that it must be a paramattha dhamma appearing at > one of > the six dvaras, i wonder: can one also sit and "do" vipassana? or > does > vipassana arise in some way independent of sitting down and "trying > to do it"? Satipatthana is the citta arising with panna to cognize the poramattha aramana as it actually is: just dhatu, arising because of conditions. When there are conditions for Satipathana to arise, it arises, whether or not you like it to arise it or not. When there are no conditions for satipathana to arise, it doesn't arise, whether or not you like it to arise it or not. It can happen anywhere, in any posture, and at any time. You can be almost asleep, you can be taking a shower, you can be eating, while you are developing samatha bhavana, while you are giving dana, while you are getting angry, while you are near death. I think the list is endless... > -- i've heard it mentioned several times on the list that samatha can > be > condition for satipathana to arise....can anyone explain why and how? I think in order to explain this, you will need a pretty detailed knowledge of Patthana. All I know is, jhana citta and associated factors can be the aramana pacaya (condition as aramana) for Satipathana. How Jhana citta can condition satipatthana citta in some other ways is beyond me. > i know vitakka and vicara are usually translated as "applied thought" > and > "sustained thought", but i never understood these as meaning > conceptualizing or ruminating *about* the object, which i equate with > papanca; i thought that these terms referred to the, for lack of > better > terms, "movement" of the mind toward and then "continued contact" of > the > mind with the aramana... I think your understandings are closer to the meanings than the word "thought" convey. Vitaka and Vicara also arises with the Satipathana, and obviously, they have paramatha dhamma as aramana. The English word thought virtually conveys pannati to me. Here's an explanation (not mine) from Khun Amara's website: 1. Vitakka-cetasika is the cetasika that approaches or applies itself to the arammana that the phassa-cetasika is in contact with. The vitakka-cetasika arises with 55 cetasika: 44 kamavacara-citta and 11 pathamajjhana-citta, exempting the 10 davi-panca-vinnana-citta, the dutiyajjhana, tatiyajjhana, catutthajjhana and pancamajjhana. The vitakka-cetasika would approach or applies itself to the arammana according to the state of the citta and cetasika it arises with. The vitakka-cetasika that approaches the arammana is like the feet of the world because it makes the world move forward (with the citta arising and evolving) according to the specific vitakka-cetasika. 2. Vicara-cetasika is the cetasika that supports and follows vitakka. No matter what the vitakka approaches, the vicara would support and follow. The Vicara-cetasika arises with 66 citta comprising 44 kamavacara-citta, 11 pathamajjhana-citta and 11 dutiyajjhana, exempting the 10 davi-panca-vinnana-citta, the tatiyajjhana, catutthajjhana and pancamajjhana. Any citta with vitakka-cetasika arising concurrently would also have vicara-cetasika arising with it exempting 11 citta which have only vicara-cetasika without vitakka-cetasika arising concurrently, namely the 11 dutiyajjhana-citta. I have also heard the analogy of the Vitaka being the gong of a bell when it is first struck, and Vicara being the echo of it. Vitaka's characteristics are more coarse than Vicara. > also: if vitakka and vicara indeed are "thinking about" the object, > and > are, as is said, the first jhana-factors to be abandoned as one > progresses > into finer material states, then once those jhana factors are > abandoned, it > would be impossible to "think about" the aramana, and samatha bhavana > would > occur without this thinking-about, yes? I have also heard (from Mirinda panha) the explanation to the following effect. In the beginning when one begins to develop Samatha, the citta is unskillful and needs to do a lot of work in order to hold on to the aramana. However, once it becomes very skilled, it doesn't need to work as hard. The analogy is like learning how to drive. In the beginning, it takes efforts and concentration to drive. After some years, when you become more skillful, you don't need to try as hard. > the mind to contemplate the jhana factors themselves, wouldn't that > constitute vipassana?? If the citta arising with panna to cognize the jhana factors as they truly are, the answer is yes. Sorry I couldn't answer your other questions. I hope others will explain more (Roberts, Jonathan, Sarah, Khun Amara, Mike, Jim.) Anumoddhana to all. kom 2714 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 4:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Lee, --- wrote: > > Jonothan wrote something a while back which is worth reading > > again: > > The distinction between samatha bhavana and vipassana > > bhavana is an area that rewards closer study. It can > > help us to understand each of these 2 types of bhavana > > much better. Proper understanding at an intellectual > > level is a prerequisite to correct practice (as your > > recent experience exemplifies). > > > > Here are some points of comparison between samatha > > bhavana and vipassana bhavana- > > > > 1. In samatha bhavana, the goal is the attainment of > > jhana and, on death, rebirth in one of the jhana > > planes, while in vipassana bhavana the goal is the > > release from this existence and from further rebirth. > ======================== >LEE: As I learned, samatha can use as a tool for vipassana bhavana, > which > means we can practise samatha bhavara with the aim to practise > > vipassana in the jhanas (up to the 4th jhana, as Buddha > encouraged). > ======================== Yes, people do teach many things these days. Even in ancient times there were not so many who could attain Jhana. In the 'Visuddhimagga' (XII, 8) it explains how difficult it is to attain parikamma samadhi (preliminary stage), upacara samadhi (access concentration), let alone attain Jhana. Even if jhana does appear it is liable to recede at the slightest upset. The idea of using it as a tool is all tied up with ideas of control. _________ > > 2. The necessary impetus for samatha bhavana is > > seeing the danger in sense-door impressions and the > > akusala cittas conditioned by those impressions, while > > in vipassana bhavana the necessary impetus is seeing > > the unsatisfactoriness in the conditioned nature of > > this existence. > ======================== > LEE:When "seeing", it is no more samatha bhavana. One seeing the > danger > in sense-door impressions and the akusala cittas conditioned > by those > impressions needs certain level of panna. ======================== this is very unclear. What do you mean? ___________ > > 3. If samatha is developed correctly, a stage will > > be reached when the sense-door impressions are shut > > out. In vipassana bhavana, however, the sense doors, > > sense-door objects and the contact, feelings etc that > > arise dependant on the sense-door experiences are to > > be fully known (along with the mind door). > ========================= > LEE:In jhanas, the bodily sense doors are shut out but not the > mind door. > ========================= Yes, as implied by Jonothon. ______________________ > > > 4. Both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are > > accompanied by panna. In samatha bhavana the panna is > > of a level that knows kusala-citta from akusala-citta > > but without seeing the essential characteristic of the > > citta. In vipassana bhavana the panna sees realities > > (all realities) as they really are. > ========================= > Samatha bhavana can/or(??) go without panna. When you are > knowing > something (such as kusala-citta or akusala citta) in the > samatha > bhavana, you are no longer "one-pointedness" and you are not > doing > samatha bhavana, rather, vipassana bhavana. _______________ I suggest you consider carefully before disagreeing here. Think again and if you wish I will discuss it further. > ========================= > > 5. Samatha bhavana leads to the temporary subduing of > > akusala citta (`Samatha' means peacefulness or > > tranquillity, in the sense of peacefulness from > > akusala), while vipassana bhavana leads to the final > > eradication of all kilesa including the latent > > tendencies. > ========================= > Samatha(==jhana ??), as I know, is "one-pointedness" in > concentration. It is more than calm and peaceful mind. > ========================= ____ miccha-samadhi (wrong concentration) also is one pointed. But Jonothon was referring to correct devoplement of samattha. Tranquility is one aspect, another is one-pointedness. ______________________ > ========================== > > > 10. The higher levels of samatha bhavana require > > very specific conditions, eg as to place, time, > > lifestyle, health even diet, to come to fruition. In > > vipassana bhavana none of these factors are specially > > relevant; there are no constraints on the time, place > > or circumstances in which vipassana bhavana may take > > place. > =========================== >LEE: I am not sure whether higher levels of samatha bhavana require > very > specific conditions as mentioned. I'm doubt. I think, with > enough > practice and familiarity of jhana practice, the conditions > will not > affect much. > =========================== Really? There were laymen such as Citta (I think that was his name)who had mastery of Jhana, that is true. However, he was an anagami - he had no lobha or aversion to sense objects; it makes things a little easier. For almost everyone it needs special conditions: Visuddhimagga III29 it says before beginning to develop samattha one should "severe any of the ten impediments". These are 1dwelling 2.family 3students 4building 5travel 6.kin 7affliction 8.books 9. gain the last one is supernormal powers but this is an impediment only for vipassana not for samattha. Robert 2715 From: bruce Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 4:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas kom, thanks *so* much....so vitakka and vicara are both cetasika...this makes everthing so much clearer! many many thanks... i have to study the terminology quite bit more, re: all the cetasika you refer to in your explanations of vitakka/vicara....also, you refer to khun amara's website: is that dhammastudy.com or is it somewhere else? either way, if you could send the url for the page on which these descriptions appear, i would be very grateful...i have a feeling there is a lot i can learn wherever this information comes from... there are so many good teachers in this group, i'm at a loss to express my gratitude... big anumodana bruce At 00:27 2001/01/06 -0800, you wrote: > Dear Bruce, > > --- bruce wrote: > > from what i've read and heard, one can sit > > and > > "do" samatha, by giving the mind a single aramana and continually > > bringing > > it back to that aramana when it wanders... since the aramana of > > vipassana > > is only limited in that it must be a paramattha dhamma appearing at > > one of > > the six dvaras, i wonder: can one also sit and "do" vipassana? or > > does > > vipassana arise in some way independent of sitting down and "trying > > to do it"? > Satipatthana is the citta arising with panna to cognize the poramattha > aramana as it actually is: just dhatu, arising because of conditions. > When there are conditions for Satipathana to arise, it arises, whether > or not you like it to arise it or not. When there are no conditions > for satipathana to arise, it doesn't arise, whether or not you like it > to arise it or not. It can happen anywhere, in any posture, and at > any time. You can be almost asleep, you can be taking a shower, you > can be eating, while you are developing samatha bhavana, while you are > giving dana, while you are getting angry, while you are near death. I > think the list is endless... > > > -- i've heard it mentioned several times on the list that samatha can > > be > > condition for satipathana to arise....can anyone explain why and how? > I think in order to explain this, you will need a pretty detailed > knowledge of Patthana. All I know is, jhana citta and associated > factors can be the aramana pacaya (condition as aramana) for > Satipathana. How Jhana citta can condition satipatthana citta in some > other ways is beyond me. > > > i know vitakka and vicara are usually translated as "applied thought" > > and > > "sustained thought", but i never understood these as meaning > > conceptualizing or ruminating *about* the object, which i equate with > > papanca; i thought that these terms referred to the, for lack of > > better > > terms, "movement" of the mind toward and then "continued contact" of > > the > > mind with the aramana... > I think your understandings are closer to the meanings than the word > "thought" convey. Vitaka and Vicara also arises with the Satipathana, > and obviously, they have paramatha dhamma as aramana. The English > word thought virtually conveys pannati to me. > > Here's an explanation (not mine) from Khun Amara's website: > > 1. Vitakka-cetasika is the cetasika that approaches or applies itself > to the arammana that the phassa-cetasika is in contact with. The > vitakka-cetasika arises with 55 cetasika: 44 kamavacara-citta and 11 > pathamajjhana-citta, exempting the 10 davi-panca-vinnana-citta, the > dutiyajjhana, tatiyajjhana, catutthajjhana and pancamajjhana. The > vitakka-cetasika would approach or applies itself to the arammana > according to the state of the citta and cetasika it arises with. The > vitakka-cetasika that approaches the arammana is like the feet of the > world because it makes the world move forward (with the citta arising > and evolving) according to the specific vitakka-cetasika. > > 2. Vicara-cetasika is the cetasika that supports and follows vitakka. > No matter what the vitakka approaches, the vicara would support and > follow. The Vicara-cetasika arises with 66 citta comprising 44 > kamavacara-citta, 11 pathamajjhana-citta and 11 dutiyajjhana, exempting > the 10 davi-panca-vinnana-citta, the tatiyajjhana, catutthajjhana and > pancamajjhana. Any citta with vitakka-cetasika arising concurrently > would also have vicara-cetasika arising with it exempting 11 citta > which have only vicara-cetasika without vitakka-cetasika arising > concurrently, namely the 11 dutiyajjhana-citta. > > I have also heard the analogy of the Vitaka being the gong of a bell > when it is first struck, and Vicara being the echo of it. Vitaka's > characteristics are more coarse than Vicara. > > > also: if vitakka and vicara indeed are "thinking about" the object, > > and > > are, as is said, the first jhana-factors to be abandoned as one > > progresses > > into finer material states, then once those jhana factors are > > abandoned, it > > would be impossible to "think about" the aramana, and samatha bhavana > > would > > occur without this thinking-about, yes? > I have also heard (from Mirinda panha) the explanation to the following > effect. In the beginning when one begins to develop Samatha, the citta > is unskillful and needs to do a lot of work in order to hold on to the > aramana. However, once it becomes very skilled, it doesn't need to > work as hard. The analogy is like learning how to drive. In the > beginning, it takes efforts and concentration to drive. After some > years, when you become more skillful, you don't need to try as hard. > > > the mind to contemplate the jhana factors themselves, wouldn't that > > constitute vipassana?? > If the citta arising with panna to cognize the jhana factors as they > truly are, the answer is yes. > > Sorry I couldn't answer your other questions. I hope others will > explain more (Roberts, Jonathan, Sarah, Khun Amara, Mike, Jim.) > Anumoddhana to all. > > kom > 2717 From: Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 6:45pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Robert, Thanks for correct me. > Yes, people do teach many things these days. > Even in ancient times there were not so many who could attain > Jhana. In the 'Visuddhimagga' (XII, 8) it explains how difficult > it is to attain parikamma samadhi (preliminary stage), upacara > samadhi (access concentration), let alone attain Jhana. Even if > jhana does appear it is liable to recede at the slightest upset. > The idea of using it as a tool is all tied up with ideas of > control. _________ I think to attain jhana, it needs supportive factors like sila etc. _________ > > LEE:When "seeing", it is no more samatha bhavana. One seeing > the > > danger > > in sense-door impressions and the akusala cittas conditioned > > by those > > impressions needs certain level of panna. > > ======================== > this is very unclear. What do you mean? ___________ I mean, while practising samatha, it shouldn't alter the concentration away from the object. Once it alters, it is no longer stay tune to the method. And I refer "seeing" as "insighting". ___________ > > > 4. Both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are > > > accompanied by panna. In samatha bhavana the panna is > > > of a level that knows kusala-citta from akusala-citta > > > but without seeing the essential characteristic of the > > > citta. In vipassana bhavana the panna sees realities > > > (all realities) as they really are. > > ========================= > > Samatha bhavana can/or(??) go without panna. When you are > > knowing > > something (such as kusala-citta or akusala citta) in the > > samatha > > bhavana, you are no longer "one-pointedness" and you are not > > doing > > samatha bhavana, rather, vipassana bhavana. > _______________ > > Robert:I suggest you consider carefully before disagreeing here. Think > again and if you wish I will discuss it further. _________________ I am not really disagree here. Rather I try to state my understanding on this. On the other hand, I do agree that it is one of the Seven Factors of Enlightenment knowing kusala-citta from akusala-citta, and Seven Factors of Enlightenment are closely associate with jhana. Looking forward for your further discussion. _________________ ========================= > > Samatha(==jhana ??), as I know, is "one-pointedness" in > > concentration. It is more than calm and peaceful mind. > > ========================= > ____ > Robert: miccha-samadhi (wrong concentration) also is one pointed. > But Jonothon was referring to correct devoplement of samattha. > Tranquility is one aspect, another is one-pointedness. ______________________ I think samatha is indetermined. When you developed samatha, calm, peace and tranquility are gained. Whether it is miccha samadhi or not, I think, it is driven by the miccha ditthi or samma ditthi. "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors -- right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness -- is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions." -- MN 117 _______________________ > Really? There were laymen such as Citta (I think that was his > name)who had mastery of Jhana, that is true. However, he was an > anagami - he had no lobha or aversion to sense objects; it makes > things a little easier. > For almost everyone it needs special conditions: Visuddhimagga > III29 it says before beginning to develop samattha one should > "severe any of the ten impediments". These are > 1dwelling > 2.family > 3students > 4building > 5travel > 6.kin > 7affliction > 8.books > 9. gain > the last one is supernormal powers but this is an impediment > only for vipassana not for samattha. > Robert ______________ As I mentioned above, supportive factors are needed, such as the first 7 of Noble Eightfold Path. I think, somewhere in VSM, mentioned the ways (5 ways??) to master the jhanas and one is advised to master the lower jhana before he further on. ______________ I might have a different understanding of the samatha and vipassana bhavana due to the different interpretation or approah of suttas or texts in mandarin, or perhaps my misinterpretation. If it is the later, please correct me. Sorry for any mistakes. My mind is almost blocked now. I shall continue this later. Lee 2718 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 7:37pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] --- "amara chay" wrote: > > > I assume that if he ordains he > > will be a monk for the remainder of his life and I think it unlikely that he > > will ordain and die on the same day. > > > An example of a householder who became an arahant was Yasa (Vinaya > > Mahaavagga I.7) whom the Buddha ordained shortly afterwards and who > > continued to live on. But in the case of Baahiya (Udaana I.10), the Buddha > > did not grant him the going forth due to his past kamma. So instead of going > > forth he was killed by a mad cow shortly after he reached > arahatship. This > > last example suggests that a householder/layperson may not be able > to pick > > and choose which alternative will actually take place. Dear Jim, Thanks for pointing me to the passages, I have reread them at the foundation today, he had indeed attained arahantship as he listedned to the Buddha, before he asked to be ordained. We also found the passages about a king, and also a minister who also died, or entered parinibbana, on the day they attained. But so far none for the seven day period, just as you said. Have also looked up some more passages describing the bhaya-nana, in case anyone is interested, in the Khuddakanikaya Patisambhidamagga, where the description is of the knowledge of the harm realities that arise and fall away also, not some bone chilling gripping fear full of akusala. