6000 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:05pm Subject: Re: Howard on anatta and rebirth --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Sorry , > I just reread the article and see right at the end that he says > Nibbana is not anatta. This contradicts the Theravada tradition. The second Majhima is one I find very interesting. It reads: "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self ...or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self ...or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self ...or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine -- the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions -- is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. --------------- First of all, the view "I have no self" arises inappropriately. I have already explained why thinking "I have a self" is equally futile. I also find the sixth view interesting, in the sense that the "constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, which will endure as long as eternity" -self is not actually negated. BTW, am I the only one who finds it odd that the Buddha refers to himself as the "Rightly Self-awakened" one? Also, I don't think I have ever heard him say that there is categorically no self. he has aid that there is no self in this world (Samsara), but wouldn't it just be easier for him to state there is categorically no self, if that was really true? Also, if there is no self, why did the Buddha label such a view as annihilation? Is there anyone here, who can explain to me, how it is not holding the view of annihilation to say that there is no self? So far, the only thing I have seen in the scriptures that could in any way indicate that the deathless is *not* self, is the statement that all dhammas are annatta. But the article which I linked to, shows that 'dhammas' don't necessarily include Nibbana in such a context. 6001 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:10pm Subject: Re: Hello --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Anders > Nibbana is "unconditioned released awareness" you say. Could you > explain what it is aware of? It wouldn't be correct to say that it is really aware of anything, as it doesn't dwell on anything. There is just awareness. and that includes Samsara of course. > > When I say 'real consciousness' I mean released awareness). > ------ > By this released awareness you mean Nibbana? Are you now > composed of Nibbana since your enlightenment (thus nibbana is > self as you said earlier)? You don't have to quote scripture > just tell us as best you can. To say that 'I' am composed of Nibbana would not be correct either, as this would entail self-identity view. Perhaps the most exact description (although it still misses the mark by a mile) is to say that Nibbana *is*. 6002 From: Herman Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:13pm Subject: Re: Hello Robert, How will a blind man verify the light? One man keeps the precepts Another keeps a library And a third sits, smiling In conventional terms, I find your behaviour in this thread to be somewhere between offensive and disgusting. Will you go somewhere else or will I? Herman --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Thanks for replying, even though it may seem disagreeable to you. The > purpose of these questions is frankly to gain confidence in your claim to > enlightenment (and your transmission of dhammas) or (personally) > disregard your claim (not to discredit, but to determine if you have gained > insights according to what the Buddha has taught). > > I am one of those people who benefits from listening to the teachings in > the practical sense. For example, you quoted "Nissaraniya Sutta", Means > of Escape, when I listen to it, I become more motivated to develop such > qualities which I do not have. So, I think some people (definitely myself) > will benefit if you bear with me. > > > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > > > Well, the kandha of consciousness which the Buddha refers to as > > not- > > > > self, refers to the grasping consciousness, ie, that which dwells > > on > > > > the objects of the objects. > > > > > > I don't think this is quite right. The kandha of consciousness > > > (presumably Vinnana kandha) refers to all consciousness, regardless > > > whether or not it is the grasping consciousness. An arahat would > > also > > > have consciousness, and hence the vinnana kandha, even though they > > > no longer have any grasping consciousness. > > The original objection is to illustrate that you are quoting a Buddha's > teaching that is not matching your own experiences. Since we are > establishing what you are experiencing, we can do this two ways (at > least). One is to use the Buddha's teaching, which I don't think matches > your experience in this specific circumstance, or the other way is to > explain in your own words, which may be less or more troublesome for me. > > > But that consciousness would have been "transformed" > > This I agree, since the conciousness of an arahat no longer have any > defilement tendencies. > > > (one cannot > > really speak of transforming of that which is unmoving. > > If you refer to nibbana here, I also agree, as Nibbana is unconditioned. > > > Rather the grasping consciousness is seen trhough as illusionary) > > I would like an elaboration of why you are saying that grasping > consciousness is illusionary. > > > But that consciousness (...) would have been "transformed" into the > > deathless, which dwells nowhere, so it is beyond grasping. The fifth > > Here again, how you are explaining the deathless (nibbana) is not > matching the scripture. In the scripture, nibbana is an unconditioned > element, but the consciousness is conditioned. A conditioned element > doesn't get transformed into an unconditioned element. > > (Given that most people do not yet experience nibbana, do you think they > should use the Buddha's teachings as the basic model, or some specific > individual's? I remember a chant similar to this in a non- theravadan > tradition: the buddha's dhamma is profound and subtle, and rare in even > 1,000 million kalapas. Are our conducts in studying the dhamma [in > theory and in practice] in congruent with this chant?). > > > aggregate is illusionary. I think I can find some scripture to > > underline this. > > > The Nissaraniya Sutta says: > > "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although the > > signless [Nibbana, anders] has been developed, pursued, given a means > > of transport, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well- > > undertaken by me as my release of awareness, still my consciousness > > follows the drift of signs.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You > > shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for > > it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One > > wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that -- when the > > signless has been developed, pursued, given a means of transport, > > given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as a > > release of awareness -- consciousness would follow the drift of > > signs. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from > > all signs: the signless as a release of awareness.' > > ---------------- > > There, Nibbana is referred as the release of awareness, in which one > > no longer dwells on objects, and thus the grasping consciousness > > (which is not-self and impermanent) is dissolved. > > Thanks again for quoting the scripture. My first impression after reading > this sutta is that the signless here refers to the sense object of the arupa- > jhana, and not nibbana. Therefore, your interpretation of how this works > is different from mine (and your experience is not that of nibbana, > according to my interpretation.) I am researching other textual references > to re-confirm/refute both interpretations. > > > How can the sense objects ever be unconditioned realities, since they > > are by natue, conditioned? > > This we are in agreement. > > > > bound? In the sense of being conditioned? In the sense of > > grasping? > > > > Yes. > > I think we are still not in sync here. Again, the Buddha taught that all > consciousness is conditioned and thus is bound by its conditioning > elements. I interpret your explanation of your experience to be that your > awareness and consciousness are transformed into the unconditioned > element. Am I saying this right? > > > New topic: Maybe this is too personal, but the group guidelines said > > that it was aimed at the practical aspects, so I'll go ahead. I would > > like to know why you would like some scriptural back-up for this. It > > seems to me that you are gathering conceptual knowledge in this > > regard. > > Again, as I have mentioned at the top. We are (or at least I am!) > establishing what you are experiencing, whether or not it matches the > scriptures or not. There are different claims about how things are, just in > the theravadan traditions alone, not counting other claims from other > traditions. For example, there was a "sect" in Thailand (claiming > Theravadan traditions) that claimed the fixation on the "nimita" of a > spherical, bright object is a sign of being on the path to reach nibbana. > This is an exagerated example not matching the scriptures, but there are > even more subtle claims, not matching the scriptures, about what the path > is and what enlightenment means. > > > If that is so, then what is the point? It's quite simple: > > Wherever there are concepts, Panna cannot be. > > I agree with you that Panna that leads to the eradication of all kilesa > cannot rise by conceptualization. > > > Concepts merely install > > a false sense of knowing and can never lead to liberation. > > I disagree with this as this depends on one person to another. Rahula, > the Buddha's son, was instructed by the Buddha and his disciples for more > than 13 years about the proper conducts, things that should be focussed > upon, and the *conceptual* noble truths before he becomes enlightened. > I have no doubt that the teachings, despite its being conceptual, aided his > practice. > > > It's not that I don't want to answer your question, but unless it has > > any actual practical appliance in daily life for you, I would prefer > > not to, since any sort of conceptualising will obstruct your progress. > > I hope my answers above have attenuated your fear that your taking time > to answer wouldn't benefit me. > > kom 6003 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 8:26pm Subject: Re: unconditioned awareness(anders) --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Anders, > I thought we could look at some practical issues. On your > website you write that: > ""Do not imagine that this unconditioned awareness is somehow > apart from the world and daily life. On the contrary, it could > be said that one is even more closer to life than ever before, > because there is no separation between you and the world. When > caught up in dualism, one creates the illusion of someone being > aware (subject) and something to be aware of (object). Yet there > is just this awareness, there is nothing to be aware of. > Conditioned phenomena are not apart from awareness in any way, > yet they not really awareness either.''''' > ____________ > You say that this unconditioned awareness has nothing to be > aware of. Could you explain this as it pertains to our lives. > When there is seeing what is occuring for instance? > I notice on one of your websites where you mention having > champagne on your 18th birthday a few weeks ago. Could you > describe the type of awareness that occured when you had the > intention to drink. Intention arising depending on object, sustained by presence of object, object of intention ceasing, intention ceasing. I was not being mindful at the time though. I think it says somewhere that a stream-entrant can never kill, some other things, but also never lie nor drink alcoholic substances. On account of this, I am not. Maybe I am wrong about this, but it seems to me that you are somehow taking up the role of the hunter. Watching out for any mistakes I might make, to try to verify or falsify any potential enlightenment. I have already stated that 'enlightenment' means nothing to me, so why should it to you? I've also said that you shouldn't rely on anything I say to be true or false. I get the impression that some people here make the mistake of comparing what they are debating with the scriptures, rather than their own understanding. thus, they remove themselves from it, by taking the message of the scriptures as something apart from themselves, to be examined. The thing is that the scriptures were never written to be understood in any way. They were written for you to *become* that understanding so to speak. 6004 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetasikas : ? Panna (understanding) ? op 07-07-2001 14:27 Num: > Dear Nina, new members and all. > 1) what are the differences between panna in lokiya (mahakusala, mahakiriya, > mahavipaka, and all 27 kind of jhanacittas) and lokuttara citta? They do > have the same character, penetrating, but I guess it penetrates at different > level and objects. When it said that there is panna in doing smathi, what > does panna penetrate in this case? In case of Pra-Devadhatta, the Buddha's > cousin, even though he attained jhana and abhinna (from my reading), he still > committed two greatest kamma, did schism in sankha and made a bruise on the > Buddha by trying to kill him. Someone said about miccha-smathi, I don't > know much about it, but how far can miccha-smathi develop. I guess it cannot > get up to jhana level. > Dear Num, you are right that there are many levels of understanding, pa~n~naa, there can be panna with generosity, with observing sila (panna knows what is kusala), with the development of samatha, with theoretical understanding of the Dhamma, on the level of listening, and with satipatthana. In samatha panna knows exactly when the citta is akusala and when it is kusala, it knows how to develop kusala citta with calm by means of a suitable meditation subject. It knows the conditions for the growth of calm so that jhana can be attained. The objective is not penetrating the true characteristics of reality, impermanence, dukkha and anatta. The objective in samatha is being free from attachment to sense objects, by the development of a meditation subject, temporarily free from the hindrances. As to wrong concentration, this cannot go together with panna. By wrong concentration jhana cannot be attained, but there may be extraordinary experiences one takes for jhana. Someone may attain jhana and after that commit crimes, because by jhana defilements are not eradicated. Num: 2) in Cuti, Patisandhi and Bhavanga-citta, if a person born with three > sobhana hetus, he will always has panna in his bhavanga moment, right? What > does panna do in this case? I am still not clear by what does panna do in > vipaka-citta as well. Nina: Yes, when you are born with panna, panna accompanies all bhavangacittas in that life and the dying-consciousness. Those are the same types of citta in that life. In that case panna is result, vipaka, result of kusala kamma with panna. Being born with panna means that one has the potentiality to develop it more. It conditions one's whole life, because if one develops samatha one is able to attain jhana, and if one develops panna of insight, vipassana, one can attain enlightenment. However, panna has to be developed on and on during one's life, the result will not come true without its development. If one is not born with panna, jhana cannot be attained, nor can enlightenment be attained. Num: Let me digress a little bit, phassa in these three kinds of cittas, cuti, > patisandhi and bhavanga, as you mentioned, experience (contact) the same > object as the last javana cittas which arose before the cuti-citta in > previous life. May I ask what kind of object is that? Just curious, so > every bhavanga-citta in this life can still experiences (contacts) that > object. Nina: It is as you say, these types of citta experience the same object. Since we are born humans, it was kusala kamma that conditioned the last javana cittas to be kusala cittas and to experience a pleasant object. That kusala kamma produced birth as a human, which is a happy rebirth. The object experienced shortly before dying in the previous life is an object which can appear through one of the six doors, it can be a symbol or sign of the kusala kamma one performed, or of one's future destiny. We cannot know what kind of object it is, but it is pleasant. It does not matter if we do not know, but we can remember that this birth is the right opportunity to develop understanding. We still have the opportunity to listen to true Dhamma. Even if we are not born with panna, understanding can still be developed. We should