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge, anumodana as always, Amara 2719 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 7:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear lee, thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, we are getting all these interesting and difficult posts (you, bruce, dan) just at a time when it is inconvenient for me to spend time on them. I'll just post this brief extract from Survey of paramattha dhammas by Sujin boriharnwanaket The url is; http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat7.html Have a read (of the entire article - not just this extract)- and then it will be easier to discuss points. Suffice to say samattha is not as easy as is sometimes thought. There are also other books (about 10 you can download for free) that you should have a look at on www.zolag.co.uk Samatha-bhavana is not the practice of samadhi. Samadhi is the reality that is steadfast in the arammana which is the ekaggata-cetasika that arises with all citta. When they are obsessed with the arammana over long periods of time, the characteristics of ekaggata-cetasika would appear as samadhi, or unwaveringly steadfast to a certain arammana. The ekaggata-cetasika that arise with akusala-citta are miccha-samadhi. Those that arise with kusala-citta are samma-samadhi. To practice samadhi so that the citta is engrossed with a certain arammana for long periods of time is miccha-samadhi when not composed with panna because at that moment there is pleasure in having that citta steadfast with only one arammana. Without panna there cannot be knowledge of the differences between lobha-mula-citta and kusala-citta because the lobha-mula-citta and the kamavacara-kusala-citta have the same kind of vedana arising concurrently with them: The 8 lobha-mula-citta have 4 upekkha-vedana and 4 somanassa-vedana arising concurrently. The 8 kamavacara-citta have 4 upekkha-vedana and 4 somanassa-vedana arising concurrently. Therefore any instant that upekkha-vedana or somanassa-vedana arises it is difficult to know whether the citta is lobha-mula-citta or mahakusala-citta when it is neutral, not irritated or when there is somanassa, pleased and happy. The differences between the 8 lobha-mula-citta and the 8 mahakusala-citta are with the lobha-mula-citta there are akusala-cetasika concurrently arising while with the mahakusala-citta there are sobhana-cetasika. The akusala-cetasika that manifest the differences between the lobha-mula-citta and mahakusala-citta is the miccha-ditthi, wrong view and the obhana-cetasika that manifest the differences between the kusala-citta and lobha-mula-citta is the samma-ditthi, which is panna-cetasika. Therefore the differences between the 8 lobha-mula-citta and the 8 mahakusala-citta are Of the 8 lobha-mula-citta, 4 arise with ditthi-cetasika and 4 without. Of the 8 mahakusala-citta, 4 arise with panna-cetasika and 4 without. Therefore those who wish to develop samatha-bhavana would have to know the differences between lobha-mula-citta and kusala-citta otherwise they would practice samadhi with lobha-mula-citta as miccha-samadhi since it is not composed with panna. Generally those who practice samadhi do not want the citta to be agitated, irritated or troubled with different events. They are pleased to have the citta steadfast in an arammana without knowing that while there is still need for citta to be absorbed in the desired arammana there is no mahakusala-nana-sampayutta. To develop samatha-bhavana is to develop mahakusala-nana-sampayutta. Those who wish to develop samatha-bhavana are those with panna to see the harm of both lobha and dosa, not only to see the harm of dosa-mula-citta which are only worries and troubles. Those who do not know kilesa and do not see the harm of lobha would not develop samatha-bhavana. Therefore those who develop samatha-bhavana would be straightforward with the panna to see the harm of lobha and have sati-sampajanna to know the different instants of lobha-mula-citta as opposed to mahakusala-nana-sampayutta to be able to develop further mahakusala-nana-sampayutta until akusala-citta cannot interpose as upacara-samadhi then attain appana-samadhi or the pathama-jhana-kusala-citta comprising 5 principal elements of jhana as follows: vitakka, vicara, piti, sukha and ekaggata. To develop samatha-bhavana to increase mahakusala-nana-sampayutta-citta until it becomes bases for pathama-jhana-kusala-citta, which is rupavacara-kusala is very difficult to achieve since it requires a person who is not abhabba-puggala, or one who would not be able to attain jhana-citta or lokuttara-citta even having developed samatha-bhavana or vipassana-bhavana. Those who are bhabba-puggala, or who, having developed samatha- or vipassana-bhavana, would be able to attain jhana-citta or lokuttara-citta, must be people who 1. are without vipaka as obstacles or whose patisandhi-citta must be ti-hetuka with panna-cetasika arising concurrently with. 2. are without kamma as obstacles or have never performed one of the 5 anantariyakamma, which are obstacles to heaven, magga and bala. The 5 anantariyakamma are matricide, patricide, arahanticide, causing contusion to the Buddha and destroying the unity of the Sangha to perform sangha-kamma together. 3. are without kilesa as obstacles or do not have the 3 niyata-miccha-ditthi, namely natthika-ditthi, ahetuka-ditthi and akiriya-ditthi. Even when the patisandhi-citta is ti-hetuka, composed with panna but if one is pleased with sight, sound, smell, taste, bodysense contact without seeing the harm one would not think of attenuating the pleasure with the development of sila and bhavana. Therefore to develop samatha-bhavana to the level of upacara-samadhi and appana-samadhi is not easy. Just to be preoccupied with a chosen arammana does not make it mahakusala-nana-sampayutta that would enable one to attain upacara-samadhi. If one mistakes the lobha-mula-citta as mahakusala, one would believe that the various nimitta that the citta compose as images of hell, heaven, locations and events are upacara-samadhi and appana-samadhi, which are distinct levels of jhana-citta. Therefore samatha-bhavana is a very intricate matter and must be studied to really understand. --- wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thanks for correct me. > > > Yes, people do teach many things these days. > > Even in ancient times there were not so many who could > attain > > Jhana. In the 'Visuddhimagga' (XII, 8) it explains how > difficult > > it is to attain parikamma samadhi (preliminary stage), > upacara > > samadhi (access concentration), let alone attain Jhana. Even > if > > jhana does appear it is liable to recede at the slightest > upset. > > The idea of using it as a tool is all tied up with ideas of > > control. > _________ > I think to attain jhana, it needs supportive factors like sila > etc. > _________ > > > > LEE:When "seeing", it is no more samatha bhavana. One > seeing > > the > > > danger > > > in sense-door impressions and the akusala cittas > conditioned > > > by those > > > impressions needs certain level of panna. > > > > ======================== > > this is very unclear. What do you mean? > ___________ > I mean, while practising samatha, it shouldn't alter the > concentration away from the object. Once it alters, it is no > longer > stay tune to the method. And I refer "seeing" as "insighting". > > ___________ > > > > > > 4. Both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are > > > > accompanied by panna. In samatha bhavana the panna is > > > > of a level that knows kusala-citta from akusala-citta > > > > but without seeing the essential characteristic of the > > > > citta. In vipassana bhavana the panna sees realities > > > > (all realities) as they really are. > > > ========================= > > > Samatha bhavana can/or(??) go without panna. When you are > > > knowing > > > something (such as kusala-citta or akusala citta) in the > > > samatha > > > bhavana, you are no longer "one-pointedness" and you are > not > > > doing > > > samatha bhavana, rather, vipassana bhavana. > > _______________ > > > > Robert:I suggest you consider carefully before disagreeing > here. > Think > > again and if you wish I will discuss it further. > _________________ > I am not really disagree here. Rather I try to state my > understanding > on this. On the other hand, I do agree that it is one of the > Seven > Factors of Enlightenment knowing kusala-citta from > akusala-citta, and > Seven Factors of Enlightenment are closely associate with > jhana. > Looking forward for your further discussion. > _________________ > > ========================= > > > Samatha(==jhana ??), as I know, is "one-pointedness" in > > > concentration. It is more than calm and peaceful mind. > > > ========================= > > ____ > > Robert: miccha-samadhi (wrong concentration) also is one > pointed. > > But Jonothon was referring to correct devoplement of > samattha. > > Tranquility is one aspect, another is one-pointedness. > ______________________ > I think samatha is indetermined. When you developed samatha, > calm, > peace and tranquility are gained. Whether it is miccha samadhi > or > not, I think, it is driven by the miccha ditthi or samma > ditthi. > > "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its > supports & > requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with > these > seven factors -- right view, right resolve, right speech, > right > action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness -- > is > called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite > > conditions." > -- MN 117 > > _______________________ > > > Really? There were laymen such as Citta (I think that was > his > > name)who had mastery of Jhana, that is true. However, he was > an > > anagami - he had no lobha or aversion to sense objects; it > makes > > things a little easier. > > For almost everyone it needs special conditions: > Visuddhimagga > > III29 it says before beginning to develop samattha one > should > > "severe any of the ten impediments". These are > > 1dwelling > > 2.family > > 3students > > 4building > > 5travel > > 6.kin > > 7affliction > > 8.books > > 9. gain > > the last one is supernormal powers but this is an impediment > > only for vipassana not for samattha. > > Robert > ______________ > As I mentioned above, supportive factors are needed, such as > the > first 7 of Noble Eightfold Path. I think, somewhere in VSM, > mentioned > the ways (5 ways??) to master the jhanas and one is advised to > master > the lower jhana before he further on. > ______________ > > > I might have a different understanding of the samatha and > vipassana > bhavana due to the different interpretation or approah of > suttas or > texts in mandarin, or perhaps my misinterpretation. If it is > the > later, please correct me. Sorry for any mistakes. > > My mind is almost blocked now. I shall continue this later. > > > Lee > 2720 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 7:50pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Amara, I am always interested in commentaries especially as this hasn't been translated into english. There is so much confusion about the signs indicative of vipassana these days. --- amara chay wrote: > --- "amara chay" > > wrote: > > > > > I assume that if he ordains he > > > will be a monk for the remainder of his life and I think > it > unlikely > > that he > > > will ordain and die on the same day. > > > > > An example of a householder who became an arahant was Yasa > (Vinaya > > > Mahaavagga I.7) whom the Buddha ordained shortly > afterwards and > who > > > continued to live on. But in the case of Baahiya (Udaana > I.10), > the > > Buddha > > > did not grant him the going forth due to his past kamma. > So > instead > > of going > > > forth he was killed by a mad cow shortly after he reached > > arahatship. This > > > last example suggests that a householder/layperson may not > be able > > to pick > > > and choose which alternative will actually take place. > > > > Dear Jim, > > Thanks for pointing me to the passages, I have reread them at > the > foundation today, he had indeed attained arahantship as he > listedned > to the Buddha, before he asked to be ordained. We also found > the > passages about a king, and also a minister who also died, or > entered > parinibbana, on the day they attained. But so far none for > the > seven day period, just as you said. > > Have also looked up some more passages describing the > bhaya-nana, in > case anyone is interested, in the Khuddakanikaya > Patisambhidamagga, > where the description is of the knowledge of the harm > realities that > arise and fall away also, not some bone chilling gripping fear > full > of akusala. > > Thanks again for sharing your knowledge, anumodana as always, > > Amara > > > > > > 2721 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 8:10pm Subject: Re: Taking robes [again!] > I am always interested in commentaries especially as this hasn't > been translated into english. There is so much confusion about > the signs indicative of vipassana these days. Dear Robert, I hadn't realized that. No wonder! Lots to keep Jim occupied with, then! Amara 2722 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 8:27pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > Panatti is far more than just thinking about something. > Even when we are experiencing paramattha dhammas, there are > always moments of pannatti coming in. One may be feeling very > concentrated and calm, no obvious thinking, and yet still heaps > of pannatti and papanca. Dear Robert, Through which dvara does pannatti arise? Amara 2723 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 8:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear amara, I am busy at the moment. Why the question? --- amara chay wrote: > > > Panatti is far more than just thinking about something. > > Even when we are experiencing paramattha dhammas, there are > > always moments of pannatti coming in. One may be feeling > very > > concentrated and calm, no obvious thinking, and yet still > heaps > > of pannatti and papanca. > > > Dear Robert, > > Through which dvara does pannatti arise? > > Amara > 2724 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 8:39pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > First of all, though I have followed hundreds of achieves yet I still > cannot pick up terms like aramana, poramatha and so on. Dear Lee, There is a dhamma glossary in the website, with practically all the terms discussed here, although it is still under revision for booklet printing. I hope it will help a little, Amara 2725 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 9:17pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > Dear amara, I am busy at the moment. Why the question? Because pannatti could only be experienced through the mind dvara. What is it but thoughts, when the citta thinks about some aramana that is not paramatthadhamma? Amara > > > > > Panatti is far more than just thinking about something. > > > Even when we are experiencing paramattha dhammas, there are > > > always moments of pannatti coming in. One may be feeling > > very > > > concentrated and calm, no obvious thinking, and yet still > > heaps > > > of pannatti and papanca. > > > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > Through which dvara does pannatti arise? > > > > Amara > > 2726 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 9:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Ok, I am still not entirely sure why you asked the question. But will assume you found something wrong with my earlier statement. (I am hopeless at anything cryptic- a real dunce). I will elaborate as what I wrote was not so clear and when it comes to Dhamma clarity is all important. > >I wrote " Panatti is far more than just thinking about something. > > > > Even when we are experiencing paramattha dhammas, there > are > > > > always moments of pannatti coming in. One may be feeling > > > very > > > > concentrated and calm, no obvious thinking, and yet > still > > > heaps > > > > of pannatti and papanca. " > > > According to the ancient commentaries (see xxvii dhatukatha) in the wink of an eye the mind elements arise and cease a trillion times. My point in the statement above was that we can, for instance, be aware of hardness and think that we are experiencing it as it really is. But in fact it has already passed away and in between the moments when there was cittas taking actual paramattha dhammas as object there must also have been moments when pannati was the object. This doesn't mean just thinking in words. This can be hidden and one may be quite sure that there was only paramattha dhamma been experienced. One is overestimating ones knowledge. I am not sure if that was where your question lay? robert --- amara chay wrote: > > > > > Dear amara, I am busy at the moment. Why the question? > > > Because pannatti could only be experienced through the mind > dvara. > What is it but thoughts, when the citta thinks about some > aramana > that is not paramatthadhamma? > > Amara > > > > > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > Through which dvara does pannatti arise? > > > > > > Amara > > > 2727 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 9:59pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > According to the ancient commentaries (see xxvii dhatukatha) in > the wink of an eye the mind elements arise and cease a trillion > times. My point in the statement above was that we can, for > instance, be aware of hardness and think that we are > experiencing it as it really is. But in fact it has already > passed away and in between the moments when there was cittas > taking actual paramattha dhammas as object there must also have > been moments when pannati was the object. This doesn't mean > just thinking in words. This can be hidden and one may be quite > sure that there was only paramattha dhamma been experienced. One > is overestimating ones knowledge. I am not sure if that was > where your question lay? > robert So long as you realize all this is papanca also, only the experience of the characteristics of realities as they appear at each instant contributes to the accumulation of panna, not all this analysis which is all pannatti. Amara > --- amara chay wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear amara, I am busy at the moment. Why the question? > > > > > > Because pannatti could only be experienced through the mind > > dvara. > > What is it but thoughts, when the citta thinks about some > > aramana > > that is not paramatthadhamma? > > > > Amara > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > > > Through which dvara does pannatti arise? > > > > > > > > Amara > > > > 2728 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:05pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > So long as you realize all this is papanca also, only the experience > of the characteristics of realities as they appear at each instant > contributes to the accumulation of panna, not all this analysis which > is all pannatti. I meant of course panna on the patipatti level, not the theoretical level. Amara 2729 From: Dan Dalthorp <> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Oh Amara! You DO have a way with words! On this forum, I sometimes see disparagement of meditation teachers who emphasize practice over reading, but your post is the first to go so far as to call the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings "silly." I couldn't help but chuckle! As S. Suzuki (a silly Zen master) wrote: "You should be rather grateful for the weeds you have in your mind, because eventually they will enrich your practice." I realize that I cannot force you to understand what I was trying to convey in our discussion about bhaya-nana, and I thank you for so vividly pointing out that weedy tendency of mine to try to "convince" people of things. Another weed I have that you helped bring to light is that I often speak before I have my words properly lined up. For example, I wrote about the "fear" as "dosa" without first thinking about what "dosa" means. This is a very dangerous thing for a Pali neophyte to do! When I read your 'silly' comment, I found myself reflecting on bhaya-nana in terms of paticca-sammupada and realized that I probably used the word "dosa" incorrectly. Let me explain: There moments when "formations...appear to him in the form of a great terror, as lions, tigers, leopards,...etc., appear to a timid man who wants to live in peace."