not cling to a result such as rapid progress or an idea we might have of enlightenment. Some people may doubt about it whether they have attained enlightenment, but if there is doubt, there is no panna. One can check oneself: what does panna know now? If there is no understanding of seeing or visible object now it is not real panna. The panna of a person who is sotapanna knows precisely the realities appearing naturally through the six doors in his daily life. If these are not known in daily life as non-self it is not panna. Num: I mean to ask about Sati (mindfulness) as well but I think I better put it in another mail. Nina: Yes that is OK. It is a pleasure to correspond with you. > >Num:Thanks everyone for your patience, kindness, energy and willing to share your > wisdom with me. Dhamma for me is difficult and hard to see and penetrate. Nina: Yes it is for me too difficult and hard to see. How can panna be fully developed in the course of only one life. Let us be grateful that we can still listen to the teachings. There will be a time that they disappear. Num: Have to go for a tennis match. Nina: Right you are, but how difficult to be aware of just hardness or sound, when we are absorbed in something like a game. Nobody says that it is easy. Still panna has to be developed in daily life, if it is not in daily life it is not panna of vipassana. Nina. 6005 From: bruce Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender so much lobha? bruce At 12:13 2001/07/08 -0000, you wrote: > Robert, > > How will a blind man verify the light? > > One man keeps the precepts > Another keeps a library > And a third sits, smiling > > In conventional terms, I find your behaviour in this thread to be > somewhere between offensive and disgusting. > > Will you go somewhere else or will I? > > Herman > > > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Thanks for replying, even though it may seem disagreeable to you. > The > > purpose of these questions is frankly to gain confidence in your > claim to > > enlightenment (and your transmission of dhammas) or (personally) > > disregard your claim (not to discredit, but to determine if you > have gained > > insights according to what the Buddha has taught). > > > > I am one of those people who benefits from listening to the > teachings in > > the practical sense. For example, you quoted "Nissaraniya Sutta", > Means > > of Escape, when I listen to it, I become more motivated to develop > such > > qualities which I do not have. So, I think some people (definitely > myself) > > will benefit if you bear with me. > > 6006 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: Hello --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Actually, I am mistaken here (in both agreement and meaning!). The > sense object (aramana of the cittas) can be both conditioned and > unconditioned. Nibbana, an unconditioned object, can be the sense object > (aramana) of the consciousness, which is also true with the conditioned > object. If there is one thing I can ever tell you for certain (and there isn't much else), it is that Nibbana can never ever be an object of any of the senses. Where did you get that idea? 6007 From: Howard Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 6:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Pali and tipitaka and translations JOE Hi, Erik - In a message dated 7/8/01 7:51:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > Even > more important, silabbataparamasa also includes wrongly believing > that, for example, ascetic practices alone lead to liberation, or > giving up meat leads to liberation, or even giving up drugs that do > NOT lead to heedlessness or condition any of the hindrances is > necessary for wisdom, and, silabbataparamasa would also wrongly > believe that drugs MUST always act as a hindrance, totally ignoring > the intention, wisdom, and accumulations and circumstances of the > person taking them. > ================================ I agree with what you write here, especially including what you say about substances that do NOT lead to heedlessness. I would add just one caveat here: All of us, I presume, are vulnerable to our subtle desires and inclinations, and are always in danger of fooling ourselves, of being mislead by our tanha, including desires for useful and wonderful things, into misunderstanding. Thus, we must be very cautious, most vigilant, and humble enough to recognize the *possibility* of being fooled. But please note that I am NOT claiming or assuming that you are being fooled. I'm just encouraging caution. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 10:44pm Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical contact, tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements include all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas (physical elements), and nibbana. What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, what experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is released awareness the same element as nibbana? kom --- "Anders Honore" > If there is one thing I can ever tell you for certain (and there > isn't much else), it is that Nibbana can never ever be an object of > any of the senses. Where did you get that idea? 6009 From: Derek Cameron Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 10:47pm Subject: Re: Pali and tipitaka and translations JOE Hi, rikpa21, --- <> wrote: > Without reference to Suttas (I have no time now), silabbataparamasa > is, most simply, confusing the letter for the spirit of the Law. Just as a footnote to your lucid explanation of the word silabbata- paramasa, some relevent references are these. The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary defines "silabbata" as "good works and ceremonial observances." For example, in the Dhammapada verses 271-272 we read: "Not only with mere morality [i.e silabbata] ... should you rest content ..." The PTS dictionary then defines "silabbata-paramasa" as "the contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good works, the delusion that they will suffice." The dictionary gives several references, including Majjima Nikaya 64, were we read: "An untaught, orindary person ... abides with a mind enslaved by adherence to rules and observances [silabbata-paramasa-pariyutthitena cetasa viharati]." > Once I get settled into my new digs in BKK > in the next couple of weeks What are you doing in BKK? I am going there at the end of August. Derek. 6010 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: Hello --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Anders, > > Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical contact, > tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. Yes. > Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements > (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements include > all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas (physical > elements), and nibbana. Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Furthermore, that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in order for the unconditioned to be manifest? > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, what > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > released awareness the same element as nibbana? There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* released awareness. 6011 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Jul 8, 2001 11:26pm Subject: silabataparamasa Derek, Thanks for this excellent material. I am going to be in bangkok in the first week of August (and will be meeting with Erik) but plan to be back sometime in september also. If you are going to still be there I'd love to meet up . best wishes robert --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, rikpa21, > > --- <> wrote: > > Without reference to Suttas (I have no time now), > silabbataparamasa > > is, most simply, confusing the letter for the spirit of the > Law. > > Just as a footnote to your lucid explanation of the word > silabbata- > paramasa, some relevent references are these. > > The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary defines > "silabbata" > as "good works and ceremonial observances." For example, in > the > Dhammapada verses 271-272 we read: "Not only with mere > morality [i.e > silabbata] ... should you rest content ..." > > The PTS dictionary then defines "silabbata-paramasa" as "the > contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good > works, the > delusion that they will suffice." The dictionary gives several > > references, including Majjima Nikaya 64, were we read: "An > untaught, > orindary person ... abides with a mind enslaved by adherence > to rules > and observances [silabbata-paramasa-pariyutthitena cetasa > viharati]." > > > Once I get settled into my new digs in BKK > > in the next couple of weeks > > What are you doing in BKK? I am going there at the end of > August. > > Derek. > > 6012 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:11am Subject: Re: Hello --- bruce wrote: > herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and > rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not > only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, > but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't > you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as > possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender > so much lobha? I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made it quite clear that none of the crap I might spill out should be taken for granted, especially in the light that it might not accord with the scirptures, because I simply don't rely much on them. So in terms of validity of anything I say, it should be irrelevant. In terms of your own understanding, it should also be irrelevant. How will knowing about any other's enlightenment help you to get there? I don't care about enlightenment, and I am quite comfortable saying that I don't know anything about the Dhamma, so that others won't be mislead by anyone else than themselves. The inquiries that Robert has been making has been to fashion an impermanent belief system labeled 'the Dhamma', not to know his own mind, which is all Buddhism is about. I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the amount of scriptural addiction present among some people here. I am not making any accusations here, just stating my own perception of things. Even if you were able to correctly interprete the written Dhamma 100%, it wouldn't matter one bit. knowing about the *concept* of Nibbana in detail won't do you much good, if you aren't beginning to discover the marks of existence intuitively. Concepts are needed, but one has to examine if those concepts have any practical appliance for you. If they don't, there is no reason for you to pursue them any further, as they will just add more attachments to views, rather than using them as actual tools to know their own minds. The view of enlightenment vs. actual enlightenment is analogous to a seeing a picture of the Eiffel Tower, and actually standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. If you keep walking holding the picture in front of your eyes to check it, you'll walk right past the real deal without noticing. What I am getting at, is that one should try to look aside from the pictures, and start examining what is around you, in terms of mental phenomena. What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot apply it in your own practise so that you may know your own mind? 6013 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- Anders Honore wrote: > I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made > it quite clear > that none of the crap I might spill out should be > taken for granted, > especially in the light that it might not accord > with the scirptures, > because I simply don't rely much on them. In his last discourse, the Buddha explicitly and unequivocally encouraged us to verify what we've heard from the Dhammavinaya. "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu -- or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu -- or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve." Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta Last Days of the Buddha Translated from the Pali by Sister Vajira & Francis Story http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the amount > of scriptural > addiction present among some people here. I am not > making any > accusations here, just stating my own perception of > things. Exactly--sorting out your own (and my own) perception of things from the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we're able to determine them, is exactly what this is about. > What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot > apply it in your > own practise so that you may know your own mind? I'd be surprised to hear anyone here dispute this. Best wishes, mike 6014 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:50am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honore" > > For example, this differs from the scripture because kandha of > > consciousness refers to *all* consciousness, not just the grasping > > consciousness. > > Of course there is only one consciousness (being the fith aggregate). > What I am saying is, that what *characterises* consciousness, is > dwelling/grasping at objects. All consciousness grasps at objects > ("following the drifts of signs"), whether it be mental or physical > ones. You appear to be saying that all consciousness follow signs and clings to them. Although it is true that all consciousness cognizes an object, it is not true that all consciouness clings to the object it cognizes. It is also not true that all consciousness follows a sign. It is possible for a lay person, not being enlightened, to have moments of consciousness where no clinging/grasping occurs. Our understandings differ. > Well, ultimately, it is beyond unattachment or attachment, because it > never took part in the circle of attachment. Thus, there's nothing > for it to be attached to. I believe you are implying that at the moment of your enlightenment experience, your awareness become unbounded [unconditioned], it becomes one and the same with nibbana. I think you are driving the points that at that point, "dualism betwen the subject/object ceases to exist". If you are thinking along this line, you may want to examine how Zen concept of dualism can be mapped into a theravadan system. Although Dualism can be interpretted to fit in with the Theravadan teachings, I don't think you can map this so literally. There would always remain some separation between what is cognizing, and what is being cognized, even at the point of enlightenment. The consciousness is always conditioned, even at the enlightenment moment. The object (nibbana) being cognized at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common characteristic of being anatta. > Sure, I can wait. Interesting how the translation I read didn't even > hint at the jhanas. The translations of the Pali into English are difficult and can be easily mistaken. Not only they differ from Pali in the meaning of the word (literal translations), the different translators don't use the same English words for the same Pali words. You can imagine the havoc it wreaks trying to understand the meanings of the words, leaving alone the meaning of the teaching itself. Some pointers that I can give you (keeping in mind that I am not an expert in Pali): 1) good will, compassion, appreciation, and equanimity are the 4 brahma vihara. In the scripture, when these 4 are mentioned, it more often (in my experience) refers to Jhana development than the non-jhana brahma vihara. 