[Vism. XXI, 29]. Buddhagosa goes on to explain how this is the point where the bhaya-nana arises and how the bhaya-nana fears not (thanks, Robert, for the apt citation). Preceding the bhaya-nana, though, there is a very brief moment of real terror that is forcefully shattered by the arising of the insight of bhaya-nana. Is it "dosa"? Probably not. "Dosa" would imply an unwise response to the sensation, which clearly is not what happens as conditions ripen for the arising of bhaya-nana. I believe I misused "dosa," but the 'fear' is still there for an instant. It doesn't register in the mind as fear, though, before the wisdom arises that "these formations are indeed fearful." In review, the mind recognizes that there was 'fear' for an instant, but the bhaya is gone in a flash and replaced by bhaya-nana. It is indeed very difficult to describe, but you are right that "dosa" does not seem to fit. The Visudhimagga description is wonderful in what it covers, but it pretty much skips the details of the transition between the arising of bhanga-nana and the arising of bhaya-nana. On the other hand, would there be any point in going into that level of detail? The book is already very long, and reading in detail about how wisdom arises does not do much to help that wisdom arise experientially. The concise and general descriptions, on the other hand, can be helpful. Thanks for all your help, Amara, and may your own weeds someday enrich your practice as I hope my own weeds will enrich mine. Anumodana. 2730 From: Dan Dalthorp <> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:23pm Subject: Three types of wisdom Vibhanga discusses a number of different types of wisdom, including sutamayapanna (wisdom through hearing), cintamayapanna (wisdom through thinking), and a number of types of wisdom arising in the course of practice as a result of direct experience, which I will refer to as 'bhavanamayapanna' (I can't find that exact term in Vibhanga, but I've heard it used by others, and it works well). SUTAMAYAPANNA Sutamayapanna is the wisdom that we attain by hearing wise people expound the Dhamma or by reading scripture. This type of wisdom is wonderful because of its reliability and depth. We consider it reliable because of faith in the source and because it has been extensively tested empirically in practice. One drawback of this type of wisdom is that it is necessarily limited. As our Buddha stated, all that he could tell us amounts to no more than a handful of leaves in a forest full of trees. The topography of the mind is enormously complex and detailed, and by comparison the Tipitaka is quite brief and simple. It hints at the topography of the mind by depositing a few well-placed and exquisitely colored dots on a large canvas. These dots are so beautifully placed that we can gaze at them and get a pretty good skeleton of the workings of Dhamma. The dots are reliable, but there is a big danger in looking too closely at them: We can get so wrapped up their beauty that we lose sight of the fact that they are just skeletal and leave a large number of gaps. SUTAMAYAPANNA AND CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM: An example A great example of mistaking a gapful text as comprehensive is the denial of evolution among some fundamentalist Christians because the Bible does not give an explicit account of the process. They argue that "God created the heavens and the earth," so the idea of evolution has no place. However, the Bible does not comment on the mechanisms by which God created the species, and there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the mechanism He uses is evolution. There is no contradiction between the theories of evolution as expounded by scientists and creation expounded by the Bible, but to see this it is necessary for the fundamentalist to step back from the Bible for a moment and closely examine what it really says and what it does not say. It clearly says that God created the heavens and earth, but it clearly does not say, "God did not use the mechanism of evolution when he created the heavens and earth." Because the Bible is silent on the mechanisms, we must step outside it to understand the process more deeply. CINTAMAYAPANNA AND TIPITAKA The Tipitaka paints a beautiful picture of the landscape of the mind, but it is most certainly not comprehensive, as the Buddha himself so eloquently expressed in the simile of the handful of leaves. The part of the picture it paints is true to reality (at least as far as such descriptions can be true), but we also need to understand how those parts of the picture relate to our lives and how to properly understand what lies in the gaps between the dots painted by Tipitaka. To accomplish these two things, we can reflect on the Dhamma and how to interpret it in light of our experiences. What was once a pretty picture becomes strikingly beautiful when we draw lines between the dots and see how logically and smoothly it all comes together. It just makes sense. Drawing lines between the points by rationation can be very helpful and even necessary, but it is also dangerous because the lines we draw necessarily deviate from Tipitaka because they are attempting to add detail and color to the parts of the landscape that Tipitaka overlooks. That they deviate from Tipitaka is not a problem because we MUST deviate from Tipitaka if we want to describe the forest of things that are not covered in handful-of-leaves description. The danger arises from the possibility that our deviations might contradict the Tipitaka. This is a danger that we must be always vigilent of, always be on guard against, and always try to avoid. However, we should also be on guard against being TOO hung up on the possibility of contradiction that we fear any deviations at which point Tipitaka becomes a burden to bear, dragging us down, rather than a reliable framework on which to guide our steps and interpret our experiences. BHAVANMAYAPANNA AND TIPITAKA An invaluable check on the dangers of contradiction when reasoning about Dhamma is meditation practice. Given the necessity of deviating from Tipitaka if we are to cultivate a thorough understanding of Dhamma, serious meditation practice is essential because it allows us to see more clearly the dots painted by the scriptures, the lines that our rationation draws between those dots, and when our deviations are in contradiction with or in accord with the picture of Dhamma painted by Tipitaka. Except in cases of obvious error, rationation is powerless to recognize whether a deviation from Tipitaka accords with or contradicts Dhamma. We can think hard about Tipitaka, about the Dhamma, about other people's cogitation about Dhamma and Tipitaka, we can try hard to match our experiences to Dhamma and its description in Tipitaka, we can ask others to help us determine whether our deviations are contradictions or accordances. But in the end, our wisdom must be made our own wisdom via meditation and reflection. And this requires practice. No one else can do it for us. A danger of bhavanamayapanna is that it is very difficult to communicate in words, but it is all too easy to overgeneralize and overdramatize its impact. The difficulty in communication is somewhat overcome by studying scriptures because Buddha and his early disciples did a marvellous job constructing a framework and vocabulary for discussing panya. This means that it is very important that meditation teachers learn the scriptures very well too, or the teachings are bound to be mangled in the communication. 2731 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:26pm Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > Oh Amara! You DO have a way with words! On this forum, I sometimes see > disparagement of meditation teachers who emphasize practice over > reading, but your post is the first to go so far as to call the Ven. > Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings "silly." I couldn't help but chuckle! Dear Dan, Thanks for the undeserved compliment/disparagement, I have never called anyone "silly.", though, which post would that be in? Can you give the exact message number so I could see for myself? > When I read your > 'silly' comment, I found myself reflecting on bhaya-nana in terms of > paticca-sammupada and realized that I probably used the word "dosa" > incorrectly. Let me explain: There moments when "formations...appear > to him in the form of a great terror, as lions, tigers, > leopards,...etc., appear to a timid man who wants to live in > peace."[Vism. XXI, 29]. I have been reading the 'great terror, as lions, tigers, > leopards,...etc., appear to a timid man who wants to live in > peace."[Vism. XXI, 29].' part myself, but perhaps because I entertain a lot of lobha for animal, even wild ones, I interpreted it (according to my own papanca), that simply because I like them I would go into the wilds and live among them or even entertain a close relationship with them. Buddhagosa goes on to explain how this is the > point where the bhaya-nana arises and how the bhaya-nana fears not > (thanks, Robert, for the apt citation). Preceding the bhaya-nana, > though, there is a very brief moment of real terror that is forcefully > shattered by the arising of the insight of bhaya-nana. Is it "dosa"? > Probably not. "Dosa" would imply an unwise response to the sensation, > which clearly is not what happens as conditions ripen for the arising > of bhaya-nana. I believe I misused "dosa," but the 'fear' is still > there for an instant. It doesn't register in the mind as fear, though, > before the wisdom arises that "these formations are indeed fearful." > In review, the mind recognizes that there was 'fear' for an instant, > but the bhaya is gone in a flash and replaced by bhaya-nana. It is > indeed very difficult to describe, but you are right that "dosa" does > not seem to fit. The Visudhimagga description is wonderful in what it > covers, but it pretty much skips the details of the transition between > the arising of bhanga-nana and the arising of bhaya-nana. On the other > hand, would there be any point in going into that level of detail? The > book is already very long, and reading in detail about how wisdom > arises does not do much to help that wisdom arise experientially. The > concise and general descriptions, on the other hand, can be helpful. > > Thanks for all your help, Amara, and may your own weeds someday enrich > your practice as I hope my own weeds will enrich mine. Anumodana. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Amara 2732 From: Dan Dalthorp <> Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:50pm Subject: "strange", not "silly": My apologies, Amara... Once again I spoke before having my words in proper order. You used the word "strange," not "silly." These words have VERY different meanings, and I apologize for my failure to double check on your wording before quoting (mis-quoting!) you. I am concerned that people will read my 'silly' post and get the false and unfair impression that you said 'silly' when you really did not. I hope this clarification helps. > > Oh Amara! You DO have a way with words! On this forum, I sometimes > see > > disparagement of meditation teachers who emphasize practice over > > reading, but your post is the first to go so far as to call the Ven. > > Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings "silly." I couldn't help but chuckle! > > > Dear Dan, > > Thanks for the undeserved compliment/disparagement, I have never > called anyone "silly.", though, which post would that be in? Can you > give the exact message number so I could see for myself? 2733 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Hi Dan, --- Dan Dalthorp <> wrote: > I sometimes > see > disparagement of meditation teachers who emphasize practice over > reading, but your post is the first to go so far as to call the Ven. > Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings "silly." I couldn't help but chuckle! From observing the posts to the group in the past few months, I think many people in this group agree that Satipatthana is the only way to Nibhanna. Intellectual knowledge and understanding cannot get you there. However, I think some of us disagree what Satipatthana is, and how it is developed. Some of us also disagree on reliable sources of the teachings of Buddha. And as this thread of discussion has shown, we also disagree on what the different levels of Vipassana nana are and how they are manifested. I am glad to see you don't seem to take offense to labeling subjective. I think all each of us can do is to explain our understanding in the open, and point out to each other good sources of information. Whether one who reads the messages understand dhamma the right way or not, that depends on many conditions and accumulations. Mispellings of pali terms, for examples, are understandably a hindrance to understanding the discussions. Clearly akusala vipaka for those who endure them, and possibly akusala kamma for those who propagate them. My apology to all. Misunderstood statements about dhamma are also an even harder hindrance to overcome. I personally propagate some recently, and will no doubt propagate more (maybe less and less???) in the future. kom 2734 From: amara chay Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 10:58pm Subject: Re: "strange", not "silly": My apologies, Amara... > Once again I spoke before having my words in proper order. You used > the word "strange," not "silly." These words have VERY different > meanings, and I apologize for my failure to double check on your > wording before quoting (mis-quoting!) you. I am concerned that people > will read my 'silly' post and get the false and unfair impression that > you said 'silly' when you really did not. I hope this clarification > helps. > > > > Oh Amara! You DO have a way with words! On this forum, I sometimes > > see > > > disparagement of meditation teachers who emphasize practice over > > > reading, but your post is the first to go so far as to call the > Ven. > > > Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings "silly." I couldn't help but chuckle! > > > > > > Dear Dan, > > > > Thanks for the undeserved compliment/disparagement, I have never > > called anyone "silly.", though, which post would that be in? Can > you > > give the exact message number so I could see for myself? Dear Dan, Glad to have given you a chuckle anyway, Amara 2735 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 6, 2001 11:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Lee, --- wrote: > > The conditions for attaining this level is severely strict: it's > > possible only when you live a recluse's life (you must be a very > > reclusive monk, for example). I hope Robert's posts recently is clarifying the conditions needed to attain samatha at the uppana level to your satisfaction. > From my reading and understanding, for attaining the temporary > freedom from kilesa at uppana level, it doesn't depend on whether one > > leads a reclusive life or whether a monk or a layperson, but depends > on whether does the one whose practice aims for nibbana or not. If > one aims for nibbana, very single effort will lead to the goal. > The statement somehow, I feel, differs the effort between monk and > layperson. I remember that the path is the same for EVERYONE who > practise it correctly. I might be wrong but can I have a reference > from tipitaka for the above statement. > ________________________ The path to Nibhanna is the same for everyone: via Satipatthana. Samatha bhavana is not Satipatthana but can be a condition fo Satipatthana. Monks do fundamentally lead a different life than a layperson. I don't regularly go around giving people opportunities to give dana, reminding people of the beneficient sangha, and applying myself solely for the purpose of Nibhanna. Do you? Also, micha-effort would never lead you to the goal. They key is to know the difference between micha-efforts and samma-efforts, knowing what leads to Nibhanna, and which does not. kom 2736 Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 1:26am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > I have also heard the analogy of the Vitaka being the gong of a bell > when it is first struck, and Vicara being the echo of it. Vitaka's > characteristics are more coarse than Vicara. Dear friends, I heard that Vitaka is like seeing a pen, but Vicara is knowing that pen very clearly: the material it's made of, from what country it's made of, how it's made, how it's shipped, ... Metta, Alex 2737 Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 1:36am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Even in ancient times there were not so many who could attain > Jhana. The reason it's difficult to attain any level of jhana is because the practitioner has to be born with 3 hetus: no dosa, no moha, and no avijja. Then, if he chooses to do samatha bhavana, he may reach any level of jhana, or if he chooses to follow the Buddha's teachings, he'll achieve the path and fruit of liberation. Since nowadays, most of us were born with 2 hetus: no dosa and no moha, we need to study Dhamma so that panna may develop. Then, in the future life times, we may be reborn with 3 hetus. In another words, we need to work on our Paramis so that better conditions may arise later. Metta, Alex 2738 From: Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 2:36am Subject: Thanks Dear, Thanks for those who help and pointed out my mistakes and silliness (Kom, Robert, Bruce,....). Samatha bhavana is something new for me now. Lee 2739 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 4:29pm Subject: monks life-lay life Dear Betty, i was ordained in a temple bordering Thailand...Malaysia.The temple's name is Malaysia Buddhist Meditation Centre in Penang.There are Mahasi tradition's learned monks residing in the temple , especially during the Vassa months. Learned monks like Sayadawji Pandita and Sayadaw U Panasami was there when i was a samanera.Admonishment was given once by each of them and that really carried alot of weight! when i was stuck in my meditation and frustrated about it,Sayadawji gave encouragement.Another memorable incident took place when Sayadaw U Panasami ordained me. He said " always bring your sitting cloth along" and i figured it out as a message to meditate whenever possible days later! 