2) Those 4 combinations, when translated from the pali words associated with Cetovimutti, would certainly refers to jhana. Again, I will get back to you on the 5th point. > > What you are describing sounds a lot like the explanation of > Dependent- > > origination, except for the last part. The dependent origination > explains > > the third link (consciousness, vinanna) as any non-path > consciousness, not > > just grasping consciousness. > > "non-path"? You are gonna have to explain that term to me. First of all, I think we have already established the differences that you believe all consciousness, before the englightenment, are "grasping". In your understanding, there is no moment of ungrasping consciousness before englightenment. So, I think you were attempting to use the concept of Dependent Origination to explain why you say the consciousness prior to enlightenment is illusionary and not real. When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. This path consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Let me say how I understand your saying here; maybe this would help > you > > explain more: > > 1) You are talking about two types of consciousness: > > a) illusionary one and b) "release" consciousness, i.e., one > without > > grasping, without bound, and without condition. > > Yes, although intrinsically, there is only one. > > > 2) You mentioned that you have reached this level of state, i.e., > you are > > now living without the illusionary one. > > I did? I think it's important to remember that habitual tendencies > still remain, even though they have been seen through. > But even I I really did, what would that mean to you? It would mean nothing to me, because I cannot prove it one way or another. It would be beneficial for people, however, when you describe how this process works. For example, you appear to be implying that you are now living with only "unbounded" awareness which is unconditioned. Now, that is truly different from the Theravadan teaching... > > 3) The illusionary consciousness doesn't exist; they are not really > there, > > but we think they are there. They have no characteristics that > can be > > experienced. > > Well, the illusionary consciousness exists in the sense that it's > there. We just perceive it as something else than what it really is > (perceiving it as real consciousness, when it is just mental factors). This we somewhat agree, but not exactly (maybe only differences in the use of words). The consciousness exists infinitesmally briefly, with its own fundamental characteristics, but we perceive it in a distorted way because of ignorance, craving, conceits, and wrong views. > > Is the consciousness of nibbana and nibbanna itself one of the same? > > Obviously, there can be no consciousness of Nibbana, when the > consciousness characterised as dwelling on objects, is dissolved. The is another point of difference that we have established. There can be no actual knowledge of nibbana unless there is a consciousness that cognizes it, even if nibbana may be described as the disolution of all conditioned realities. If this discussion was all based in purely conceptual understanding on both your and my part, I would say to you that you are using a concept which are not mentioned in the scripture to describe some events that are referred to (but cannot be fully described) in the scripture. Although this may work, it has the inherent danger of looking at realities through a distorted glass and not even knowing it. I am presently satisfied with the results of our discussions. However, I do hope you stay around for other interesting (to me!) discussions. I am convinced that there are differences between the teachings in the theravadan traditions and the understandings that you have of realities, and therefore, I urge you to stay around long enough to learn what the differences are, and then you would at least understand what all these objections to your enlightenment (even if it is true) and your understandings of realities are all about. kom 6015 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:59am Subject: Self Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: 1. Self is free will; the creative source. On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. 2. Self is the sense of self Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of self, which falls under the kandha of perception. 3. Self is knowing self. Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell anywhere, this cannot be the self. 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, affirming or denying it. Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs of what self is. Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6016 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:13am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honore" > Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and > stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Yes. Let me explain in this way. 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: a) Rupa - the materiality. b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned realities which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, stressful, and anatta). I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), and concepts. > Furthermore, > that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door > consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in > order for the unconditioned to be manifest? There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, both appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is not condiioned. I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, > what > > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > > released awareness the same element as nibbana? > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > released awareness. Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the Buddha!). kom 6017 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:26am Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > You appear to be saying that all consciousness follow signs and clings to > them. Although it is true that all consciousness cognizes an object, it is > not true that all consciouness clings to the object it cognizes. It is also > not true that all consciousness follows a sign. It is possible for a lay > person, not being enlightened, to have moments of consciousness where > no clinging/grasping occurs. Our understandings differ. How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, although at a very subtle level. > I believe you are implying that at the moment of your enlightenment > experience, your awareness become unbounded [unconditioned], it > becomes one and the same with nibbana. I think you are driving the > points that at that point, "dualism betwen the subject/object ceases to > exist". You could say that. > If you are thinking along this line, you may want to examine how Zen > concept of dualism can be mapped into a theravadan system. Although > Dualism can be interpretted to fit in with the Theravadan teachings, I > don't think you can map this so literally. There would always remain some > separation between what is cognizing, and what is being cognized, even > at the point of enlightenment. The consciousness is always conditioned, > even at the enlightenment moment. 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' S XXII.87 Established means that it is conditioned (and this discernable). Because it is unestablished, it is unconditioned. > The object (nibbana) being cognized > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common > characteristic of being anatta. How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be read. One sutta names, among others, Nibbana as the 'featureless'. > > "non-path"? You are gonna have to explain that term to me. > > First of all, I think we have already established the differences that you > believe all consciousness, before the englightenment, are "grasping". Or dwelling on some object, yes. > In > your understanding, there is no moment of ungrasping consciousness > before englightenment. So, I think you were attempting to use the > concept of Dependent Origination to explain why you say the > consciousness prior to enlightenment is illusionary and not real. > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness > certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. This path > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. Why? > It would mean nothing to me, because I cannot prove it one way or > another. It would be beneficial for people, however, when you describe > how this process works. For example, you appear to be implying that you > are now living with only "unbounded" awareness which is unconditioned. No, that would make me an Arahant. > > Obviously, there can be no consciousness of Nibbana, when the > > consciousness characterised as dwelling on objects, is dissolved. > > The is another point of difference that we have established. There can be > no actual knowledge of nibbana unless there is a consciousness that > cognizes it, even if nibbana may be described as the disolution of all > conditioned realities. The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". > I am presently satisfied with the results of our discussions. However, I > do hope you stay around for other interesting (to me!) discussions. I am > convinced that there are differences between the teachings in the > theravadan traditions and the understandings that you have of realities, I am not, but such is the difference of opinion. I know that my knowledge is incomplete, but most I don't think is contradictory. > and therefore, I urge you to stay around long enough to learn what the > differences are, and then you would at least understand what all these > objections to your enlightenment (even if it is true) and your > understandings of realities are all about. True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better call upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) a stream-entrant, if such a person is available. 6018 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:31am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > > I honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've made > > it quite clear > > that none of the crap I might spill out should be > > taken for granted, > > especially in the light that it might not accord > > with the scirptures, > > because I simply don't rely much on them. > > In his last discourse, the Buddha explicitly and > unequivocally encouraged us to verify what we've heard > from the Dhammavinaya. > > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a > bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor > with scorn. Yup, that was my intent. > But if the sentences concerned are > traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the > Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, > this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been > well understood by that bhikkhu -- or by that > community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And > in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, > second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, > are the four great references for you to preserve." Well, it all depends on interpreation, doesn't it? One interpretes a sentence to mean, one thing, another to mean something different. In the end, the only one to mislead you, is yourself. But feel free to accept or reject anything I say. > > What good is the Dhamma, if you cannot > > apply it in your > > own practise so that you may know your own mind? > > I'd be surprised to hear anyone here dispute this. Words aren't always shown in action... 6019 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:53am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no > clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, > although at a very subtle level. At the moment that there is a penetrating knowledge of reality, there is no= observerable clinging or grasping of the reality. There is also no additio= nal accumulations of clinging or grasping. However, since the person is not an= arahant, there is still *latent* tendencies for this clinging and grasping = to arise in the future, but the latent tendency is not observable. > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... kom 6020 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the > consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali > the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished > consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 > > Established means that it is conditioned (and this > discernable). Because it > is unestablished, it is unconditioned. > > > The object (nibbana) being cognized > > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the > common > > characteristic of being anatta. > > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For > something to be > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not > find the > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and > hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is > nothing to be > read. _________________ Dear Anders, Perhaps you didn't realise that Vakkali in the sutta you quote above was already dead at the time that Mara was searching for his conciousness. Upon the death of an arahant or a buddha(parinibbana) there is no more arising of any citta (consciousness). robert 6021 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:25am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:13 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Yes. Let me explain in this way. > 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: > a) Rupa - the materiality. > b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. > 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that > is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. > > We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When > we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. > There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned realities > which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, > stressful, and anatta). > > I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) > can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), > and concepts. > There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are > magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, both > appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and > conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is > not condiioned. > > I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind > door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- > vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor > clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system > both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as > I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the > Buddha!). All I have to say is that to truly know the meaning of unconditioned, means that it doesn't participate in any conditioning processes (which you seem to think it does). When you say it conditions the conditioned, that is not entirely true. Rather, the conditioned process is no longer sustained, and from a lack of clinging/sustenance, it ends. Likewise, the unconditioned can never be 'philtered' through any conditioned doors, as this would mean that it takes part in the conditioned process. I shall stand by my claim that consciousness is released, and that released consciousness, is Nibbana: ------------------- Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around, does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas (and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to) the allness of the All. M 49 ------------------- Consciousness without feature, without end luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the stopping of [the activity of] consciousness, each is here brought to an end. D 11 ----------------- 'Without feature', and one of the names of Nibbana is 'the featureless'. The elements (meaning conditioned phenomena) have no footing (meaning it is not conditioned). A striking resemblance that the stopping of consciousness has to Nibbana, wouldn't you say so? ------------- If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... perception... mental processes... consciousness, then owing to the abandoning of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he [the monk] is totally 'nibbana-ed' right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' S XXII.53 One question. 1. According to you, what happens after Parinibbana. Annihilation? 6022 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:24am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 In this sutta, Vakkali has achieved pari-nibbana, the cessation of all conditions for rebirth as well as the continuance of the 5 kandhas. The buddha is just commenting that there is no rebirth for him. > > > The object (nibbana) being cognized > > at enlightenment is not conditioned. What they share is the common > > characteristic of being anatta. > > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be Why would you say nibbana is not cognizable? > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the That is different from my understanding, even something that is unreal (doesn't exist) is still cognizable. Nibbana is definitely cognizable. > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be > read. His mind was unreadable because there was no longer any: he was dead in the most permanent sense. > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, i= t > is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. The path consciousness > > certainly doesn't grasp, but it cognizes a reality as it truly is. Th= is > path > > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Why? Because this (non-lokkutara) path conciousness accumulates panna, seeing realities as they truly are, as elements, as impermanent, as non- lasting, as anatta. It is this path conciousness that leads to the magga and phala citta, the lokuttara path consciousness, that eliminates the latent defilement tendencies. > The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not > established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". This point has been refuted... > True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If > verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better cal= l > upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) = a > stream-entrant, if such a person is available. Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- enterer? All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. Like I mention to you before, my questions and your answers cannot conclusively determine whether or not you (or anybody) has achieved this state. However, my satisfaction comes from the establishment of the differences and similarities in our understanding. kom 6023 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:31am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kirkpatrick Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the > > consciousness of > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali > > the Clansman > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished > > consciousness that > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > S XXII.87 > _________________ > Dear Anders, > Perhaps you didn't realise that Vakkali in the sutta you quote > above was already dead at the time that Mara was searching for > his conciousness. Upon the death of an arahant or a > buddha(parinibbana) there is no more arising of any citta > (consciousness). Perhaps you notice (but then again, this could be attributed to faulted translation) that he speaks of the unestablished consciousness in the present tense? Through unconditioned/undying ("Nibbana'ed") consciousness, he is released, and thus, no more citta. 6024 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:34am Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > How is it possible for a lay person to a have moment of absolutely no > clinging or grasping? I'd say that there is still some grasping active, > although at a very subtle level. >At the moment that there is a penetrating knowledge of reality, there is no= observerable clinging or grasping of the reality. There is also no additio= nal accumulations of clinging or grasping. However, since the person is not an= arahant, there is still *latent* tendencies for this clinging and grasping = to arise in the future, but the latent tendency is not observable. Oh, stream-entry. Then we are in agreement, that is possible. Nonetheless, that moment of no clinging causes a knowledge of the deathless as well (enlightenment). But agreed, the habitual tendencies remain. > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 >I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." 6025 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:49am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:24 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- "Anders Honoré" > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > S XXII.87 >in this sutta, Vakkali has achieved pari-nibbana, the cessation of all conditions for rebirth as well as the continuance of the 5 kandhas. The buddha is just commenting that there is no rebirth for him. I would say he is commenting that his unbound/undying consciousness is unestablished. > How can you cognize that which is not-cognizeable? For something to be >Why would you say nibbana is not cognizable? It is signless, featureless. How can you cognize that? In order for anything conditioned to relate to something else (simple cause and effect) that also has to be conditioned, as one cannot have cause and uneffect, or uncause and effect. Hence conditioned cognising cannot cognise the unconditioned, simply because it violates the laws of cause and effect, at it's most basic level. > congnizeable, it has to be conditioned, hence mara could not find the > consciousness of Vakkali because it was now unconditioned, and hence it is > not possible to read the mind of an arahant because there is nothing to be > read. >His mind was unreadable because there was no longer any: he was dead in the most permanent sense. True, I was unaware of that. However, other suttas also state that it is not possible to read the mind of an Arahant. Th= is > path > > consciousness *must* arise *prior* to enlightenment. > > Why? >Because this (non-lokkutara) path conciousness accumulates panna, seeing realities as they truly are, as elements, as impermanent, as non- lasting, as anatta. It is this path conciousness that leads to the magga and phala citta, the lokuttara path consciousness, that eliminates the latent defilement tendencies. Do you define enlightenment as ataining to the state of arahant-ship? Then we are in agreement. If you define it as stream-entry, we are not. > The Sutta I quoted above explicitly stated that it is because it is not > established anywhere, not even "Nibbana". >This point has been refuted... I wouldn't think so... > True. But as someone else asked here, how can the blind verify the light? If > verification is an issue to some people here, then it would be better cal= l > upon the aid of someone who is a verified teacher, and who is (at least) = a > stream-entrant, if such a person is available. >Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- >enterer? Yes, I have been fortunate to know a few. Only one of them are Theravadins however, and he knows even less about the scriptures than I do (next to nothing really), so I don't think he'll be much help to you. His own teacher wanted him to start teaching Theravada himself, but he has stalled so far, as he would like some time to settle in it. > All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. That is one of the fallacious views which the Buddha denied on the basis of annihilation. >Like I mention to you before, my questions and your answers cannot conclusively determine whether or not you (or anybody) has achieved this state. However, my satisfaction comes from the establishment of the differences and similarities in our understanding. Very well.... 6026 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 3:00am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 8:24 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello >Do you know, not just think or believe, of anybody who is a stream- enterer? All that is verifiable now is the dhamma arising now that the consciousness is experiecing. Does your experience match with what the Buddha has taught, or does it match what you think it should be? When this conditioned consciousness stopped, we achieve pari-nibbana and stops to exist. Do you want some scripture to go with that argument (I feel like a waiter)? Here goes: ------------------------------ Sariputta: How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...perception...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...mental processes...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: ...consciousness...? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form? Elsewhere than form? In feeling? Elsewhere than feeling? In perception? Elsewhere than perception? In mental processes? Elsewhere than mental processes? In consciousness? Elsewhere than consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-mental processes-consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without mental processes, without consciousness? Yamaka: No, sir. Sariputta: And so, my friend Yamaka -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Master, a monk with no more mental effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'? Yamaka: Previously, friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Teaching, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and the Teaching has become clear. Sariputta: Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents, what is he on the break-up of the body, after death? Yamaka: Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form...feeling... perception...mental processes...consciousness are inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has stopped and gone to its end.' S XXII.85 ------------- For me, this is quite clear. The kandhas disperse, but the "Nibbana'ed" undying consciousness remains (although it is not established anywhere, and thus cannot be found anywhere). 6027 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:14am Subject: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Kom. I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what I mean. Robert, although not quite as relevant, I think some traces of what I mentioned above might also apply to the discussions we have been having. Do you agree? If it is important for you to falsify or verify any "enlightenment", then I would advice you to find someone qualified to do so, and I'll be happy to comply, although such a test is irrelevant for me. I have made no claim to stream-entry, so there's nothing lost or gained from that. I practise according with what I know, and this works for me. If I later discover that what I was erring previously, then I will readily accept that. My knowledge is far from incomplete. But that knowledge cannot be expanded from the scriptures for me at least. It has to come from the inside. The scriptures can only alert me to the possibility that I am erring. then I have to set about discovering that error for myself afterwards. Let me tell you a brief little story from my own practise, about ten months ago. Back then, I used to study the scriptures (Mahayana as well as Theravada. ) and interpret them, trying to enforce an understanding of reality ( true understanding is never an act of volition) by changing my own belief system. Then one day, I woke up and realised that I was no longer seeking truth. I was seeking a belief of truth. It dawned on my that it didn't matter if I believed that "non-duality transcends Oneness" or "it's all bull". The fact is, that none of those beliefs made me any happier, none of them helped be equanimous in my daily, or further my Sati. Most importantly, it wasn't something I could use to know my own mind. So I dropped all the scriptures and all the debate of whether things were this, or that. None of it helped me cultivate my own mind. Instead, I started looking to my own mind for answers. Not to my own ideas and such. I just started observing what was happening inside my own mind without thinking "ah, this must be because of that or that". I just observed it. From that point on, I knew nothing about Buddhism. But as I observed, I gradually came to see how things worked. I didn't try to enforce it, I just observed and let cause and effect be cause and effect, without trying plaster it with my own belief system. Basically, I learned to have faith. Faith in the fact the less I knew, the more I discovered. Eventually I started reading a scripture regularly (specifically the Platform Sutra of Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen). There were tons of stuff I didn't understand, but whenever I came across such a passage I just thought to myself "well, beyond my capacity. No reason to linger on that," and I focused on what I did comprehend and could utilise in my own daily practise. Even if I did gain a minor glimpse of some new teaching from that scripture, I'd say "well, that's all I can get from that at this moment. The rest will come when it is ready to come." Basically, I allowed the teachings to enter my mind, but without any volitional action. I never tried to understand them conceptually in any way. I preferred 'not-knowing' over false knowing. In fact, not-knowing became a practise in itself, as I discovered old views and concepts arise, and let go of them as well. I hope you see the point of this story Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6028 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:35am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert) ----- Original Message ----- From: Anders Honoré Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:14 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert) > My knowledge is far from incomplete. Oops! That should have been "My knowledge is far from *complete*." 6029 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:37am Subject: Re: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Dear Kom. > I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, > for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to > concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are > being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of > liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things= > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what = I > mean. I can see what you mean. Not doing anything for me either... kom 6030 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: Howard on anatta and rebirth --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Sorry , > I just reread the article and see right at the end that he says > Nibbana is not anatta. This contradicts the Theravada tradition. > > robert Did you read the second article? I only just read it now. It seems that me and him are in agreement after all... As are Nargajuna and Hui-neng, but these are both Mahayanists, so I'll leave them be (even though Ajahn Chah acknowledged Hui-neng's teaching as true. And he refers to Nirvana as 'self-nature'). 6031 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello . > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the > Clansman > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > S XXII.87 > > >I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that reference. I > cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... > > It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." In Bhikkhu Bodhi's new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha," the paragraph is a bit different. " That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: "Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana." The term "unestablished consciousness" seems to imply some special type of consciousness while the term "consciousness unestablsihed" points to the non-arising of consciousness, which seems to me to be much more consistent with the rest of this section on the aggregates...Ray 6032 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Anders - > --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > > Dear Anders, > > > > Through the 5 sense doors (seeing, hearing, smelling, physical > contact, > > tasting) only the 7 physical elements are known. > > Yes. > > > Through the 6th sense doors, all the possible paramatha elements > > (realities) are known, plus the concepts. The paramatha elements > include > > all citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors), rupas > (physical > > elements), and nibbana. > > Let me get this straight. Through a conditioned, impermanent, and > stressful faculty, the unconditioned can be discerned? Furthermore, > that sixth faculty is experienced trhough the sixth sense-door > consciousness, so Nibbana goes through two conditioned philters in > order for the unconditioned to be manifest? > > > What I want to know is, since you have already experience Nibbana, > what > > experiences nibbana? You mention it is the released awareness. Is > > released awareness the same element as nibbana? > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > released awareness. > > =============================== This is very close to the way Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless Mind, refers to nibbana. Quoting from certain Pali suttas, he calls it "unmanifest discernment". This is also discussed in Bhikkhu Nanananda's brilliant little book The Magic of the Mind: An Exposition of the Kalakarama Sutta. The sense of it seems to me to be that vi~n~nana is the discerning or separating out of objects and their parts/aspects/factors from the field of awareness, rather like separating out shadows from within an ocean of light. The objects discerned are limiting conditions/constraints, and the entry to nibbana consists of the dropping of these constraints, leaving a shining awareness, a luminosity ranging all around, encountering nothing, unrestricted, completely free. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6033 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:58am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: To Kom (and also Robert) ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:37 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: To Kom (and also Robert) Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > Dear Kom. > I feel that the discussion we have has taken a wrong turn. For me at least, > for Dhamma discussions to be fruitful, it is to expose attachments to > concepts and help break them up. I feel that at the moment, concepts are > being exposed and replaced with new ones, hence no gain in terms of > liberation. The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) that things= > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. I hope you can see what = I > mean. -------- >I can see what you mean. Not doing anything for me either... Thanks. 