2740 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 6:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Taking robes [again!] Hi Mike, I think my response would be even more out of place than yours! --- "m. nease" wrote: > Shouldn't that be the goal of us all? How could we > have any understanding of the dhamma and not aspire to > the life of an arahat? There were Ariya during the Budha time who didn't become a monk. They certainly understood Dhamma. They didn't have the accumulations to become a monk in that life (duties? other kilesa?) I certainly wouldn't disencourage anyone from becoming a monk. I thought of doing this once (just for a few months), but the thought of following 227 rules just didn't feel workable when I couldn't follow just 8. I don't think I have the accumulations to be a monk (yet!). Also, A. Santi mentioned the difficulties of keeping the rules perfectly when your fellow monks do not. He also mentioned that traveling to teach/learn dhamma from the experts are also quite a bit harder. I think if you could (have the accumulations to) follow the path of an Arahant, by all means, do. Be sure to follow the (true) path of the Buddha and his Sangha, though... kom 2741 From: Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 6:49am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Bruce, Here's the website link: http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat5.html Made possible by Tan A. Sujin and Khun Amara and others. kom --- bruce wrote: > i have to study the terminology quite bit more, re: all the cetasika you > refer to in your explanations of vitakka/vicara....also, you refer to khun > amara's website: is that dhammastudy.com or is it somewhere else? 2742 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 10:14am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Alex, I haven't heard that analogy but it sounds to me more like the difference between sanna, citta and panna (perception, consciousness and wisdom)sanna merely perceives an object as this is green, that is blue. Citta sees all the individual charcteristics but can't fathom it as anatta, anicca, dukkha - which only panna can do. Robert --- wrote: > --- Kom Tukovinit > wrote: > > I have also heard the analogy of the Vitaka being the gong > of a bell > > when it is first struck, and Vicara being the echo of it. > Vitaka's > > characteristics are more coarse than Vicara. > > Dear friends, > > I heard that Vitaka is like seeing a pen, but Vicara is > knowing > that pen very clearly: the material it's made of, from what > country > it's made of, how it's made, how it's shipped, ... > > Metta, > Alex > 2743 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 10:53am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > I haven't heard that analogy but it sounds to me more like the > difference between sanna, citta and panna (perception, > consciousness and wisdom)sanna merely perceives an object as > this is green, that is blue. Citta sees all the individual > charcteristics but can't fathom it as anatta, anicca, dukkha - > which only panna can do. Dear all, From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an intelligence than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, even in a coma or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum). Sanna on the other hand is one of the sabba-citta-sadharana-cetasika seven universal cetasika) that accompany all citta. Its function is memory, it remembers everything the citta is experiencing, from colors to wrong view. Panna is of course right understanding, seeing things as they really are, it only arises with the right conditions and uniquely with sobhana citta (citta with kusala cetasika). Amara 2744 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 11:06am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth > The reason it's difficult to attain any level of jhana is because > the practitioner has to be born with 3 hetus: no dosa, no moha, and > no avijja. Then, if he chooses to do samatha bhavana, he may reach > any level of jhana, or if he chooses to follow the Buddha's > teachings, he'll achieve the path and fruit of liberation. > > Since nowadays, most of us were born with 2 hetus: no dosa and no > moha, we need to study Dhamma so that panna may develop. Then, in > the future life times, we may be reborn with 3 hetus. In another > words, we need to work on our Paramis so that better conditions may > arise later. Dear Alex, I think the reason we are here discussing the dhamma instead of some cyber whatnots is that we are probably all born with three hetu!!! According to Khun Sujin, though, most with even all three would not even be interested in the dhamma, so we are the lucky few to be able to develop panna, the only treasure we can take with us to our future existences, anything else we would have to leave behind. I for one am glad to be in such company, anumodana, =^_^= Amara 2745 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 11:13am Subject: Ch.s 6&7 Dear friends, Almost forgot to report: NVG's 'Abhidhamma' ch.s 6&7 up last night, intermediate section, . Enjoy, Amara 2746 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 11:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Visuddhimagga XIV3 "the state of knowing is equally present in perception(sanna) in consciousness (vinnana)(synonym for citta) and in panna. Nevertheless perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say,'blue' or 'yellow';it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent painful and not-self. Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path. Panna knows the object in the way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by endeavoring, the manifestation of the path" Robert --- amara chay wrote: > > > > > I haven't heard that analogy but it sounds to me more like > the > > difference between sanna, citta and panna (perception, > > consciousness and wisdom)sanna merely perceives an object as > > this is green, that is blue. Citta sees all the individual > > charcteristics but can't fathom it as anatta, anicca, dukkha > - > > which only panna can do. > > > Dear all, > > From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an > intelligence > than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, even > in a coma > or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum). > > Sanna on the other hand is one of the > sabba-citta-sadharana-cetasika > seven universal cetasika) that accompany all citta. Its > function is > memory, it remembers everything the citta is experiencing, > from colors > to wrong view. > > Panna is of course right understanding, seeing things as they > really > are, it only arises with the right conditions and uniquely > with > sobhana citta (citta with kusala cetasika). > > Amara > 2747 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 11:28am Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > Visuddhimagga XIV3 "the state of knowing is equally present in > perception(sanna) in consciousness (vinnana)(synonym for citta) > and in panna. Nevertheless perception is only the mere > perceiving of an object as, say,'blue' or 'yellow';it cannot > bring about the penetration of its characteristics as > impermanent painful and not-self. Consciousness knows the > objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the penetration > of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about by > endeavouring, the manifestation of the path. Panna knows the > object in the way already stated, it brings about the > penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by > endeavoring, the manifestation of the path" This explains 'the state of knowing' very clearly. Except for the translation of perception as '(sanna)', which whomever did the translation did not specify that 'sanna' is memory and therefore cognition, as in recognition. Otherwise this is a good differentiation of panna as right understanding from common memory and knowledge; and experiencing daily life from moments when panna arises. Who did the translation, by the way? Amara > > > > > > > > > I haven't heard that analogy but it sounds to me more like > > the > > > difference between sanna, citta and panna (perception, > > > consciousness and wisdom)sanna merely perceives an object as > > > this is green, that is blue. Citta sees all the individual > > > charcteristics but can't fathom it as anatta, anicca, dukkha > > - > > > which only panna can do. > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an > > intelligence > > than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, even > > in a coma > > or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum). > > > > Sanna on the other hand is one of the > > sabba-citta-sadharana-cetasika > > seven universal cetasika) that accompany all citta. Its > > function is > > memory, it remembers everything the citta is experiencing, > > from colors > > to wrong view. > > > > Panna is of course right understanding, seeing things as they > > really > > are, it only arises with the right conditions and uniquely > > with > > sobhana citta (citta with kusala cetasika). > > > > Amara > > 2748 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 0:01pm Subject: perception/memory, consciousness Dear amara, See my comments below: --- amara chay wrote: > > > Visuddhimagga XIV3 "the state of knowing is equally present > in > > perception(sanna) in consciousness (vinnana)(synonym for > citta) > > and in panna. Nevertheless perception is only the mere > > perceiving of an object as, say,'blue' or 'yellow';it cannot > > bring about the penetration of its characteristics as > > impermanent painful and not-self. Consciousness knows the > > objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the > penetration > > of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about by > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the path. Panna knows the > > object in the way already stated, it brings about the > > penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by > > endeavoring, the manifestation of the path" > > > This explains 'the state of knowing' very clearly. Except for > the > translation of perception as '(sanna)', which whomever did the > > translation did not specify that 'sanna' is memory and > therefore > cognition, as in recognition. Could you give us the Thai version (translated); this may be an important error in the English as usually sanna is translated as perception. They do exlain also that it has the function of memory but this is not stressed usually by translators. I would love to know more about this. > > Otherwise this is a good differentiation of panna as right > understanding from common memory and knowledge; and > experiencing daily > life from moments when panna arises. Glad you approve. > > Who did the translation, by the way? Venerable nanamoli an English monk who lived in sri lanka. On your last post you wrote: ">>From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an intelligence than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, even in a coma or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum)." >>> I see in your translation of Summary of Paramattha Dhammas by Khun sujin that you you translate Citta as consciousness not intelligence: >>>... with the power of a dhamma, it is citta. This demonstrates the importance of citta, which is consciousness, which experiences and knows, which is eminent in experiencing whatever appears>>>> Also the glossary on your web page has this definition for >>>>>>citta: consciousness, the reality which knows, or cognizes an object. >>>> Robert > > Amara > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I haven't heard that analogy but it sounds to me more > like > > > the > > > > difference between sanna, citta and panna (perception, > > > > consciousness and wisdom)sanna merely perceives an > object as > > > > this is green, that is blue. Citta sees all the > individual > > > > charcteristics but can't fathom it as anatta, anicca, > dukkha > > > - > > > > which only panna can do. > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an > > > intelligence > > > than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, > even > > > in a coma > > > or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum). > > > > > > > Sanna on the other hand is one of the > > > sabba-citta-sadharana-cetasika > > > seven universal cetasika) that accompany all citta. Its > > > function is > > > memory, it remembers everything the citta is experiencing, > > > from colors > > > to wrong view. > > > > > > Panna is of course right understanding, seeing things as > they > > > really > > > are, it only arises with the right conditions and uniquely > > > with > > > sobhana citta (citta with kusala cetasika). > > > > > > Amara > > > 2749 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 0:08pm Subject: Re: perception/memory, consciousness --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear amara, > See my comments below: > --- amara chay wrote: > > > > > Visuddhimagga XIV3 "the state of knowing is equally present > > in > > > perception(sanna) in consciousness (vinnana)(synonym for > > citta) > > > and in panna. Nevertheless perception is only the mere > > > perceiving of an object as, say,'blue' or 'yellow';it cannot > > > bring about the penetration of its characteristics as > > > impermanent painful and not-self. Consciousness knows the > > > objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the > > penetration > > > of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about by > > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the path. Panna knows the > > > object in the way already stated, it brings about the > > > penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by > > > endeavoring, the manifestation of the path" > > > > > > This explains 'the state of knowing' very clearly. Except for > > the > > translation of perception as '(sanna)', which whomever did the > > > > translation did not specify that 'sanna' is memory and > > therefore > > cognition, as in recognition. > > Could you give us the Thai version (translated); this may be an > important error in the English as usually sanna is translated as > perception. They do exlain also that it has the function of > memory but this is not stressed usually by translators. I would > love to know more about this. Will look it up. > > > > > > Otherwise this is a good differentiation of panna as right > > understanding from common memory and knowledge; and > > experiencing daily > > life from moments when panna arises. > > Glad you approve. > > > > > Who did the translation, by the way? > > Venerable nanamoli an English monk who lived in sri lanka. > > > On your last post you wrote: > ">>From the 'Summary', the citta is explained more as an > intelligence > than a consciousness since it arises when one is alive, even in > a coma > or deep sleep, as the bhavanga citta (or life continuum)." >>> > > I see in your translation of Summary of Paramattha Dhammas by > Khun sujin that you you translate Citta as consciousness not > intelligence: > > >>>... with the power of a dhamma, it is citta. This > demonstrates the importance of citta, which is consciousness, > which experiences and knows, which is eminent in experiencing > whatever appears>>>> What do you call 'which experiences and knows, which is eminent in experiencing whatever appears'? stupidity? > Also the glossary on your web page has this definition for > >>>>>>citta: > consciousness, the reality which knows, or cognizes an object. The glossary is not finished, as I said, it is temporary. Amara 2750 Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 0:25pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth --- "amara chay" wrote: Dear Amara, > I think the reason we are here discussing the dhamma instead of some > cyber whatnots is that we are probably all born with three hetu!!! I wish that it were true. The fact is that we can talk, read or think about dhamma all the time, but still we cannot reach even the level of Sotapanna proves that we were born with 2 hetus. Don't feel bad though because while we study dhamma, panna will be developed. Then, we'll be born with 3 hetus. > According to Khun Sujin, though, most with even all three would not > even be interested in the dhamma, How true! It also means that the ones who are not interested in dhamma may be re-born with no hetu: birth in the lower realms, or birth with physical defects (such as blindness, dumbness) as a human or in the Catumaharajika, which is right above the human one. >so we are the lucky few to be able > to develop panna, the only treasure we can take with us to our > future existences, anything else we would have to leave behind. > > I for one am glad to be in such company, anumodana, > =^_^= > Amara 2751 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 0:48pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth > How true! It also means that the ones who are not interested in > dhamma may be re-born with no hetu: birth in the lower realms, or > birth with physical defects (such as blindness, dumbness) as a human > or in the Catumaharajika, which is right above the human one. Dea Alex, Here is a passage from the 'Summary' from the chapter on hetu (citta ch.14): The patisandhicitta in the human plane and that of the apaya-bhumi are results of different kamma. The patisandhicitta of those in the apaya-bhumi are akusala-vipaka-citta, the result of akusala-kamma causing births in the hell plane, in the pitivisaya-bhumi, in the asurakaya-bhumi or the animal plane. The patisandhi-citta of those born humans or deva of different levels are kusala-vipaka-citta, the results of kusala-kamma causing births in the sugati-bhumi. Though birth in the manussa-bhumi (the human plane) is kusala-vipaka, some people are born innately handicapped because the kusala-vipaka-citta that performed the function of patisandhi are the results of kusala-kamma without panna-cetasika arising with them. The kusala-kamma must also be of a very weak kind for the kusala-vipaka-citta that performed the patisandhi-kicca not to be composed with sobhana-cetasika, or it does not arise with alobha-cetasika or adosa-cetasika etc. Since it is the result of a very weak kusala-kamma, the past akusala-kamma would beleaguer (the person) and render him deformed from birth. Among those who are born without disabilities, all are born distinctly, by family, rank and retinue because the kusala-vipa-citta that perform the function of patisandhi differ according to the strength of the kusala-kamma that are the causes. If a patisandhi-citta results from kusala-kamma with panna-cetasika of a weak kind or with none at all, the patisandhi-citta that is kusala-vipaka would arise with sobhana-cetasika together with two hetu, namely alobha-cetasika and adosa-cetasika, as davi-hetuka-puggala, or a person whose patisandhi-citta is without panna-cetasika arising concurrently. That person would be unable to attain jhana or lokuttara-dhamma in that lifetime. Those whose patisandhi-citta result from kamma with panna and whose patisandhi-citta arise with panna-cetasika concurrently are ti-hetuka-puggala because there are three hetu namely, alobha-cetasika, adosa-cetasika and panna (amoha) -cetasika arising concurrently. Having heard the dhamma they would examine and understand it and be able to develop panna until they achieve jhana-citta or realize the four ariya-sacca-dhamma and attain nibbana and become ariya-puggala in that lifetime according to their accumulated conditions. However, one should not be overconfident. Those who are intelligent, with patisandhi-citta that are ti-hetuka, but neglect developing kusala, and not listening to the dhamma, would be wise in worldly matters, well-educated or otherwise skillful but would not develop panna in the dhamma and would not know the characteristics of realities as they truly are. In the distant past of former lives some might have been interested in the dhamma, might have studied the dhamma, or even have become ordained bhikkhu or samanera but to realize the ariya-sacca-dhamma, no one knows in which state one would attain ariya-sacca-dhamma, as a monk or a lay person. Everyone must develop panna, to know the characteristics of realities that are appearing as they really are in every lifetime until one reaches the lifetime when panna is sharp and strong, able to penetrate the ariya-sacca-dhamma. Even though once one might have been interested in the dhamma, its studies and applications, one must not forget that before the full realization of the ariya-sacca-dhamma there had been a great deal of amassed akusala to make one lose oneself in the pleasure of akusala if one were negligent. Therefore, even though the patisandhi-citta is ti-hetuka, whenever one is careless, the panna-cetasika of that lifetime would not develop because one did not develop it with listening, examining