6034 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:01am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > Do you want some scripture to go with that argument (I feel like a waiter)? > Here goes: > ------------------------------ > Sariputta: How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as > the Tathagata? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...perception...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...mental processes...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: ...consciousness...? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form? Elsewhere than > form? In feeling? Elsewhere than feeling? In perception? Elsewhere than > perception? In mental processes? Elsewhere than mental processes? In > consciousness? Elsewhere than consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception- mental > processes-consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, > without feeling, without perception, without mental processes, without > consciousness? > Yamaka: No, sir. > Sariputta: And so, my friend Yamaka -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata > as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to= > declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Master, a monk with > no more mental effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, > perishes, & does not exist after death'? > Yamaka: Previously, friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil > supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Teaching, I have > abandoned that evil supposition, and the Teaching has become clear. > Sariputta: Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: > A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents, what is he on the > break-up of the body, after death? > Yamaka: Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form...feeling... perception...mental > processes...consciousness are inconstant. That which is inconstant is > stressful. That which is stressful has stopped and gone to its end.' > S XXII.85 I think the differences between our understanding are: 1) You understand that nibbana is a consciousness, and that the consciousness at enlightenment becomes one of the same with nibbana at enlightenment. Although nibbana cannot be identified as self, at some crude level, you can think of this as living on forever, but not as self, a= nd hence negating the idea of annihilationism at pari-nibbana. 2) I understand nibbana to be a non-conscious element, and it is distinct from consciousness. I understand that the 5 kandha ceases to continue, because there are no more conditions to continue. The sutta can have another interpretation which is that the Tathagata never existed as a reality because the tathagata cannot be experienced, and therefore, the tathagata as a concept cannot cease to exist because it didn't really exist= at the first place. Again, like you said, this is an exposition of understandings only. It wouldn't have an immediate impact in my daily practice... kom 6035 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:04am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Hendrickson Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > . > > > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of > > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the > > Clansman > > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that > > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > > > It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire unbound." > > In Bhikkhu Bodhi's new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, "The Connected > Discourses of the Buddha," the paragraph is a bit different. > > " That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of > the clansman Vakkali, wondering: "Where now has the consciousness of the > clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness > unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana." > > The term "unestablished consciousness" seems to imply some special type of > consciousness while the term "consciousness unestablsihed" points to the > non-arising of consciousness, which seems to me to be much more consistent > with the rest of this section on the aggregates...Ray As I read it, Bodhi's translation doesn't indicate the cessation of that consciousness. To me, it indicates that it is no longer established in objects, and owing to that, non-dwelling Nibbana. But then again, I haven't read the entire Sutta, so I cannot say what the context is. 6036 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:08am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > There is no one, or nothing to experience Nibbana. Nibbana *is* > > released awareness. > =============================== > This is very close to the way Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless > Mind, refers to nibbana. Quoting from certain Pali suttas, he calls it > "unmanifest discernment". This is also discussed in Bhikkhu Nanananda's > brilliant little book The Magic of the Mind: An Exposition of the Kalakarama > Sutta. I haven't read either, unfortunately. > The sense of it seems to me to be that vi~n~nana is the discerning or > separating out of objects and their parts/aspects/factors from the field of > awareness, rather like separating out shadows from within an ocean of light. > The objects discerned are limiting conditions/constraints, and the entry to > nibbana consists of the dropping of these constraints, leaving a shining > awareness, a luminosity ranging all around, encountering nothing, > unrestricted, completely free. Yes, that is somewhat what I would say as well. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) I must admit, I am a huge fan of the Diamond Sutra. If there ever was anything to knock anyone who think they know off from their feet it is that Sutra. So deep, yet with many levels of understanding. 6037 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:14am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self Hi, Anders (and all) - In a message dated 7/8/01 1:02:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been > established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he > kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we > are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the > very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover > their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may > negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the > kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility > of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: > > 1. Self is free will; the creative source. > On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any > way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. > > 2. Self is the sense of self > Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of > self, which falls under the kandha of perception. > > 3. Self is knowing self. > Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, > it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell > anywhere, this cannot be the self. > > 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. > If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be > nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since > self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer > discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. > > So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or > perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even > talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because > that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond > affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. > One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being > sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be > said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. > It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is > not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that > Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond > perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of > self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said > in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, > but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, > affirming or denying it. > Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", > once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived > implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before > any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not > something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the > existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs > of what self is. > > Anders Honore > ================================ If I may add a point: A "self" of anything is a personal core/essence of that thing. Nibbana, however, just as all conditioned dhammas, is *impersonal*, and that impersonality makes it not self. Peter Harvey, in his book The Selfless Mind, points out several ways in which nibbana is like a self and several ways, including its impersonality, in which it differs from a self. (As you may find obvious, from this and other posts of mine, I really like that book! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6038 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:17am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, Thanks for being so patient and thanks for introducing those suttas that you mentioned. They are very good reminders of many things I still don't know. kom 6039 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Kom - In a message dated 7/8/01 1:07:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes in part: > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. =============================== I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be ecstatic!!! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6040 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:01 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > I think the differences between our understanding are: > 1) You understand that nibbana is a consciousness, and that the consciousness at enlightenment becomes one of the same with nibbana at enlightenment. Although nibbana cannot be identified as self, at some crude level, you can think of this as living on forever, but not as self, and hence negating the idea of annihilationism at pari-nibbana. Well, that's the crude exposition, but not far off. I would hesitate to say forever though. Past, present and future exist only in relation to change, and when there is no change, how can there be time? > 2) I understand nibbana to be a non-conscious element, and it is distinct from consciousness. I understand that the 5 kandha ceases to continue, because there are no more conditions to continue. The sutta can have another interpretation which is that the Tathagata never existed as a reality because the tathagata cannot be experienced, and therefore, the tathagata as a concept cannot cease to exist because it didn't really exist= at the first place. Possible. But not one I'd ever buy though. I agree with you about the five kandhas though. > Again, like you said, this is an exposition of understandings only. It > wouldn't have an immediate impact in my daily practice... It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views that are remote from oneself. 6041 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Hi, Anders - With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! With metta, Howard > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kom Tukovinit > > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:13 PM > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > Yes. Let me explain in this way. > > 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: > > a) Rupa - the materiality. > > b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. > > 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that > > is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. > > > > We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When > > we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. > > There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned > realities > > which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, > > stressful, and anatta). > > > > I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) > > can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), > > and concepts. > > There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are > > magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, > both > > appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and > > conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is > > not condiioned. > > > > I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind > > door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano-dvara- > > vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor > > clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > > Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system > > both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as > > I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the > > Buddha!). > > All I have to say is that to truly know the meaning of unconditioned, means > that it doesn't participate in any conditioning processes (which you seem to > think it does). When you say it conditions the conditioned, that is not > entirely true. Rather, the conditioned process is no longer sustained, and > from a lack of clinging/sustenance, it ends. Likewise, the unconditioned can > never be 'philtered' through any conditioned doors, as this would mean that > it takes part in the conditioned process. > I shall stand by my claim that consciousness is released, and that released > consciousness, is Nibbana: > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around, does not > partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of > fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas (and so on through a list > of the various levels of godhood to) the allness of the All. > M 49 > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the stopping > of [the activity of] consciousness, > each is here brought to an end. > D 11 > ----------------- > 'Without feature', and one of the names of Nibbana is 'the featureless'. The > elements (meaning conditioned phenomena) have no footing (meaning it is not > conditioned). A striking resemblance that the stopping of consciousness has > to Nibbana, wouldn't you say so? > ------------- > If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... > perception... mental processes... consciousness, then owing to the > abandoning of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for > consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not > performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. > Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not > agitated. Not agitated, he [the monk] is totally 'nibbana-ed' right within. > He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. > There is nothing further for this world.' > S XXII.53 > > One question. > 1. According to you, what happens after Parinibbana. Annihilation? > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6042 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:35am Subject: Re: Howard: Path Consciousness Dear Howard, If you were following that stream of conversation, you may have seen: --- <> wrote: > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > =============================== > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > ecstatic!!! ;-)) That I delimited this to be "non-lokuttara-path" consciousness. As you may also have picked up, I have not seen this defined anywhere in this particular manner either, although I have seen the explanation that the moment of satipathana (non-lokuttara path consciousness, as defined above) is not a link within the Dependent origination. For the definitions of lokkutara path consciousness, you can look at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat8.html kom 6043 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:45am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Self > Hi, Anders (and all) - > > In a message dated 7/8/01 1:02:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > Self... Let us try and examine what it really means. I think it has been > > established beyond any doubt that anything that is impermanent, in short he > > kandhas, are categorically no self. But, in order to know what the hell we > > are talking, we should know just what is inferred from the word self, at the > > very basic, as the ground for which