and practicing the dhamma. It would, therefore, be a pity that though the patisandhi-citta of that lifetime is ti-hetuka, panna is not developed, while it is uncertain which kind of kusala will result in which patisandhi-citta in the next life. It could be akusala-vipaka-citta causing patisandhi-citta in the apaya-bhumi; or ahetuka-kusala- vipaka-citta performing patisandhi as an innate disabled person; or davi-hetuka- vipaka-citta performing patisandhi as a davi-hetuka-puggala in the sugati-bhumi, who are unable to develop panna to fully realize the ariya-sacca-dhamma. Therefore, it is to be regretted that panna is not developed further with each lifetime even though it were with ti-hetuka-patisandhi but since panna has not been sufficiently developed, there can be no realization of the ariya-sacca-dhamma in this lifetime. Not everyone who are ti-hetuka-puggala could realize the ariya-sacca-dhamma fully in their present existence. While those born human without handicaps are sound asleep, their bhavanga-citta would be sobhana-citta since their patisandhi-citta are davi-hetuka with alobha-cetasika, adosa-cetasika arising concurrently. Some, whose patisandhi-citta are ti-hetuka with alobha-cetasika, adosa-cetasika and panna-cetasika arising concurrently, while they are sound asleep, kilesa would not arise, nor would pleasure or displeasure since there is no seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting , thinking (…). But once awaken the akusala-citta that arise each day would condition gladness or sadness accordingly. Generally, once one is awake there would be more asobhana than kusala daily. Cakkhu-vinnana would arise to see visual objects through the eyes only an instant then afterwards generally akusala-javana-citta would arise for seven instants; which means seven times the number of the cakkhu-vinnana that performs the function of seeing each instant. The accumulation in continuation of akusala-dhamma each day is extremely great. Therefore one should not be careless. Once one had heard the dhamma that the Buddha manifested in detail about which instant is sobhana-citta, which asobhana and about whether asobhana-citta is akusala, vipaka or kiriya. (End quote.) Thought you might like this passage, Amara 2752 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 1:04pm Subject: padaparama Dear Alex, This is powerful stuff. I want to say how much I appreciate your courage in saying this. I don't know if it is true that most of us are dvi-hetuka but it could be. The commentaries definitely state that at this time there are only padaparama and neyya. Neyya may attain in this life- but only if they hear many details, find the right path and do not follow an imitation of vipassana. Most of us are padaparama -we will not attain in this life but if the right conditions are fulfilled we may attain immediately in the next life, possibly as a deva. Even those who have three roots can easily deviate from the right path. There are so many who imagine they have experienced vipassana nana these days because of strange experiences they have in meditation; it is truly difficult to distinguish right from wrong. Does this discourage anyone. Do you want to be certain you can attain this life. Do you want so much the security of being sotapanna? This is tanha, it will not help. It will lead you to attach to the wrong way, the promise of quick results. We can take heart. Learn to see that all dhammas are conditioned, learn the difference between the moments when there is sati and when there is not. Study the characteristics of the paramattha dhammas arisng at the doors. These efforts are not lost. I have a blind friend in thailand, a student of Khun sujin, he is relaxed and happy, he knows the great advantge in listening to dhamma. Even if we were born mentally impaired but we took to listening to dhamma we would accumulate much merit. There was a frog in the Buddhas time - he listened to the Buddha and all he could perceive was 'this is good'. he died and was reborn as a deva (three rooted). He was surprised and looked back and realised that simply by listening to the Buddha he had taken on this majesty. That same day he visited the Buddha, listened more and became sotapanna. It can happen because in countless lives before he was frog he must have accumulated parami. (he was an exceptional frog) All of us here can listen and consider in depth the sublime teachings. It is wonderful indeed to have such a chance, so rare in samasara. Robert --- wrote: > --- "amara chay" wrote: > > Dear Amara, > > > I think the reason we are here discussing the dhamma instead > of > some > > cyber whatnots is that we are probably all born with three > hetu!!! > > I wish that it were true. The fact is that we can talk, > read or > think about dhamma all the time, but still we cannot reach > even the > level of Sotapanna proves that we were born with 2 hetus. > > Don't feel bad though because while we study dhamma, panna > will be > developed. Then, we'll be born with 3 hetus. > > > According to Khun Sujin, though, most with even all three > would not > > even be interested in the dhamma, > > How true! It also means that the ones who are not > interested in > dhamma may be re-born with no hetu: birth in the lower realms, > or > birth with physical defects (such as blindness, dumbness) as a > human > or in the Catumaharajika, which is right above the human one. > > >so we are the lucky few to be able > > to develop panna, the only treasure we can take with us to > our > > future existences, anything else we would have to leave > behind. > > > > I for one am glad to be in such company, anumodana, > > =^_^= > > Amara > > 2753 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 1:30pm Subject: Re: padaparama > I don't know if it is true that most of > us are dvi-hetuka but it could be. The commentaries definitely > state that at this time there are only padaparama and neyya. > Neyya may attain in this life- but only if they hear many > details, find the right path and do not follow an imitation of > vipassana. Most of us are padaparama -we will not attain in this > life but if the right conditions are fulfilled we may attain > immediately in the next life, possibly as a deva. Even those who > have three roots can easily deviate from the right path. There > are so many who imagine they have experienced vipassana nana > these days because of strange experiences they have in > meditation; it is truly difficult to distinguish right from > wrong. Dear all, I hope we realize that we are talking about two different classifications here, the hetu and the puggala: The hetu are the components of the citta, of which there are six, three kusala and three akusala, and may or may not arise in a citta, in daily life. Their presence (uniquely the kusala this time) or absence in the patisandhi-citta (birth consciousness) depends on a previous kamma in a former life, which will determine what kind of patisandhi it will be, as well as the bhavanga (life continuum) citta of that lifetime, which will always be the same kind of citta as the patisandhi citta. As to the classification of the puggalas, there are four, as we all know, the uggatitannu, vipatitannu, neyya and padaparama. Just a remark, Amara > Does this discourage anyone. Do you want to be certain you can > attain this life. Do you want so much the security of being > sotapanna? This is tanha, it will not help. It will lead you to > attach to the wrong way, the promise of quick results. We can > take heart. Learn to see that all dhammas are conditioned, learn > the difference between the moments when there is sati and when > there is not. Study the characteristics of the paramattha > dhammas arisng at the doors. These efforts are not lost. > I have a blind friend in thailand, a student of Khun sujin, he > is relaxed and happy, he knows the great advantge in listening > to dhamma. > Even if we were born mentally impaired but we took to listening > to dhamma we would accumulate much merit. There was a frog in > the Buddhas time - he listened to the Buddha and all he could > perceive was 'this is good'. he died and was reborn as a deva > (three rooted). He was surprised and looked back and realised > that simply by listening to the Buddha he had taken on this > majesty. That same day he visited the Buddha, listened more and > became sotapanna. It can happen because in countless lives > before he was frog he must have accumulated parami. (he was an > exceptional frog) All of us here can listen and consider in > depth the sublime teachings. It is wonderful indeed to have such > a chance, so rare in samasara. > Robert > > --- wrote: > > --- "amara chay" > > wrote: > > > > Dear Amara, > > > > > I think the reason we are here discussing the dhamma instead > > of > > some > > > cyber whatnots is that we are probably all born with three > > hetu!!! > > > > I wish that it were true. The fact is that we can talk, > > read or > > think about dhamma all the time, but still we cannot reach > > even the > > level of Sotapanna proves that we were born with 2 hetus. > > > > Don't feel bad though because while we study dhamma, panna > > will be > > developed. Then, we'll be born with 3 hetus. > > > > > According to Khun Sujin, though, most with even all three > > would not > > > even be interested in the dhamma, > > > > How true! It also means that the ones who are not > > interested in > > dhamma may be re-born with no hetu: birth in the lower realms, > > or > > birth with physical defects (such as blindness, dumbness) as a > > human > > or in the Catumaharajika, which is right above the human one. > > > > >so we are the lucky few to be able > > > to develop panna, the only treasure we can take with us to > > our > > > future existences, anything else we would have to leave > > behind. > > > > > > I for one am glad to be in such company, anumodana, > > > =^_^= > > > Amara > > > 2755 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 3:02pm Subject: Precepts - Intoxicants Dear All Some time ago there was discussion here about the reason for the inclusion of the avoidance of intoxicants in the 5 precepts. Recently I came across an old BPS Newsletter with an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the subject of sobriety. In it he explains the reason for the laying down of the precept. He says- To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the cause of heedlessness (pamaada). Heedlessness means moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is the loss of heedfulness (appamaada), moral scrupulousness based on a keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. … [ends] Bh Bodhi goes on to say that to indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from each of the 3 stages of the path – morality, concentration and wisdom [ie sila, samadhi and panna]. If anyone comes across any actual Tipitaka references, please share with us. By the way, I believe that ‘moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong’ in the passage quoted above is a reference to the absence of the cetasikas (mental factors) hiri and ottappa, which have been the subject of discussion recently. Jonothan 2756 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Kom I have a slightly different understanding on this subject than Robert (Mike, but there is no discord between us!), and I hope you don't mind if I give my thoughts here. > wrote: > > Almost always breath is concept when we are aware > of it. > > Especially when it is used as an object for > samattha and a > > nimitta arises this is obviously concept. > You are saying here that in the beginning, the > meditator (samatha > bhavana) may have poramattha as aramana. However, > since to develop the > samatha bhanvana further, nimita must appear, and > therefore, at this > point, it becomes pannati. Is this about right? Breath, it seems to me, is a concept. Like with the concept ‘body’, it is possible that there can be awareness of one of the realities that we normally take for breath/body, and at such moments no concept of breath/body appears. But there is no paramattha dhamma ‘breath’, just as there is no paramattha dhamma ‘body’. Breath as object of samatha is a concept. Breath as object of satipatthana, however, is a reference to awareness of one of the realities that we take for breath. > > And even during > > vipassana when there is awareness of the different > namas and > > rupas that arise almost simultaneoulsy with breath > - the breath > > itself is not an object for satipatthana. However > breath is > > actually composed of rupas that are conditioned > ONLY by citta > > (citta-samutthana-rupa). Only special type of > wisdom can > > actually distinguish between the rupas that are > citta-samutthana > > -rupa and say those that are utu -samutthana-rupa. > Thus we might > > think we are experiencing the rupas that are > conditioned by > > citta but actually be observing other types - it > is exceedingly > > hard to know. > Do you know of anyone who actually try to "observe" > the differences > between citta-samutthana and utu-samutthana rupa? > Are the differences > actually observable via Satipatthana? This is where > I can understand > how being unwise studying Abhidhamma could cause > insanity... I think what Robert is saying here is that one reason why samatha bhavana with breath as object is so difficult is that it is easy to take what is not breath for breath, since there are all sorts of things happening around the tip of the nose. Knowledge of the difference between the 2 kinds of rupa (conditioned by citta vs. conditioned by utu) would be panna of the level of samatha bhavana, I suppose. The difference between these 2 kinds of rupa is of no significance in the development of satipatthana, since satipatthana does not require the arising of awareness in relation to any particular reality. And as far as I know, the characteristic of, say, hardness, is the same whenever it appears to sati ie it does not differ according to its conditioning factor/s. This is a very complex area. I have only ever tried to understand the basics, because these are confusing enough! Jonothan 2757 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dhd5 I am coming in here without having read all the later posts – I know from experience that if I wait until I am up-to-date I won’t get to post anything – so apologies in advance if I am going over ground already covered. > Mahasi clearly > indicated that the > bhaya-nana is knowledge of a directly experienced > fear: "[The yogi's] > mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless." > This accords more > closely to my reasoning and experience than do your > deviations from > Tipitaka. Your deviation from Tipitaka is writing > that the bhaya-nana > is not derived from a real, directly experienced > fear, that it > is not wisdom regarding a real, directly experienced > fear. Please note > that I do not say that you contradict Tipitaka, only > that you are > extrapolating or deviating from Tipitaka. Your > extrapolation differs > from Mahasi's, and it differs from mine, but to the > best of my > knowledge, none of the extrapolations contradicts > Tipitaka. I don’t know if you would agree, but it seems to me that the 2 commentaries – Buddhaghosa’s and Mahasi Sayadaw’s – are mutually exclusive, ie they can’t both be right. So it is perhaps a question as to which of the 2 accords more fully with the Tipitaka. As far as I know, Buddhaghosa has never been faulted on this score in the 1500 years or so that the Visuddhimagga has been around. But it will be interesting to see what Amara comes up with in her search of the Attasalini. Jonothan 2758 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Alex I agree with your comment that people tend to confuse samatha and vipassana > >Even the samatha development using > > anapanasati (breath) as aramana, the samatha > object is still a > concept. > > Good point! That's how the "vipassana" > meditators get into > samatha development while they think that they are > doing "vipassana" > meditation. However, I would go further and say that since samatha development requires a high degree of panna, a person who mistakenly thought they were developing vipassana could not be developing samatha. Good to have your cheery posts back again. Jonothan 2759 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Papańca_[again] Amara > In any case K Sujin said that recitals are the > general practice, Thanks for this clarification. I am relieved to hear that the original reference was to recitals rather than a mantras! (I don’t know about dictionary definitions, but I believe the 2 terms are generally understood as having distinctly different meanings). On the other point you mentioned- > I think she does > every night, and she says any reflection on the > Buddha's beneficence > is always good. I am not clear what you are saying K Sujin does every night, but I wonder if it is something we should be concerned with? I am reminded of the discussion at the hotel in Siem Riep in Cambodia. You will recall that K Sujin pointed out that reciting together in a group, for example at the close of the discussion, could be seen as a sort of forcing. Recollection of the Buddha is only good if it is kusala. Jonothan 2760 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:26pm Subject: Spoilt for choice Dear All If you have visited the Zolag website recently, you may have noticed a new section ‘A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas’ by Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Just to avoid any confusion, I should point out that this is a translation of the same book by Khun Sujin (originally written in Thai) as Amara’s ‘Summary of Paramatthadhammas’. Amara’s translation is now complete and ready for printing, while Nina’s will be ready later this year. As you will see from a quick look at the 2 versions, the translators have adopted somewhat different approaches, so there is merit in reading both. Part of Nina’s translation has been published by the Foundation (with a Foreword by Robert) under the title ‘Realities and Concepts’. Jonothan Links- http://www.zolag.co.uk/ http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat.html 2761 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 5:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Jonathan, Thanks for the secondary view. --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > wrote: > > > Almost always breath is concept when we are aware > > of it. > > > Especially when it is used as an object for > > samattha and a > > > nimitta arises this is obviously concept. > > You are saying here that in the beginning, the > > meditator (samatha > > bhavana) may have poramattha as aramana. However, > > since to develop the > > samatha bhanvana further, nimita must appear, and > > therefore, at this > > point, it becomes pannati. Is this about right? > > Breath, it seems to me, is a concept. Like with the > concept ‘body’, it is possible that there can be > awareness of one of the realities that we normally > take for breath/body, and at such moments no concept > of breath/body appears. But there is no paramattha > dhamma ‘breath’, just as there is no paramattha dhamma > ‘body’. > > Breath as object of samatha is a concept. Breath as > object of satipatthana, however, is a reference to > awareness of one of the realities that we take for > breath. This certainly was my understanding on the subject. Although the understanding about Satipathanna was exact, but the samatha understanding I had before was derived from an exposure to an anapanasati technique, which could be way off from the technique that may actually work. The concentration on breath, as taught by the school, certainly does not separate the porathamatha characteristics as different dhatus. Rather, it was taught as a whole aggregate: you concentrate on the breath however way you can observe it: contact (hardness), warmth (dejo), and motion (apo). However, I am willing to take Robert's explanation as a hypothesis. Obviously, in order for this to be samatha, there must be panna arising. Now this gets slightly more interesting. There is panna rising with the citta cognizing a paramatha arammana, but the panna is not at the satipatthana level, i.e., the fact that it is just a dhatu and not self is not penetrated. I didn't consider the possibility of panna arising with citta cognizing a paramatha arammana not being Satipatthana before. Now, I ask you two (and anybody else), is this possible? After the breath becomes nimita (how does breath become nimita? I don't think anybody has answered this question yet, although I don't need an answer anyway), the arammana is obviously pannati. Also, as I understand it, the breath becomes so fine that the paramatha charactertics cannot be "observed" at some stage in the development anyway. > I think what Robert is saying here is that one reason > why samatha bhavana with breath as object is so > difficult is that it is easy to take what is not > breath for breath, since there are all sorts of things > happening around the tip of the nose. Understood what you said here... > Knowledge of > the difference between the 2 kinds of rupa > (conditioned by citta vs. conditioned by utu) would be > panna of the level of samatha bhavana, I suppose. Don't understand how one can differentiate the two without any kind of "special" nana, as Robert has said. The dejo dhatu in the rupa kalapa conditioned by citta (citta samuthana) almost immediately conditions the rupa kalapa (utu-samuthana) to arise. The poramatha characteristics are identical. How can you tell the differences? Actually, don't need an answer here either... > The difference between these 2 kinds of rupa is of no > significance in the development of satipatthana, since > satipatthana does not require the arising of awareness > in relation to any particular reality. And as far as > I know, the characteristic of, say, hardness, is the > same whenever it appears to sati ie it does not differ > according to its conditioning factor/s. Now, this is expounded on so many time that this "appears" easy. Whew, at least there is no controversy. Anumodhana for your help. kom 2762 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 6:24pm Subject: Re:_Papańca_[again] > Thanks for this clarification. I am relieved to hear > that the original reference was to recitals rather > than a mantras! (I don't know about dictionary > definitions, but I believe the 2 terms are generally > understood as having distinctly different meanings). Dear Jonothan, Could you elaborate? > On the other point you mentioned- > > > I think she does > > every night, and she says any reflection on the > > Buddha's beneficence > > is always good. > > I am not clear what you are saying K Sujin does every > night, but I wonder if it is something we should be > concerned with? I was answering Mike's question whether she recited herself. Personally it does not concern me. Good to hear from you, Amara 2763 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 6:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear kom, I may confuse the issue more. I really hadn'y intended to imply that the breath was not a pannatti rather to show just how those type of rupas conditioned by citta are classified in paramattha terms. I'll just go to your question: --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Jonathan, > > Thanks for the secondary view. > --- > This certainly was my understanding on the subject. Although > the > understanding about Satipathanna was exact, but the samatha > understanding I had before was derived from an exposure to an > anapanasati technique, which could be way off from the > technique that > may actually work. The concentration on breath, as taught by > the > school, certainly does not separate the porathamatha > characteristics as > different dhatus. Rather, it was taught as a whole aggregate: > you > concentrate on the breath however way you can observe it: > contact > (hardness), warmth (dejo), and motion (apo). Yes this must be the way. I hope my post didn't sound like I was suggesting that one should try to separate out which rupas were conditioned by citta and which were not. It was meant to show that it is possible to take what is not breath for breath. Breath is a subtle object of samattha. > > However, I am willing to take Robert's explanation as a > hypothesis. > Obviously, in order for this to be samatha, there must be > panna > arising. Now this gets slightly more interesting. There is > panna > rising with the citta cognizing a paramatha arammana, but the > panna is > not at the satipatthana level, i.e., the fact that it is just > a dhatu > and not self is not penetrated. I didn't consider the > possibility of > panna arising with citta cognizing a paramatha arammana not > being > Satipatthana before. Now, I ask you two (and anybody else), > is this > possible? > Certainly. When the 4 elements are taken as an object for samattha they are not satipatthana. This is something that if you hear discussed in more detail on a tape by Achran santi or Sujin I would like to know more details on too. > After the breath becomes nimita (how does breath become > nimita? I > don't think anybody has answered this question yet, although I > don't > need an answer anyway), the arammana is obviously pannati. > Also, as I > understand it, the breath becomes so fine that the paramatha > charactertics cannot be "observed" at some stage in the > development > anyway. this is all explained in detail in the visuddhimagga section Viii and also the Patisambhidhimagga. Robert > 2764 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 7:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Three types of wisdom Dan Thanks for this interesting (and provocative!) post. I find your analogy of the picture a little distracting. The reference is I believe simply to panna acquired through listening, thinking and mental development. Panna is panna, however acquired, but it is important to know the different levels of panna. I would not agree that it is necessary to deviate from the Tipitaka. Deviation surely connotes inconsistency with. The question, as ever, is what is the correct mental development. As you know, we spend a lot of time discussing this. When you refer to 'meditation practice', do you mean samatha bhavana, vipasana bhavana, or something else? Jonothan --- Dan Dalthorp <> wrote: > Vibhanga discusses a number of different types of > wisdom, including > sutamayapanna (wisdom through hearing), > cintamayapanna (wisdom through > thinking), and a number of types of wisdom arising > in the course of > practice as a result of direct experience, which I > will refer to as > 'bhavanamayapanna' (I can't find that exact term in > Vibhanga, but I've > heard it used by others, and it works well). 2765 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 7:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cambodia - a personal account & SATI Kom > Although > Samatha bhavana is NOT satipatthana, it can be a > condition for > Satipatthana to arise (in many different ways). I think I must take issue with this statement! I know that there are many ways in which one reality can condition another. For example, akusala can condition kusala. But in terms of understanding what the Buddha taught about the path, I think your statement is open to misconstruction. The important thing to understand is that samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana are 2 different forms of development requiring different levels of panna and leading to different goals. Samatha bhavana is in no sense a prerequisite for vipassana. Also, any idea that by practising samatha one will be better equipped to practise vipassana is I believe misconceived. So for all practical purposes, I would suggest that it is better to think of samatha as *not* being a condition for satipatthana to arise. Jonothan PS By the way, as our resident expert on paccaya, in what (many) ways would you see samatha as conditioning satipatthana? 2766 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 8:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Abhidhamma - Then & now Mike Thanks as ever for your careful and thorough response to my post. Just one area I wanted to follow up on. > > However, one can also get an idea of this > difference > > in levels of understanding from the suttas > > themselves. > > In many suttas the Buddha asks his listeners ‘Is > > seeing now permanent or impermanent?’ and they > are > > able to answer ‘Impermanent’ (and the same for > > visible object, contact, the feeling arising from > > that > > contact etc). > > O.K. But isn't an affinity for impermanence and the > other characterisics, one of the things that > attracts > us to the Dhamma now? Yes. But our 'affinity for impermanence' is at a relatively superficial level. It is not the panna which experiences, for example, seeing as seeing and at the same time has penetrated the true nature of that reality to the degree that the characteristic of impermanence is known. For those listening to the Buddha, developed panna was arising through the different doorways as he spoke. They had accumulated levels of panna in previous lives, and had me the right conditions for those accumulations to become manifest during the lifetime of the Buddha. I appreciate that there are many people today who claim to understand impermanence, but they do so without having studied the realities appearing through the different doorways. So I believe they are talking about something different. Jonothan 2767 From: kelvin liew peng chuan Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re:Vipassana Meditation While I was sweeping mindfully in the monastery,the elements suddenly became so clear. The air, fire , water and earth element of the body are so clear for a short moment and then vanished just as strangely as it arised. There was sudden 'insight' that the movement of the hand is just a combination of intention and the working of elemets combined.in the hand itself there are clear distint features of the heaviness, the ability to move, warmth etc. This experience is enough to give saddha for futher investigation into the Dhamma. 2768 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:Vipassana Meditation Dear kelvin, Thank you. It is nice to see that you realise that understanding can arise even while doing something as mundane as sweeping. it doesn't have to be in a temple either- it can be anywhere. --- kelvin liew peng chuan wrote: > While I was sweeping mindfully in the monastery,the elements > suddenly became > so clear. The air, fire , water and earth element of the body > are so clear > for a short moment and then vanished just as strangely as it > arised. How clear was it? You see citta can only cognise one object at a time. A process of cittas which cognise rupa is seventeen moments. And then mind-door processes occur which also know this object. But one set of processes knows only one rupa. For instance it might know heat - and at that time impossible that it could know air, vibration or hardness, earth. Fluidity, the water element cannot be known through the bodydoor but only through the mind-door. > There was sudden 'insight' that the movement of the hand is > just a > combination of intention and the working of elemets > combined.in the hand > itself there are clear distint features of the heaviness, the > ability to > move, warmth etc. This experience is enough to give saddha for > futher > investigation into the Dhamma. _________ This may still be thinking about the elements that appear. Thinking comes in much faster than we might realise. It might give you sadda in Dhamma, or it might just condition attachment to a technique. You see, for instance, I am used to considering (occasionally) the elements and how, because of intention arising (not self), the hand moves to touch the computer. That there is no computer just hardness and colour. This is understanding at the level of considering (assuming it is being done with genuine kusala citta). It is useful but if we think it is something higher we will go astray. Right now, while I am writing, there is awarenes of heat and sensation in the area of the hands. But this is simply citta and sanna experiencing these elements, not panna, at this moment. Robert 2769 From: m. nease Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Kom and Robert, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Thanks for reposting. I have some questions for > you. Second that, Robert. I remembert this quite well, now, it's amazing how often something important I've heard before seems brand-new when mentioned again from a slightly different angle (as in Kom's excellent post). Guess this is one of the reasons we need to hear these things again and again... > Do you know of anyone who actually try to "observe" > the differences > between citta-samutthana and utu-samutthana rupa? > Are the differences > actually observable via Satipatthana? This is where > I can understand > how being unwise studying Abhidhamma could cause > insanity... Kom, I feel the same way when I think of 'trying to observe' ANYTHING at the level of nama and rupa. This sense abates though, when I reflect that it's actually just a nama, moving just as fast as the other namas (and even faster than the rupas of course) that's doing the observing... mike 2770 From: m. nease Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Papańca_[again] Dear Khun Amara, --- amara chay wrote: > I just remembered that I haven't gotten back to you > on the mantra > recital as per 'Birth,...', or have I? You have now, thanks! > I > think she does > every night, and she says any reflection on the > Buddha's beneficence > is always good. It has occurred to me that this (reflection)is the proper use of puja. I think the danger lies in chanting to achieve samatha with somanassa, or in chanting with the idea of supernatural results, or with the idea that 'I'm chanting'--worst of all, the combination of all three. Thanks again for the follow-up. It's always instructive to hear of Khun Sujin's perspectives on conventional, every-day 'practices' (I promise not to 'copy'...) mike 2771 From: selamat Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas In high level meditation, Vitaka has a function to suppress thina middha nivarana (sloth and torpor) Vicara has a function to suppress vicikiccha nivarana (sceptic doubtful) ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 12:26 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > > I have also heard the analogy of the Vitaka being the gong of a bell > > when it is first struck, and Vicara being the echo of it. Vitaka's > > characteristics are more coarse than Vicara. > > Dear friends, > > I heard that Vitaka is like seeing a pen, but Vicara is knowing > that pen very clearly: the material it's made of, from what country > it's made of, how it's made, how it's shipped, ... > > Metta, > Alex > 2772 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:40pm Subject: Holiday Dear group, Just a note to let you know I am taking a little break from the list - I really have to make time for other duties. (or at least I plan to take a break - it may be that habit makes me look in) I will be happy to reply to any mail direct to me for any reason, anytime. For that purpose please use this address and put [private note}on the subject heading. Otherwise see you when I get back/pop in. Robert 2773 From: m. nease Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Taking robes [again!] Dear Lee, --- wrote: > I next question to this is: Why must they? As > someone answered that > arahant is "heavier" to layperson or arahant will > "die" in seven days > if he did not ordain. And someone mentioned that the > seven-day > statement has no reference. Someone mentioned that > arahant needs to > fend for his life and by entering the sangha will do > for them. And > arahants live for others, too. > I think arahants live for no one but only for > dhamma. From my hearsay > (so please correct me if it is wrong), the seven-day > period idea was > introduced by the sangha community years after the > Buddha Parinibbana > for the sake to uphold the sangha status which is > downfalling, > besides there was an idea then that layperson can > achieve the same > fruitions and there is no need to be a monk. Interesting question and points. I'm afraid I don't have any of the answers, though I think others have addressed some of these issues recently. I'll look forward to more... mike 2774 From: amara chay Date: Sun Jan 7, 2001 10:31pm Subject: Re:_Papańca_[again] > It's always > instructive to hear of Khun Sujin's perspectives on > conventional, every-day 'practices' (I promise not to > 'copy'...) Dear Mike, I think what she meant is that each person has his own accumulations and what works for one might not for another, as we studied in the four sampajanna, remember? The only thing we can rely on is the study of the truth as the Buddha taught in the Tipitaka, and his reminder to study the realities that appear through the six dvara as they really are. Moments of sati in are indeed very rapid as sati is a cetasika and therefore a nama that arises 17 times the rapidity of any rupa, as you observed, but there are things that he said could only be understood through the mind door, such as the experience of apo dhatu, the water element, whose characteristics are adhesion and saturation and bathing, cannot appear through any of the other dvara. The eye, ear, nose tongue, each has its particular rupa as aramana. The body sense has more, temperature, hardness/softness, and motion/tension. The rest can appear only through the mind dvara, it is no use trying to observe the unobservable, besides, there are already so much to study/be mindful of already, aren't there!!! I am thinking of your trying to observe the differences between the rupa that arise from kamma and those that arise from utu and ahara, etc. If I remember correctly, Khun Sujin said they were intermingled in the human body, apart from the instant of birth where the first group of rupa arises from kamma, the same kamma that produced the patisandhi citta. But the nama sati and panna, as you also observed, could study the characteristics of other nama, when they arise strongly enough, the ones being as fast as the other. The thing is not to attach so much importance to the individual moments so as to keep thinking about this and that aspect of it afterwards, not realizing they are just thoughts. Moments of sati arise to know the paramatthadhamma with the right conditions, for just that fleeting instant when one reality appears at a time, not the whole body or a hand which are concepts, but as visible object, touch, seeing, which you can test for yourself even in front of the computer. Khun Sujin says that right understanding can arise anywhere, without exception, so all we have to do is let it happen, no matter what others say. Only we could know our own experiences, in the end. Anumodana in your studies, as usual, Amara 2775 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 1:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Robert and Jonothan, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: Thanks for your comments and for reposting Jonothan's extraordinary post. This is the best post I've seen yet on this topic (& item #10 even hints strongly at the 'robes' issue--and a hidden connection between these issues), I think. I went to save it in my 'Jonothan' directory, and found it was already there--it was the first response Jonothan sent to me when I was still quite new to the list. I think it would be good to post this as a file on the e-groups page--especially with as many references to the tipitaka as possible--as a quick response to curious newcomers who are bound to bring up this question again and again. So many of us came into the Theravada by way of modern meditation schools which tend to present their approaches--often (if not always) reductionistic and rather radical as to interpretation--as being the true, original buddhadhamma and a kind of solution to modern misconceptions. With this as a background, our first look at understanding by way of the abhidhamma-pitaka often gives the impression of a really radical and intellectual approach. It's no wonder that so many of us look askance, at first, at at a truly ancient approach with its roots in ALL of the dhamma-vinaya--not just a few selected suttas--as one that turns 'the dhamma' upside-down--instead of setting it upright, as I believe it actually does. I hope the two of you have developed paramis number five and six, viriya and khanti, sufficiently to continue repeating these points for the benefit of those (I forget what we're called), who find the path slow and difficult. Saadhu! mike 2776 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 2:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Robert, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Visuddhimagga > III, 29...says before beginning to develop samattha > one should > "sever any of the ten impediments". These are > 1. dwelling > 2. family > 3. students > 4. building > 5. travel > 6. kin > 7. affliction > 8. books > 9. gain > the last one is supernormal powers but this is an > impediment only for vipassana not for samattha. I found this a very interesting and pertinent quote, and again one, I think, that has bearing on both the 'vs.' and the 'robes' threads. Thanks for posting it. mike p.s. (This led me to read on in this passage in Vissudhimagga--it's fascinating). 