spiritual seekers go out to discover > > their true self (whether it be illusionary or not), in order that we may > > negate or affirm the existence of a self. Since it is established that the > > kandhas aren't self, we'll examine the definition based on the possibility > > of Nibbana being the self. There are a number of possible definitions: > > > > 1. Self is free will; the creative source. > > On this account there is no self. Nibbana for one, doesn't interact in any > > way, so this cannot be self, under this definition. > > > > 2. Self is the sense of self > > Under this, there is no self. Sense of self is created by perception of > > self, which falls under the kandha of perception. > > > > 3. Self is knowing self. > > Under this definition, there is no self either. For Nibbana to know Nibbana, > > it would have to take it as an object, and since Nibbana doesn't dwell > > anywhere, this cannot be the self. > > > > 4. Self is knowing what is not the self. > > If this were true, once Parinibbana had been completed then there would be > > nothing for the self, Nibbana, to stand in contradistinction to, and since > > self is knowing what it is not, it would dissolve since it could no longer > > discern what is not self. Thus, under this definition, no self either. > > > > So, if self is Nibbana, how could it possibly be defined? Since any sense or > > perception of self is categorically not the self, it would be futile to even > > talk of self. The moment we affirm a self, we are off the track, because > > that cannot possibly be the self! So self would have to be beyond > > affirmation or denial, which, at least in that regard, fits with Nibbana. > > One could say that self is sentience. But that would indicate someone being > > sentient, and once again we have the perception of self. If it should be > > said that there is a self, it would have to be just defined as just *this*. > > It's not any 'this' that you can think of, since it defies perception. It is > > not anything, yet not not-existent, not existent. On the very account that > > Nibbana *is*, this could be said to be self. yet since it is beyond > > perception, it would be futile to call it self, since this perception of > > self. On the other hand, it cannot be said to not be the self. Hence, I said > > in one mail, that the Buddha's silence might hint at more than just a ploy, > > but actually as a way of understanding self. Just this not- defining it, > > affirming or denying it. > > Nargarjuna, in Mahayana circles acknowledged by many as the "second Buddha", > > once said that the Buddha did teach self to those who understood the derived > > implication of the word. Thus this implication should be understood before > > any negation might take place. And the derived implication is: It is not > > something that can be implicated! So what is the point of discussing the > > existence of self or not? Just work at uprooting your own habituated beliefs > > of what self is. > > > > Anders Honore > > > ================================ > If I may add a point: A "self" of anything is a personal core/essence > of that thing. Nibbana, however, just as all conditioned dhammas, is > *impersonal*, and that impersonality makes it not self. I agree that it is impersonal, and from that point of view, it can be said to be not-self, which I think falls under the category no self on the assumption of 'sense or perception of self'. But if you read the following article: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/nibban2.htm, it shows that the suttas do indeed point at the existence of a self (by engaging in a series of negations with regard to all conditioned existence rather than all-out denial of self), and that the only thing left un-negated is Nibbana. Again, it all boils down to the derived implication of the word 'self'. > Peter Harvey, in his > book The Selfless Mind, points out several ways in which nibbana is like a > self and several ways, including its impersonality, in which it differs from > a self. (As you may find obvious, from this and other posts of mine, I really > like that book! ;-) Haha, you are getting me curious now. I am gonna have to read that book at one point. 6044 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:46am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:17 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Anders, > > Thanks for being so patient and thanks for introducing those suttas that > you mentioned. They are very good reminders of many things I still don't > know. I am always happy to be of assistance ;-) 6045 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:48am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:22 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > =============================== > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is provided!! > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > ecstatic!!! ;-)) I think I can, but I'll wait and see if there are any others who have seen the word before (I haven't) and might be able to define it properly. 6046 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:46am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views= > that are remote from oneself. Not quite exactly... Otherwise, I wouldn't want to discuss all these views= , would I? I see these views as possible explanations, but am not convicted = that they are correct. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not. All but ariyans have incorrect views, so unless you can verify somehow that the speaker is at least sotapanna, they may be telling you subtly incorrect views. Only the actual enlightenment would prove things absolutely beyond doubt. And even that is (currently) a view... I see some values of having the right view in mind. Not being able to verify that completely, I do the best I can... kom 6047 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Howard: Path Consciousness Thanks very much, kom. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/8/01 5:38:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > > Dear Howard, > > If you were following that stream of conversation, you may have seen: > > --- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=224154113112158182169218175036129208 wrote: > > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a reality as it truly is, > it > is > > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness that doesn't > continue > > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path consciousness > > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > > =============================== > > I am excited, Kom! Thank you for this! I have looked and looked in > > vain for a definition of 'path consciousness', and finally it is > provided!! > > Now, if you can also define 'fruition consciousness' for me, I will be > > ecstatic!!! ;-)) > > That I delimited this to be "non-lokuttara-path" consciousness. As you > may also have picked up, I have not seen this defined anywhere in this > particular manner either, although I have seen the explanation that the > moment of satipathana (non-lokuttara path consciousness, as defined > above) is not a link within the Dependent origination. > > For the definitions of lokkutara path consciousness, you can look at: > http://www.dhammastudy.com/paramat8.html > > kom > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6048 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:51am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Howard, I am still waiting to see you offending anyone... kom --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Anders - > > With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean > this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, > sadhu! > > With metta, > Howard 6049 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Hi, Anders - > > With no offense to Kom at all - and please be assured that I mean > this, Kom, I think this post oy yours, Anders, is wonderful. Sadhu, sadhu, > sadhu! Let me guess: It is not far off from what Peter Harvey would write in his book The Selfless Mind? :-) 6050 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:06am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 11:46 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello --- "Anders Honoré" > > It seems you are beginning to see the futility of such holding unto views > > that are remote from oneself. > Not quite exactly... Otherwise, I wouldn't want to discuss all these views, > would I? I see these views as possible explanations, but am not convicted > that they are correct. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not. All but > ariyans have incorrect views, so unless you can verify somehow that the > speaker is at least sotapanna, they may be telling you subtly incorrect > views. Only the actual enlightenment would prove things absolutely > beyond doubt. And even that is (currently) a view... Nonetheless, a useful view as it helps against being mislead by others. But how will you prevent being mislead by yourself? > I see some values of having the right view in mind. Not being able to > verify that completely, I do the best I can... I too see the value of Right View. But the Middle Way has to be remembered, and there is a difference between Right View and excess in views, a thicket of views. 6051 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:14am Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, --- "Anders Honoré" > > Nonetheless, a useful view as it helps against being mislead by others. But > how will you prevent being mislead by yourself? There is none, except by being reminded by oneself and others these are just views, models, concepts, and not realities. Realities are rising now,= and that can be verified, understood a little bit at a time. > I too see the value of Right View. But the Middle Way has to be remembered, > and there is a difference between Right View and excess in views, a thicket > of views. Yes, the Middle Way means (in a definition I have heard) that there is an awareness and penetrating knowledge of the realities occuring now. As you have mentioned before, and I believe are known to many people in this group, that concepts don't bring on the path. Thanks for the reminder. kom 6052 From: Derek Cameron Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:18am Subject: Re: silabbataparamasa Robert, thanks for your note. I've just got back from the khao pansa ceremony at my local temple. I'm going to be in Bangkok until September 10 as I can only afford 2 weeks away from work. After looking through all the guidebooks, the 2 temples I want to try and spend some time in are Wat Mahathat and Wat Thammamongkhon. The information I have on Wat Mahathat says you just show up and inquire if you can stay for a few days. Wat Thammamongkhon is affiliated with my local temple so I'll probably see if I can call them first before I leave, So ... apart from the dates which are fixed due to flights, I haven't made any definite plans yet. How about you? Do you have plans? Derek. 6053 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Howard, Kom's right--this is excellent (I missed it at first). You're on quite a roll of late! mike --- Howard wrote: > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a > reality as it truly is, it is > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness > that doesn't continue > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path > consciousness > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. 6054 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello Hi again, Anders - In a message dated 7/8/01 6:04:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders Honore writes: > Let me guess: It is not far off from what Peter Harvey would write in his > book The Selfless Mind? :-) > > ============================== ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6055 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Thanks, Kom. You're very kind. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/8/01 6:04:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kom T writes: > Dear Howard, > > I am still waiting to see you offending anyone... > > kom > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6056 From: Herman Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 10:29am Subject: Re: Hello Bruce and Robert, Where is the authority that qualifies anyone as a member of the mind police? Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition after sending a Hello. What, Anders has committed blasphemy now? And the scribes and pharisees will silence him, hey? This is from a sutta known as Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And this was the retort: Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. No reply necessary. I am removing myself from the list and the other one between which Robert divides his life. It is getting too dark in here. Bye Herman --- bruce wrote: > herman, you are kidding, right? robert has been making his usual calm and > rational inquiries into a situation that is most certainly not usual: not > only do we have someone claiming to this group to be at least a sotapanna, > but also someone who is proclaiming it to the world from a website....don't > you think that something like this needs to be looked into as thoroughly as > possible? what could robert have possibly said in this thread to engender > so much lobha? > > bruce > 6057 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 11:43am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Anders Honoré wrote: > The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have > any practical > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) > that things > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own > practise in terms > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. > I pretty much agree - although sometimesI think it can be useful to talk about it even if we have not yet experienced it. For instance, if we say had an idea of Nibbana as union with the Infinite Brahma then perhaps our path would head in such a direction. This discusion group has been going for 18months and this is one of the first lenghthy threads about it. (I guess you meant "our own practice" when you said "hardly relevant in your own practice"?) I have made > no claim to > stream-entry, so there's nothing lost or gained from that.________ Thank you for clarifying this Anders. In your introduction you gave the url to your websites where you do claim to have some stage of enlightenment. But when I asked about alcohol consumption you candidly admitted doing so and thus had come to your own conclusion that you are not enlightened. And isn't it good that you now know this? I asked also about seeing - which you didn't reply to - because isn't it practical and useful to understand? It is happening now and I find it a most interesting dhamma to investigate directly. best wishes robert 6058 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 0:17pm Subject: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Thank you for clarifying this Anders. In your introduction you > gave the url to your websites where you do claim to have some > stage of enlightenment. But when I asked about alcohol > consumption you candidly admitted doing so and thus had come to > your own conclusion that you are not enlightened. > And isn't it good that you now know this? Hi, I'm new to this list and have very little knowledge of it or most members, so I am just jumping in to make a comment. By way of introduction, my name is Robert, I am involved in a practice which I consider to be Buddhist, but I am also influenced by Advaita Vedanta and other disciplines, so I cannot say I *am* a Buddhist. Perhaps that's unnecessary in any case. I am inspired by Buddhist teachers of various lineages, but particularly Hui-Neng, Chao-Chou and other sudden-school Ch'an and Zen masters. But I also have a strong interest and some practice in Vipassana, and regard all the teachings as significant. Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking alcohol as being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does it have to do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha would be concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or that perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a drink? I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and precepts is directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I would be happy to hear your explanation. Robert 6059 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 1:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Sorry you feel that way, Herman, and sorry to see you go. mike --- Herman wrote: > Bruce and Robert, > > Where is the authority that qualifies anyone as a > member of the mind > police? Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition after > sending a Hello. > > What, Anders has committed blasphemy now? And the > scribes and > pharisees will silence him, hey? > > This is from a sutta known as Matthew 22:15 > Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they > might entangle him > in his talk. > > And this was the retort: Matthew 23:13 > But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! > for you shut up > the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither > go in yourselves, > neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. > > > No reply necessary. I am removing myself from the > list and the other > one between which Robert divides his life. It is > getting too dark in > here. > > > Bye > > > Herman 6060 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking > alcohol as > being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does > it have to > do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha > would be > concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or > that > perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a > drink? > > I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and > precepts is > directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I > would be > happy to hear your explanation. > _____________ Dear Robert E. (can we call you that as I am also a Robert) Welcome to the group. The early buddhist texts are explicit that a sotapanna or any enlightened being (enlightened in the Buddha's way - it may be different for other paths) has no more conditions to break the five precepts. The way I understand this is by gradually learning to study the different moments as they happen in a day. Now for instance, there is seeing and immediately there is thinking arising about what is seen. Underlying this thinking there are different roots, states of mind, such as ignorance or understanding or desire or aversion or non-desire or non-aversion. It is not so easy to be sure of which state is arising in the moment. Is it understanding or is it ignorance at this moment? Is there subtle desire present or is there genuine detachment. Now I feel calm and relaxed but is there a refined attachment to that feeling? When I look at my desk, which has many papers scattered on it, I sense no unpleasantness but could there be a very refined aversion with an equally refined unpleasant feeling?Or is there simply no understanding of the moment - just a feeling that "I" see (desk, papers, whatever). I do find there seems to be a little more understanding of mental states than when I first learnt about buddhism . Sometimes I might think of having a drink of alcohol - but the root underlying that is not subtle at all. It is very obviously rooted in greed for: pleasant feeling, new experience, a way to forget problems, impress my friends, relax...take your pick. The more we learn about the different moments in daily life - the apparently uninteresting ones that are happening now - the more we learn about the characteritics of the roots. The roots such as greed and aversion and ignorance are not wholesome and learning about them means that there is some turning away from them. Not by forcing and setting rules but by seeing their true nature- they are ugly. One who is a sotapanna has developed profound insight into dhammas (including mindstates) and thus the degree of desire that could condition the breaking of the five precepts cannot arise. robert 6061 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 Robert, Feel free to call me Robert E. I appreciate your explanation, and I think it is well thought out and makes a lot of sense. However, I find it hard to believe that an enlightened being, who is no longer subject to desires and defilements, since he has seen through the illusion of the separate self and the skandhas, would necessarily be averse to having a drink. Can one not have a drink without the arising of a desire to have a drink? At a certain point, to refuse to have a drink would also represent a fear, an aversion or a holding onto a view. It would be a protecting of a self which one does not want to defile. If one is attached to the precepts there can be no absolute detachment. Of course, for one attempting to discriminate all of the mind states it is wiser not to act than to act, wiser to follow the precepts than not to. But for someone who has gone past those challenges, and with the understanding that most of us are not in that position, attachment to non-attachment can be a serious impediment. Likewise, I would not disqualify someone from having achieved realization because they announce that they have sometimes had a drink. Is it not possible to have a drink without having desire for a drink? I would look further into that person's state of mind and experience of realization before discounting them on the basis of an external sign. Robert E. --------------------------------- --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking > > alcohol as > > being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does > > it have to > > do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha > > would be > > concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or > > that > > perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a > > drink? > > > > I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and > > precepts is > > directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I > > would be > > happy to hear your explanation. > > > _____________ > Dear Robert E. (can we call you that as I am also a Robert) > Welcome to the group. > The early buddhist texts are explicit that a sotapanna or any > enlightened being (enlightened in the Buddha's way - it may be > different for other paths) has no more conditions to break the > five precepts. > One who is a sotapanna has developed profound insight into > dhammas (including mindstates) and thus the degree of desire > that could condition the breaking of the five precepts cannot > arise. > robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6062 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 3:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 dear Robert E. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Robert, > > However, I find it hard to believe that an enlightened being, > who is no longer > subject to desires and defilements, since he has seen through > the illusion of the > separate self and the skandhas, would necessarily be averse to > having a drink. > Can one not have a drink without the arising of a desire to > have a drink? _______________ I really don't see how. even when we drink a glass of water there is most often mindstate rooted in refined desire. Driking alcohol is a different matter again- nothing subtle in that desire. ______ > > At a certain point, to refuse to have a drink would also > represent a fear, an > aversion or a holding onto a view. It would be a protecting > of a self which one > does not want to defile. If one is attached to the precepts > there can be no > absolute detachment. __________ I think this applies to those like us who are not enlightened. You put it very well actuallY! Are you a friend of Eriks? (just joking -we've had a long discussion about drug use recently and Erik has put forth some slightly unconventional but well considered ideas on this) ________- Of course, for one attempting to > discriminate all of the > mind states it is wiser not to act than to act, wiser to > follow the precepts than > not to. But for someone who has gone past those challenges, > and with the > understanding that most of us are not in that position, > attachment to > non-attachment can be a serious impediment. __________ Let's go beyond a sotapanna to an arahant - just to make things stand out more. An arahant has eradicated unwholesome desire forever. Thus if we take something as basic as sex they cannot even form the desire for a woman. There could be a hundred naked 19year olds in front of them but they couldn't possibly have the least desire. The sotapanna can still have sex but not in gross unwholesome ways (such as rape),. We might think the arahant is simply attached to his state of detachment but according to the Theravada tradition all desire has being utterly rooted out - robert > > > --------------------------------- > > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > > Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of > drinking > > > alcohol as > > > being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth > does > > > it have to > > > do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a > Buddha > > > would be > > > concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his > lips, or > > > that > > > perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking > a > > > drink? > > > > > > I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and > > > precepts is > > > directly related to realization at all. If you think it > is, I > > > would be > > > happy to hear your explanation. > > > > > _____________ > > Dear Robert E. (can we call you that as I am also a Robert) > > Welcome to the group. > > The early buddhist texts are explicit that a sotapanna or > any > > enlightened being (enlightened in the Buddha's way - it may > be > > different for other paths) has no more conditions to break > the > > five precepts. > > > One who is a sotapanna has developed profound insight into > > dhammas (including mindstates) and thus the degree of desire > > that could condition the breaking of the five precepts > cannot > > arise. > > robert > > > ===== > Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor > THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. > homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ > commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html > profile: > http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html > "What you learn to really do becomes real" > "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" > 6063 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 3:26pm Subject: Re: Hello Dear Mike, I am not sure if you have seen Howard's wink or not, but it's there because there is no such explicit definition anywhere except in my post. The only justifications (when in doubt of your action, always search for a justification) I have are: 1) As mentioned in previous post, satipathana is not considered part of the patica-samupatha link: it doesn't cause the cycle to continue. 2) One of the definitions of Satipathana is: the path that the samasambuddha and his ariyan disciples have already walked. kom --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Howard, > > Kom's right--this is excellent (I missed it at first). > You're on quite a roll of late! > > mike > > --- Howard wrote: > > > > When there is a consciousness that cognizes a > > reality as it truly is, it is > > > considered a "path" consciousness, a consciousness > > that doesn't continue > > > the cycle of dependent origination. The non-path > > consciousness > > > accumulates causes that continues the cycles. > 6064 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 3:57pm Subject: S L O W L Y catching up...... Dear Friends, Just a quick note from a tourist office in Kandersteg at the end of our strenuous hike to say we're slowly catching up (and testing the patience of the toursit office;-)) and about to take a stack of print-outs to read together over coffee....bliss.... A big welcome to the several newbies here...we'll both slowly get back to the list proper in the next couple of wks... HERMAN, hang in there, you're a very valued member of dsg and we all need you to voice yr opinions (which i'm sure are shared by many)...;;-)) Btw, that freezing Sydney surf when we were there was nothing to a violent hail storm over a high, snowy pass here in Switz... O.K., I'm getting 'looks'...so off to enjoy the great budle of what look superficially like great posts.. Sarah 6065 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:01pm Subject: Re: Animitta Cetovimutti (was Hello) Dear Anders, I said that I would get back to you on this sutta. Here I am. The consultation was with the Thai version of Tipitaka with the commentaries translated from Thai (and I will be translating it into English). Take it as you please. I will skip the first 4, as the commentary confirms that they refer to jhana, and we already agree on those parts. Here's the translation of the 5th: Animitta Cetovimutti is powerful vipassana. The acariya who arranged Digha Nigkaya said it is sampatti with Arahat Phala. Arahat phala sampatti, the Buddha has said, has no nimitta because there is no sign, such as raga, rupa, or permanence. Here's my interpretation of the passage above. Arahat phala sampati means an arahat, who has developed jhana, is going into a jhana-like state (extended period of jhana javana with no interrupting bhavanga), except that the citta is phala (fruitation) citta (with nibbana as the cognized object) instead of jhana citta. According to the commentary and this particular interpretation of the commentary, the state can be achieved only if 1) one is an arahat 2) one has developed and achieved the first level jhana kom --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > This is the point (the sutta that you quoted) of contention that still needs > to be researched. My preliminary research (looking at the two Thai > tipitaka translations which yield the same Thai wordings ) shows the first > 5 points in the sutta to be: > 1) Metta Cetovimutti - This is clearly jhana by Metta Bhavana > 2) Karuna Cetovimutti - This is clearly jhana by Karuna Bhavana > 3) Mudita Cetovimutti - This is clearly jhana by Mudita Bhavana > 4) Upekkha cetovimutti - This is clearly jhana by Upekkha bhavana > > 5) Animitta cetovimutti (release without a sign) - This is the one at > contention. The literal translation can be what I have mentioned to you > before which is, jhana without a sign (animitta), an aramana (sense > object) of citta (consciousness) at the arupa-jhana level. I will give you a > rough idea of what the aramana of the arupa-jhana is: > > 1) 1st-level arupa jhana (akasanancayatana-jhana) having infinite space > as the sense object. > 2) 2nd-level arupa jhana (vinnanancayatana-jhana) having the 1st level > jhana citta as the sense object > 3) 3rd-level arupa jhana (akincannayatana-jhana) having nothing as the > sense object. > 4) 4th-level arupa jhana (nevasannanasannayatana-jhana) having the 3rd > level jahna citta as the sense object > > Again, as you can see, the Animitta cetovimutti can be easily interpreted > as some of the arupa-jhana sense objects because they have > characteristics of "infinity" (unbounded?) associated with them. The > arupa jhana practictioner is described to have given up the nimita of the > rupa-jhana level to reach the arupa jhana level. > > Furthermore, if you look at the sutta in its entirety, it talks about *both* > temporary release from defilements (which I interpret the first 5 to be), > and permanent release for defilements (which I interpret the last to be). > > My last hope of settling the interpretations is the attha-gatha of this sutta; > if it doesn't resolve the issue, then we live with our differences in > understanding (we may do even if there is a resolution anyway!). We will > have to wait until I get to it. 6066 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:59pm Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, While I was looking up the other sutta, I looked up the two that you posted here as well, i.e., MN49, and DN11. Although the translators agree that they both refer to nibbana, the "consciousness" aspect is controversial at best. The commentary (Buddhagosa) [from Thai] suggests it has the meaning of: Nibanna, which should be cognized. Based on the following comments of translation by Bikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi, it appears that the wordings to the suttas are truly exceptional. There are no other places (according to them) where Nibbana is referred to as consciousness: These lines (which also appear as part of a full verse at DN11.85/i.223) have been a perennial challenge to Buddhist scholarship, and even Acariya Buddhaghosa seems to founder over them. MA takes the subject of the sentence to be Nibbana, called "consciousness" in the sense that "it can be cognized." Thsi is obviously a contrived derivation, since nowhere in the Canon is Nibbana ever described as consciousness. MA offers three explanations of the phrase sabbato pbaham: (1) completely posses of splendour (pabha); (2) possessing being (pabhutam) every where; and (3) a ford (pabham) accessible from all sides, i.e, through any fo the thri= ty- eight meditation objects. Only the first of these seems to have any linguistic legitimacy. Nm, in Ms, explains that he takes pabham to be a negative present participle of pabhavati - ababham - the negative-0prefix a= dropping off in conjunction with sabbato: "The sense can be paraphrased freely by 'not predicating being in