2777 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 2:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramattha dhammas Dear Mike, Point well taken, Sir... kom --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Do you know of anyone who actually try to "observe" > > the differences > > between citta-samutthana and utu-samutthana rupa? > > Are the differences > > actually observable via Satipatthana? This is where > > I can understand > > how being unwise studying Abhidhamma could cause > > insanity... > > Kom, I feel the same way when I think of 'trying to > observe' ANYTHING at the level of nama and rupa. This > sense abates though, when I reflect that it's actually > just a nama, moving just as fast as the other namas > (and even faster than the rupas of course) that's > doing the observing... > > mike 2779 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 2:53am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Lee, --- wrote: > I think samatha is indetermined. When you developed > samatha, calm, > peace and tranquility are gained. Whether it is > miccha samadhi or > not, I think, it is driven by the miccha ditthi or > samma ditthi. > > "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with > its supports & > requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind > equipped with these > seven factors -- right view, right resolve, right > speech, right > action, right livelihood, right effort, & right > mindfulness -- is > called noble right concentration with its supports & > requisite > conditions." > -- MN 117 Thank you for this lovely citation. I can think of no reflection so valuable as the Buddha's own words on the subject of the Eightfold Path. Saadhu, Sir! mike 2780 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 3:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Alex, --- wrote: > The reason it's difficult to attain any level of > jhana is because > the practitioner has to be born with 3 hetus: no > dosa, no moha, and > no avijja. Then, if he chooses to do samatha > bhavana, he may reach > any level of jhana, or if he chooses to follow the > Buddha's > teachings, he'll achieve the path and fruit of > liberation. > > Since nowadays, most of us were born with 2 > hetus: no dosa and no > moha, we need to study Dhamma so that panna may > develop. Then, in > the future life times, we may be reborn with 3 > hetus. In another > words, we need to work on our Paramis so that better > conditions may > arise later. Thanks for bringing up this important point. I've only just recently read about it in Abhidhamma in Daily Life. This surely requires more understanding on my part. mike 2781 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 3:49am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Ch.s 6&7 Saadhu! --- amara chay wrote: > Dear friends, > > Almost forgot to report: NVG's 'Abhidhamma' ch.s 6&7 > up last night, > intermediate section, . > > Enjoy, > > Amara > 2782 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 3:57am Subject: Private Note Dear Robert, I know you're trying to get away, but: --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > "...Panna...brings > about, by > endeavoring, the manifestation of the path" I think you said earlier that 'right effort' is achieved by pańńaa. Was that ('bringing about by endeavouring') in reference to this? Thanks...mike 2783 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 4:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Holiday Dear Robert & friends, Well Robert's break is really well deserved...I doubt he's had a day off the list since it started. Robert, we'll TRY to manage without you for a little while! I'm afraid I ned to regularly take breaks to catch up with work and other commitments, but Sunday (my one day off) is usually a good day to catch up with reading and here I am on Monday at 4am up and determined to catch up on some posting! Sarah --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear group, > Just a note to let you know I am taking a little > break from the > list - I really have to make time for other duties. > (or at > least I plan to take a break - it may be that habit > makes me > look in) > I will be happy to reply to any mail direct to me > for any > reason, anytime. > For that purpose please use this address and put > [private > note}on the subject heading. > > Otherwise see you when I get back/pop in. > > Robert > 2784 From: Metta Jon Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 5:15am Subject: Re: Precepts - Intoxicants Jonathan, You asked for scriptural references? The first one that comes to mind is Dhammapada 247-248 (Chapter 18, [Impurities], verses 12-13): "Whosoever in this world destroys life, tells lies, takes what is not given, goes to another's wife, and is given to the use of intoxicants, such a one digs up his own roots in this world." A reference that really spells things out is in the Dhammika Sutta of the Sutta Nipata (Sn.398-399): "The layman who joyfully abides in self-control, knowing that the use of intoxicants results in loss of self-control, should not indulge in taking intoxicants, nor should he cause others to do so, nor approve of others so doing. Fools commit evil deeds as a result of intoxication, and cause others who are negligent to do the same. One should avoid this occasion for evil, this madness, this delusion, this joy of fools." Also from the Sutta Nipata (Maha Mangala Sutta, Sn.264): "...to abstain from intoxicants, and to be diligent in virtue, these are the Highest Blessings." There are some Westerners who are attracted to Buddhism, but who wish to believe that the precept is to abstain from intoxication, but the wording of the precept clearly says that one abstains from the use of intoxicants, which are the occasion for heedlessness. One or two people tried to tell me that if someone is a "Bodhisattva with a high level of realization" that they could drink alcohol and not be affected." My response to that is: if they have such a high level of realization, then they would have no attachment to or craving for alcohol, and thus would not drink it. One man said to me: "But the Buddha was enlightened, and he still ate food." To which i responded: "Food is necessary for life; alcohol is not. The Buddha ate food so that he could support his body and mind to teach the Dhamma (Dharma) to others." Had i been in a sarcastic frame of mind, i could have said, "When YOU become a Bodhisattva with a high level of realization, then talk to me about it." Some Buddhists will tell you that enlightened beings don't need to follow precepts. This is true, but ONLY because their behavior automatically conforms to the Dhamma. When your character is such that killing, stealing, lying, etc., are IMPOSSIBLE for you to commit, then you don't need the precepts to tell you not to do those things--because you wouldn't do them anyway. The great sage named Bodhidharma was quoted as saying: "Buddhas don't keep precepts; Buddhas don't break precepts." i hope that this helps anyone who is interested in this subject. Sukhita hotha, Metta Jon Maslow --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dear All > > Some time ago there was discussion here about the > reason for the inclusion of the avoidance of > intoxicants in the 5 precepts. > > Recently I came across an old BPS Newsletter with an > article by Bhikkhu Bodhi on the subject of sobriety. > In it he explains the reason for the laying down of > the precept. He says- > > To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing > this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation > into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use > of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the > cause of heedlessness (pamaada). Heedlessness means > moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between > right and wrong. It is the loss of heedfulness > (appamaada), moral scrupulousness based on a keen > perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. … > [ends] > > Bh Bodhi goes on to say that to indulge in > intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from each > of the 3 stages of the path – morality, concentration > and wisdom [ie sila, samadhi and panna]. > > If anyone comes across any actual Tipitaka references, > please share with us. 2785 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 5:26am Subject: Friends, Robes & Terminology Dear Mike & friends, New year seems a long time and many posts back but I appreciated your timely New Year reference to The Upaddha Sutta (Half of the Holy Life). 'When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions & colleagues, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path..' It talks about how having these friends is actually 'the whole of the holy life'. So what is meant by 'holy life' and what is meant here by 'monk'? I'd need to read the commentary notes to be quite sure, but in many suttas, we are told that the holy life refers to the eightfold path and those who have followed the eightfold path (and reached stages of enlightenment) are those that have followed the holy life. This reminds me of the ultimate meaning of sangha which also refers to the same individuals. In the same way, we need to consider what is meant by 'bhikkhu' when it seems so often that it is only monks that are being referred to. I'm just looking at the commentary notes to the Satipatthana Sutta. Here it says 'Bhikkhu is a term to indicate a person who earnestly endeavours to accomplish the practice of the teaching. Others, gods and men, too, certainly strive earnestly to accomp;ish the practice of the teaching, but because of the excellence of the bhikkhu-state by way of prctice, the master said 'Bhikkhu'....'He who practises this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu'....'Accordingly it is said: "Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm, Tamed, humble,pure,a man who does no harm To aught that lives, that one's a brahmin true. An ascetic and mendicant too'Dhp142 In the comm notes to the Samannaphala Sutta (Fruit of recluseship) which I'm reading along with many other books, in my grasshopper fashion, it talks about the meaning of recluseship: 'in the ultimate sense, recluseship is the path and the fruit of recluseship is the noble fruit. As it is said: 'What , bhikhus, is recluseship? It is this Noble Eightfold Path...' ' It also talks here about the 3 kinds of solitude, i.e. bodily (kayaviveka), mental (cittaviveka) and ultimate solitude (upadhiviveka) for those persons 'who have gone beyone formations' (i.e. attained Nibbana). The reason I'm mentioning these is not because anyone has implied anything to the contrary but just to reflect how carefully we need to read the Suttas. When it seems that the Buddha is only talking to the monks, it MAY not be the case. Even with commentary notes and the Pali it is not always easy and the reading will very much depend on one's understanding at the time. Ages(?) ago there was some discussion on the list (after a death in O's family) on the Bhaddekaratta Sutta (A Single Excellent Night), Maj Nik 131. It talks about how death can come at any time, but one who 'dwells' ardently can be said to have had an excellent night. I'd read all the comm notes and checked the pali and still didn't understand why it should just refer to the night and not the day. In Bangkok they checked the Thai and here it referred to night and day and K.Sujin explained that night refers to a 24hr period as in booking a hotel for 2nts! I don't expect this to be of any interest to many (except perhaps Jim A), but it's just an example of how suttas are not as easy to read as some may think and a reason why it can be hard to read correctly without some knowledge of abhidhamma! Sarah p.s. Jim A, welcome back after your hol. Hope it was a good one and that your home is not too frozen up after the break. After living such a quiet life the rest of the year it must take some 'adjustment' when you hit the city!! 2786 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 6:29am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta Dear Dan, Jonothan & Amara, I have tried (with little success) to find further rreferences on the bhaya nana theme. I couldn't find anything in Atthasalani. There are however many suttas which talk about fear and always with unwholesome connotations. For example, the Bhayabherava Autta (Fear and Dread) Maj Nik 4 talks about the fear experienced by worldlings in the jungle: '..Whenever recluses or brahmins unpurified in verbal conduct...unpurified in mental conduct...unpurified in livelihood rsort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest...they evoke unwholesome fear and dread. But ...I am purified in livelihood. I resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest as one of the noble ones with livelihood purified'.. Just one more short quote from Ang Nik bk of 6s: 'Fear (bhaya), pain, disease, blain (?), bondage, bog (?) are names For sense-desires to which the worldlings cling. They who see fear in grasping (upadana)- source of birth And death - grasp not and, ending both, are freed; Won is the peace, blissful in perfect cool They dwell here now, all fear and hate long gone, All ill surpassed.' These suttas are only indirectly relevant I know. I also understand that what may seem an obvious interpretation of the Vis quote to us may be interpreted in a different way by Dan, others on the list and also by Mahasi Sayadaw and many other great scholars. Indeed, Nyanaponika Thera as translator to Mahasi's 'Progress of Insight' talks about how the meditational practice begins with a 'few selected subjects of body-contemplation, which are retained up to the very end of the road.....and the vision deepens until the insight knowledges unfold themselves in due order, as a natural outcome of the practice.' This is in contradiction to the practice as understood and discussed by some of us here. Nyanaponika and Mahasi Sayadaw were extremely learned and scholarly and there is no question of their not having studied the Tipitaka. However, as we've discussed before many times on the list, it is the understanding with which one reads the Tipitaka that is the key and I think we have to accept that on this subject we read the same verse from the Vis with different understandings. Dan, I appreciate your sincere efforts to explain your understanding and I'm sure many here will agree with and appreciate them. For myself, I was 'brought up' on the Mahasi teachings. Indeed my first Buddhist teacher was Munindra in Bodh Gaya. Munindra had studied in Burma with Mahadsi for a very long time and the meditation practice I followed was as described by Nyanaponika and others. Munindra wa one of the kindest, sweetest people I've ever met. For months in Bodh Gaya, I'd follow his instructions and often have a simple lunch with him and discuss anything relating to my experiences or reading. I am very grateful to him for all his help. He was also teaching aspects of the Tipitaka to Goenka at the time. Later I continued my meditation practice in earnest in a temple in Sri lanka. I've already said enough on this on the list. Suffice it to say that I didn't have Mike's mischievous bent at that time and as the 'perfect' meditator, followed the instructions from 4am (maybe where I learnt to be an early riser!) to nightfull. After a few months I was ticking off those stages with full encouragement of the head monk and Munindra whom I occasionally corresponded with. So it was a real shock when I started really studying and considering the Teachings as I now understand them and finding out there wasn't even any understanding of nama as nama and rupa as rupa, let alone the difference or higher levels of knowledge. I never admitted to Nina when, soon afterwards, I went to stay with her or to Khun Sujin or to anyone else that I'd had these false ideas of grandeur. However, I think these experiences and this misunderstanding is common and very dangerous. On the subject of concord or lack of it (Mike this post may not be to your liking in this regard!), Jonothan recently pointed out a lack of concord discussed in B.Bodhi's introduction to his Abhidamattha Sangaha. The 2 main commentaries he looked to were one written by a Sri Lankan in the 12th century and one written by Ledi Sayadaw (not to be confused w/ Mahasi but I THINK in the same lineage?). These 2 commentaries often take opposite stands in 'their handling of technical questions, the Ledi Sayadaw commentary launching a sustained critique of the older work.' B.Bodhi has tried to focus on the convergances, but obviously it was not always easy. To me, this list is an excellent place to air these areas of discord or different understanding and I hope we can all appreciate each others' sincere efforts to understand the heart of the teachings. Sarah p.s (I always seem to have one) Mike, some humour and lighter side would have been a big improvement all around at that time! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dhd5 > Mahasi clearly > > indicated that the > > bhaya-nana is knowledge of a directly experienced > > fear: "[The yogi's] > > mind itself is gripped by fear and seems > helpless." > > This accords more > > closely to my reasoning and experience than do > your > > deviations from > > Tipitaka. Your deviation from Tipitaka is writing > > that the bhaya-nana > > is not derived from a real, directly experienced > > fear, that it > > is not wisdom regarding a real, directly > experienced > > fear. Please note > > that I do not say that you contradict Tipitaka, > only > > that you are > > extrapolating or deviating from Tipitaka. Your > > extrapolation differs > > from Mahasi's, and it differs from mine, but to > the > > best of my > > knowledge, none of the extrapolations contradicts > > Tipitaka. > > I don’t know if you would agree, but it seems to me > that the 2 commentaries – Buddhaghosa’s and Mahasi > Sayadaw’s – are mutually exclusive, ie they can’t > both > be right. So it is perhaps a question as to which > of > the 2 accords more fully with the Tipitaka. As far > as > I know, Buddhaghosa has never been faulted on this > score in the 1500 years or so that the Visuddhimagga > has been around. But it will be interesting to see > what Amara comes up with in her search of the > Attasalini. > > Jonothan 2787 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 6:46am Subject: Welcomes & 1st names Dear Dan, Kelvin and Lee, Now for something lighter!! I've been enjoying all your posts. Thank you all for giving your names and sharing any information about yourselves. We try to see this list more as a friendly group of colleagues trying to help each other rather than as aliens in cyberspace! We (perhaps I should say I - I'm really not qualified to talk for others) also really appreciate hearing different views because these can help us to question our own understanding better, so please keep up your good posts and don't be intimidated by any dissent! Kelvin, are you based in Penang now? For years in the 70s we (ane esp. Jonothan) used to send out books by Nina VG to groups and individuals in Penang who were very appreciative. After he left Bangkok the link seemed to be cut. It would be nice if some of those people were to join us here. Thankyou for sharing your experiences. Lee, 'ni hou' You're in Taiwan, right? If you (or anyone else) passes through Hong kong, pls be sure to meet up with us! You've obviously studied a lot and widely. may i ask how you've become interested in Theravada with your Chinese & Mahayana background Dan, anytime you feel inclined to tell us a little more 'history' or background, we'd all be glad I'm sure. Best wishes, Sarah 2788 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 7:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: samatha Dear friends, SAMATHA The only point I rally want to add to this discussion is that I think the emphasis for either kind of bhavana (mental development, i.e. samatha or vipassana) should be on understanding right from the beginning. Just as it is useless for us to try to emulate the lifestyle of the arahat or to spend much time analysing what experiencing nibbana is like, I think it's equally useless to try to emulate the lifestyle of those experiencing jhanas or to spend too much time considering what the experience is. Right now, is there any understanding of samatha or any samatha arising? As Kom has mentioned several times, unless the citta (mental consciousness) is kusala (wholesome) then the answer is no. If we relax and listen to good music we can feel vey calm. Is it kusala? No. Even though it seems calm, in fact there is restlessness accompaning the citta at those moments. (Of course there CAN be moments of panna in between). This is also true when we're hiking (as i did yesterday) or doing Tai Chi or concentrating on an object in a meditation practice if there is no understanding. As Robert (?) pointed out, samadhi can be kusala or akusala (unwholesome), but without right understanding during the prctice it is bound to be the latter. We know that for samatha to arise, the object of citta must be one of the 40 objects discussed in the texts. So we need to know what these objects are and how they can calm the mind at this moment. This is the way, as I understand it, that samatha can begin to develop. We really don't need to concern ourselves with higher levels except as a matter of academic interest. For example, breath as object is considered the hardest and it says in the Vis that full mastery of this object only comes naturally to Buddhas and their like (sth like that). If we just stare at a red kasina, for sure there will not be any samatha developed because there is no understanding of this object and how it calms. However, if we reflect on the Buddha (one of the 10 recollections as objects of smatha) and in particular. reflect on his qualities and how he made the Teachings available for us, it may condition calm at this moment. If we reflect on death and how it may come at any moment, taking away all that is dear to us, and how we cannot take our family, friends and goods, it may alsocondition calmness. (It may condition aversion, too!) It depends on our characters what reflection may bring about a moment of samatha. just a moment and then gone. This is the way it can BEGIN to develop in daily life. These are just two examples I find helpful. All kinds of kusala are a support for each other (upanissaya?) because at any moment of kusala there is no akusala. The mind is calm for that moment. However, even the highest levels of samatha will not bring about the development of vipassana without understanding of vipassana. As has been mentioned, many attained these high levels of samatha before the Buddha's time, but without the Budddha, still had the idea of self. They had no understanding of realities. I'm not sure if there is anything here which hasn't already been said better... Sarah p.s. too much sitting and my tum's beginning to rumble, so I'll leave any others til later! 2789 From: bruce Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 8:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: samatha hi sarah thanks for summarizing these important points...i have a much clearer idea of what samatha is (and what it isn't), from these discussions, and this post puts it all together nicely... bruce At 07:19 2001/01/08 +0800, you wrote: > Dear friends, > > SAMATHA > The only point I rally want to add to this discussion > is that I think the emphasis for either kind of > bhavana (mental development, i.e. samatha or > vipassana) should be on understanding right from the > beginning. > > Just as it is useless for us to try to emulate the > lifestyle of the arahat or to spend much time > analysing what experiencing nibbana is like, I think > it's equally useless to try to emulate the lifestyle > of those experiencing jhanas or to spend too much time > considering what the experience is. > > Right now, is there any understanding of samatha or > any samatha arising? As Kom has mentioned several > times, unless the citta (mental consciousness) is > kusala (wholesome) then the answer is no. If we relax > and listen to good music we can feel vey calm. Is it > kusala? No. Even though it seems calm, in fact there > is restlessness accompaning the citta at those > moments. (Of course there CAN be moments of panna in > between). This is also true when we're hiking (as i > did yesterday) or doing Tai Chi or concentrating on an > object in a meditation practice if there is no > understanding. As Robert (?) pointed out, samadhi can > be kusala or akusala (unwholesome), but without right > understanding during the prctice it is bound to be the > latter. > > We know that for samatha to arise, the object of citta > must be one of the 40 objects discussed in the texts. > So we need to know what these objects are and how they > can calm the mind at this moment. This is the way, as > I understand it, that samatha can begin to develop. We > really don't need to concern ourselves with higher > levels except as a matter of academic interest. For > example, breath as object is considered the hardest > and it says in the Vis that full mastery of this > object only comes naturally to Buddhas and their like > (sth like that). > > If we just stare at a red kasina, for sure there will > not be any samatha developed because there is no > understanding of this object and how it calms. > > However, if we reflect on the Buddha (one of the 10 > recollections as objects of smatha) and in particular. > reflect on his qualities and how he made the Teachings > available for us, it may condition calm at this > moment. If we reflect on death and how it may come at > any moment, taking away all that is dear to us, and > how we cannot take our family, friends and goods, it > may alsocondition calmness. (It may condition > aversion, too!) It depends on our characters what > reflection may bring about a moment of samatha. just a > moment and then gone. This is the way it can BEGIN to > develop in daily life. These are just two examples I > find helpful. > > All kinds of kusala are a support for each other > (upanissaya?) because at any moment of kusala there is > no akusala. The mind is calm for that moment. However, > even the highest levels of samatha will not bring > about the development of vipassana without > understanding of vipassana. As has been mentioned, > many attained these high levels of samatha before the > Buddha's time, but without the Budddha, still had the > idea of self. They had no understanding of realities. > > I'm not sure if there is anything here which hasn't > already been said better... > > Sarah > > p.s. too much sitting and my tum's beginning to > rumble, so I'll leave any others til later! > 2790 From: Jim Anderson Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 9:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Friends, Robes & Terminology Dear Sarah, >p.s. Jim A, welcome back after your hol. Hope it was a >good one and that your home is not too frozen up after >the break. After living such a quiet life the rest of >the year it must take some 'adjustment' when you hit >the city!! Thanks! It's good to get away every once in a while and be reminded about what life is like in the city and then come back to the quiet and solitude of a wintry home in the forest. It took about 4 hours to thaw the place out with a blazing fire in the wood-burning stove. Outside, it has been very cold for many weeks and the snow continues to pile up higher and higher. Still pondering over that bhaddekaratta word, eh? There is the word 'ahorattam' in the previous line of the same verse which Horner translates as 'day and night'. It could be connected to the 'ratta' of bhaddekaratta. Lately, I have been trying to read little bits of the Abhidhammatthasangaha in Pali and can't help but notice just how condensed and difficult it is with all those unfamiliar technical terms. I find it easier to read and follow the Dhammasangani. Best wishes, Jim A. 2791 From: amara chay Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 10:42am Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > I'm sending this off-list because I don't want to > alienate anyone by seeming to attack a particular > school/teacher: > > The Commentaries certainly do not, while saying that > > 'The > > yogi's mind itself is gripped by fear and seems > > helpless' is both > > full of the atta and dosa, and no panna whatever, > > how could you say > > that such akusala is necessary to panna? Never > > according to the > > Tipitaka and/or commentaries. > > I think this may be more significant than I thought at > first. As an erstwhile Mahasi student, I was always > impressed by his sincerity. If he said, speaking from > experience (which I think was his habit) that 'The > yogi's mind itself is gripped by fear and seems > helpless', I'm inclined to believe him. And I wonder > if the fear he experienced may have been aroused by an > inkling of the result of the kamma of carefully (even > relentlessly) cultivating (for distribution, no less) > and extremely severe miccha-ditthi. Don't worry about it too much, Mike, but you did send it on the list instead of in private. I have come to realize that we are probably one in a million in this line of Tipitaka study and application in daily life, and we could never convince everyone who claims to study the Buddha's teachings that this is what he taught. Besides it is indeed the age of decline of the sasana, and all we can do is each our part to help others as best we can to understand better while we are still here. You will find many more people like ourselves joining us, and even as we had to start over, (even for me who have never studied with anyone else, I had my preconception of Buddhism that I had to get rid of before I could understand realities) so will many of them. We are luckier than most that we still have most of the teachings and commentaries available while in some places they never had such benefits. Let us all help each other along the way towards the common goal, the perfect understanding of the truth, and may we all see the right reasoning and understanding that leads to right experiencing of realities, Amara 2792 From: amara chay Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 10:48am Subject: Re: Precepts - Intoxicants > You asked for scriptural references? > Metta Jon Maslow Hi! Metta Jon, and welcome! Thanks for the references and comments, Anumodana, Amara 2793 From: amara chay Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 11:00am Subject: Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta > I have tried (with little success) to find further > rreferences on the bhaya nana theme. I couldn't find > anything in Atthasalani. Dear Sarah, Neither could I. My appologies to all, it must be my terrible memory because all there were were descriptions of what each of the nanas abandons, not the description of what the experiencing is like. Actually some of the descriptions of the harm were more horrible that lions and tigers, but still commented on as the knowledge of the fear, not the 'helpless' frozen kind because the knowledge brings release from ignorance, one does 'help' oneself from the situation. Thanks for the research, anumodana, Amara 2794 Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 1:56pm Subject: Re: sitting "vs" non-sitting; vitakka, vicara and samatha, pannati and paramatth Dear Amara, Thank you for the quote from the Summary. It totally agrees with what I've learned so far from my other Abhidhamma teachers. Anumodana, Alex 2795 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Friends, Robes & Terminology --- Jim Anderson wrote: > Dear Sarah, It took about 4 > hours to thaw the place out > with a blazing fire in the wood-burning stove. > Outside, it has been very > cold for many weeks and the snow continues to pile > up higher and higher. > reminds me too much of a survival program we watched last Sat when the 'star' was stranded in the Rockies in these conditions.... still I'm sure it's nice and snug once that fire is blazing.... > Still pondering over that bhaddekaratta word, eh? > There is the word > 'ahorattam' in the previous line of the same verse > which Horner translates > as 'day and night'. It could be connected to the > 'ratta' of bhaddekaratta. I think Miss Horner is right....as i said, the night only didn't make sense unless u'stood this way... > Lately, I have been trying to read little bits of > the Abhidhammatthasangaha > in Pali and can't help but notice just how condensed > and difficult it is > with all those unfamiliar technical terms. I find it > easier to read and > follow the Dhammasangani. I had 2 older Abhidhamatthasangaha translations & had also found it tough going. The translation by B.Bodhi I find a real treat by comparison; beautifully laid out and in good English w/gd notes. But then you're probably reading it in Pali. do you have the comm.note in Pali too? Good to have you back on 'board'...you certainly caught up quickly! Sarah 2796 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 4:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Vedana associated with contemplating anatta I'd just like to chip in here with a comment on one of the references to 'fear' quoted by Sarah. > Just one more short quote from Ang Nik bk of 6s: > > 'Fear (bhaya), pain, disease, blain (?), bondage, > bog > (?) are names > For sense-desires to which the worldlings cling. > They who see fear in grasping (upadana)- source of > birth > And death - grasp not and, ending both, are freed; > Won is the peace, blissful in perfect cool > They dwell here now, all fear and hate long gone, > All ill surpassed.' Good quote. Is it possible that the reference to 'those who see fear in grasping (upadana)' is a reference to seeing fear without experiencing fear of the dosa type? Jonothan 2797 From: shinlin Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 4:51pm Subject: Re:New year resolution Dear Dhamma friends, It is already New Years. Usually before meeting and hearing dhamma, I would usually think of new year resolutions for the next year. BUT things has changed after understanding the dhamma. At the beginning, I thought Dhamma would change my life for the better. BUT all that was the wrong view of learning dhamma. I have realized that learning the dhamma is not expecting or wanting for a change but understanding the truth of everything and realities, which enhance the understanding of anattaness of everything and development of the right view. Lately, Archan Sujin taught us how to really understand and contemplate the realities as it is. And from there, I have realized that I have been only understanding dhamma at the level of thinking, and not the real contemplating and understanding of realities. From these past lessons, I have realized that many of our dhamma friends are in the same situation as me. Therefore today, I have decided on advising everyone my misunderstanding of dhamma, in hoping this can allow you to ponder yourself whether if it is really understanding the realities or you think you understand the realities. This is very important because thinking that you understand, includes a big self in there. I am not here to attack anybody or cause any akusula citta for anyone, and if my letter has attack any of you, pls forgive me because my intentions are not to offend you in any ways. with metta, shin Ms.Shin Lin Zebra Computer Company Limited 1091/71-73, Petchburi 33, New Petchuri Rd Rajathavee, Phayathai, Bangkok, Thailand 10400 Tel : 66-2-6516000 ( 35 lines ) Fax : 66-2-6516001 company website : - http://www.zebra.co.th/ 2798 From: selamat Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 7:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:New year resolution Dear Shinlin, and all dhamma friends, Anumodana for your understanding the real understanding of realities. muditacittena, selamat rodjali ----- Original Message ----- From: shinlin To: dhammastudygroup@egroups.com Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:51 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:New year resolution Dear Dhamma friends, It is already New Years. Usually before meeting and hearing dhamma, I would usually think of new year resolutions for the next year. BUT things has changed after understanding the dhamma. At the beginning, I thought Dhamma would change my life for the better. BUT all that was the wrong view of learning dhamma. I have realized that learning the dhamma is not expecting or wanting for a change but understanding the truth of everything and realities, which enhance the understanding of anattaness of everything and development of the right view. Lately, Archan Sujin taught us how to really understand and contemplate the realities as it is. And from there, I have realized that I have been only understanding dhamma at the level of thinking, and not the real contemplating and understanding of realities. From these past lessons, I have realized that many of our dhamma friends are in the same situation as me. Therefore today, I have decided on advising everyone my misunderstanding of dhamma, in hoping this can allow you to ponder yourself whether if it is really understanding the realities or you think you understand the realities. This is very important because thinking that you understand, includes a big self in there. I am not here to attack anybody or cause any akusula citta for anyone, and if my letter has attack any of you, pls forgive me because my intentions are not to offend you in any ways. with metta, shin Ms.Shin Lin Zebra Computer Company Limited 1091/71-73, Petchburi 33, New Petchuri Rd Rajathavee, Phayathai, Bangkok, Thailand 10400 Tel : 66-2-6516000 ( 35 lines ) Fax : 66-2-6516001 company website : - http://www.zebra.co.th/ 2799 From: Dan Dalthorp <> Date: Mon Jan 8, 2001 8:48pm Subject: "He thinks THIS! He conceives THAT!" From time to time, I find it interesting to compare Theravada teachings with Christian teachings. By and large, I've found a large degree of concord between the two traditions, although the language and approaches are strikingly dissimilar. [In addition, Theravada gives much clearer directions about the path.] One of the 10 Commandments in Christianity is: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor," which is generally understood to mean "tell the truth." However, it has an additional meaning as well (one that I find quite wholesome), viz. we should not claim to know what someone else is thinking or what is motivating them. If we do so, we are in essence falsely claiming to be able to witness directly what is in their mind--an impossibility for us unenlightened beings. This may be "why" a meditation teacher of mine used to say things like "Sometimes a meditator will do such and such indicating such and such wrong view" instead of saying "Dan, you are doing such and such because you have such and such wrong view." In making such a claim about what I am doing, he might be right or might be wrong, but in either case he'd have been "bearing false witness." This interpretation is also in fitting with MN 139 where the Buddha exorts us not to disparage or extol others, but instead talk only about the Dhamma, saying things like "Such and such are wholesome activities; such and such are unwholesome." If we keep the talk focused on Dhamma and not what we perceive other people's interpretations of Dhamma to be based on their translation of their experiences into WORDS [of all things!], the words into our ears, our ears into our brains, where the words get reconstructed according to our prejudices and personal experiences. After this long and complex process, we are almost assured to misunderstand and misrepresent others' views.