relation to "all," or 'not assuming of = "all" that it is or is not in a anbsolute sense". As an alternative translation more in keeping with MA, Maurice Walshe reenders: "... consciousness [that] is sign-less, boudnless, all-luminous (Thus Have I heard, p.179). --- "Anders Honoré" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kom Tukovinit > Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:13 PM > Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > > Yes. Let me explain in this way. > > 1) The buddha separates all conditioned realities into two categories: > > a) Rupa - the materiality. > > b) Nama - the consciousness that cognizes a sense object. > > 2) Nibbana is categorized as an unconditioned nama, it is an element that > > is not rupa, but yet it doesn't cognize any sense object. > > > > We are a stream of nama and rupa, rising and falling away rapidly. When > > we say we "experience", it is the nama that cognizes the sense objects. > > There is no other thing that experiences except these conditioned > realities > > which are rising and fallign away rapidly (conditioned, impermanent, > > stressful, and anatta). > > > > I repeat as before, the consciousness through the mind door (6th faculty?) > > can cognize all rupa (28), nama (89 cittas + 52 cetasikas + 1 nibbana), > > and concepts. > > There are a number of cittas that can cognize nibbana: two of those are > > magga (path at lokuttara level) and phala (result of that path) citta, > both > > appearing in the mind door process. The unconditioned appears (and > > conditions) the conditioned pheonena, although the unconditioned itself is > > not condiioned. > > > > I do not understand what you mean by nibbana going through the mind > > door. Without the minddoor (the bhavanga citta before the mano- dvara- > > vajjana), the lokuttara magga and phala cannot arise. The minddoor > > clearly conditions (indirectly?) the magga and phala citta. > > Hence, the difference in your understandings and the theravadan system > > both in the meanings of the words, and the meanings of the teachings (as > > I understand it, obviously, since I cannot be said to represent the > > Buddha!). > > All I have to say is that to truly know the meaning of unconditioned, means > that it doesn't participate in any conditioning processes (which you seem to > think it does). When you say it conditions the conditioned, that is not > entirely true. Rather, the conditioned process is no longer sustained, an= d > from a lack of clinging/sustenance, it ends. Likewise, the unconditioned = can > never be 'philtered' through any conditioned doors, as this would mean that > it takes part in the conditioned process. > I shall stand by my claim that consciousness is released, and that released > consciousness, is Nibbana: > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around, does not > partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of= > fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas (and so on through a l= ist > of the various levels of godhood to) the allness of the All. > M 49 > ------------------- > Consciousness without feature, without end > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the stopping > of [the activity of] consciousness, > each is here brought to an end. > D 11 > ----------------- > 'Without feature', and one of the names of Nibbana is 'the featureless'. = The > elements (meaning conditioned phenomena) have no footing (meaning it is not > conditioned). A striking resemblance that the stopping of consciousness has > to Nibbana, wouldn't you say so? > ------------- > If a monk abandons passion for the property of form... feeling... > perception... mental processes... consciousness, then owing to the > abandoning of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for > consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not > performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands sti= ll. > Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is = not > agitated. Not agitated, he [the monk] is totally 'nibbana-ed' right withi= n. > He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done.= > There is nothing further for this world.' > S XXII.53 > > One question. > 1. According to you, what happens after Parinibbana. Annihilation? 6067 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:01pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert)1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:43 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] To Kom (and also Robert) > --- Anders Honoré wrote: > > The subjects we are discussing doesn't really have > > any practical > > appliance, as I think (and I get the impression you'll agree) > > that things > > such as Nibbana and so on, are hardly relevant in your own > > practise in terms > > of integrating that knowledge or actualising it. > > > I pretty much agree - although sometimesI think it can be > useful to talk about it even if we have not yet experienced it. > For instance, if we say had an idea of Nibbana as union with the > Infinite Brahma then perhaps our path would head in such a > direction. This discusion group has been going for 18months and > this is one of the first lenghthy threads about it. (I guess you > meant "our own practice" when you said "hardly relevant in your > own practice"?) Talking about Nibbana is hardly relevant in my own practise either. > I have made > > no claim to > > stream-entry, so there's nothing lost or gained from > that.________ > > Thank you for clarifying this Anders. In your introduction you > gave the url to your websites where you do claim to have some > stage of enlightenment. But when I asked about alcohol > consumption you candidly admitted doing so and thus had come to > your own conclusion that you are not enlightened. > And isn't it good that you now know this? Hmm, I think you misunderstand. What I am saying is that I haven't come to any conclusion, about enlightenment or stream-entry. If someone wants to say "he's enlightened" because I do this or that, or say "He's not a stream-entrant" because I still consume alcohol, then let them. But I am not buying either. Please don't interprete this a not-knowing stemming from confusion. It is merely not delving into false labels which have no relevancy for me. I won't deny that I have had some insight, but I couldn't care less about what "stage" that qualifies me at. As I said, if answers are important to you, find someone qualified to give them. > I asked also about seeing - which you didn't reply to - because > isn't it practical and useful to understand? It is happening now > and I find it a most interesting dhamma to investigate directly. I am sorry, must have missed that. What was your question? Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6068 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:04pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Kirkpatrick Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup](Drinking) Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 > __________ > Let's go beyond a sotapanna to an arahant - just to make things > stand out more. An arahant has eradicated unwholesome desire > forever. Thus if we take something as basic as sex they cannot > even form the desire for a woman. There could be a hundred naked > 19year olds in front of them but they couldn't possibly have the > least desire. > The sotapanna can still have sex but not in gross unwholesome > ways (such as rape),. > We might think the arahant is simply attached to his state of > detachment but according to the Theravada tradition all desire > has being utterly rooted out - Obviously, it wouldn't mean anything to the Arahant even if he did have sex. But I would say that he is aware of the causal consequences this might have, and chooses not to, in any case. 6069 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:06pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:14 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello >Dear Anders, >Yes, the Middle Way means (in a definition I have heard) that there is an >awareness and penetrating knowledge of the realities occuring now. As >you have mentioned before, and I believe are known to many people in >this group, that concepts don't bring on the path. > >Thanks for the reminder. 6070 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 4:09pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:26 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello > Dear Mike, > > I am not sure if you have seen Howard's wink or not, but it's there > because there is no such explicit definition anywhere except in my post. > The only justifications (when in doubt of your action, always search for a > justification) I have are: > 1) As mentioned in previous post, satipathana is not considered part of > the patica-samupatha link: it doesn't cause the cycle to continue. Hmmm, yes and no. It ends the cycle for extremely many of the factors lower down the chain of dependent co-origination. The top ones are still sustained to a minor degree, hence it is still conditioned practise. 6071 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 5:21pm Subject: The war of the suttas Dear Friends, The last two days have been interesting for me. I have recently started looking at postings to DSG and my transmissions of dhamma in general with some wary, as they often bring craving, conceits, and perhaps even wrong views! However, despite all that I learned one (of many) thing from the last 2 days of postings: that I sometimes look at a sutta and see how it can be fitted into existing beliefs/models instead of trying to understand the meaning of it, so this is just another reminder from your friend (or pseudo-enemey): When you look at a sutta, are you looking at a sutta as a guide to the dhamma / a good source of verification for your experiences, or are you looking at it to fit into your own belief / justify your experiences? I would say the second set has the danger of giving you the possibly false sense of security of knowing what you don't or having/attaining when you haven't. kom 6072 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:40pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The war of the suttas ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 11:21 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] The war of the suttas > Dear Friends, > > The last two days have been interesting for me. I have recently started > looking at postings to DSG and my transmissions of dhamma in general > with some wary, as they often bring craving, conceits, and perhaps even > wrong views! However, despite all that I learned one (of many) thing > from the last 2 days of postings: that I sometimes look at a sutta and see > how it can be fitted into existing beliefs/models instead of trying to > understand the meaning of it, so this is just another reminder from your > friend (or pseudo-enemey): > > When you look at a sutta, are you looking at a sutta as a guide to the > dhamma / a good source of verification for your experiences, or are you > looking at it to fit into your own belief / justify your experiences? I would > say the second set has the danger of giving you the possibly false sense of > security of knowing what you don't or having/attaining when you haven't. Sadhu! Great post, Kom. 6073 From: Anders Honoré Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:44pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:59 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello >Dear Anders, >While I was looking up the other sutta, I looked up the two that you posted here as well, i.e., MN49, and DN11. Although the translators agree that they both refer to nibbana, the "consciousness" aspect is controversial at best. The commentary (Buddhagosa) [from Thai] suggests it has the meaning of: Nibanna, which should be cognized. >Based on the following comments of translation by Bikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi, it appears that the wordings to the suttas are truly exceptional. There are no other places (according to them) where Nibbana is referred to as consciousness: >These lines (which also appear as part of a full verse at DN11.85/i.223) have been a perennial challenge to Buddhist scholarship, and even Acariya Buddhaghosa seems to founder over them. MA takes the subject of the sentence to be Nibbana, called "consciousness" in the sense that "it can be cognized." Thsi is obviously a contrived derivation, since nowhere in the Canon is Nibbana ever described as consciousness. MA offers three explanations of the phrase sabbato pbaham: (1) completely posses of splendour (pabha); (2) possessing being (pabhutam) every where; and (3) a ford (pabham) accessible from all sides, i.e, through any fo the thri= ty- eight meditation objects. Only the first of these seems to have any linguistic legitimacy. Nm, in Ms, explains that he takes pabham to be a negative present participle of pabhavati - ababham - the negative-0prefix a= dropping off in conjunction with sabbato: "The sense can be paraphrased freely by 'not predicating being in relation to "all," or 'not assuming of = "all" that it is or is not in a anbsolute sense". >As an alternative translation more in keeping with MA, Maurice Walshe reenders: "... consciousness [that] is sign-less, boudnless, all-luminous (Thus Have I heard, p.179). Another point for you to consider is the Pabhassara Suttas: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." The mind is luminous, yet retains that luminosity in spite of any changing phenomena at work in the mind, meaning it is unchanging. 6074 From: Tori Korshak Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 7:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The war of the suttas Dear Kom, Yes this happens all the time and not only in Dhamma studies. In Science, for example, there are numerous cases of researchers who had the solutions to problems in front of them but couldn't see them because they were too intent on trying to make the evidence fit their theory, as in the famous case of James Lind searching for the cause of scurvy in 1753. However, when we are in the middle of it, our own delusion is hard to see. Ajahn Sucitto writes: There can be a lot of seeking to find stability or permanence in an idea or a system or a group or a community, a job, a position-or a meditation practice. We can try to mould ourselves upon it and then try to bend life around to fit. This is a hindrance to the path, although quite a subtle one. It's only when we realise that all security is really taking away freedom and purity of presence that reliquishment comes about.' Metta, Victoria At 09:21 AM 7/9/01 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Friends, > >The last two days have been interesting for me. I have recently started >looking at postings to DSG and my transmissions of dhamma in general >with some wary, as they often bring craving, conceits, and perhaps even >wrong views! However, despite all that I learned one (of many) thing >from the last 2 days of postings: that I sometimes look at a sutta and see >how it can be fitted into existing beliefs/models instead of trying to >understand the meaning of it, so this is just another reminder from your >friend (or pseudo-enemey): > >When you look at a sutta, are you looking at a sutta as a guide to the >dhamma / a good source of verification for your experiences, or are you >looking at it to fit into your own belief / justify your experiences? I >would >say the second set has the danger of giving you the possibly false sense of >security of knowing what you don't or having/attaining when you haven't. > >kom > 6075 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hello Dear Kom, Thanks--I really didn't take this as definitive or as exactly 'scriptural'--just as an eloquent expression of a well-reasoned point. I can think of much from the tipitaka to support it (indirectly--I can't cite anything off-hand) and nothing either from the tipitaka or personal experience to contradict it so, for the time being, I think it's a very useful concept. Thanks again. mike --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > I am not sure if you have seen Howard's wink or not, > but it's there > because there is no such explicit definition > anywhere except in my post. 6076 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 8:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] The war of the suttas Dear Kom, Unfortunately I think this latter way is the way that I usually use the suttas (mahayana in the past and theravada these days). Maybe this is inevitable for those of us still stuck with views, subtly or otherwise. As I read and re-read though, I constantly find little bits of view, often held for years suddenly debunked, generally not to return. This is one advantage, I think, of reading (and re-reading) many different suttas rather than focusing on a few that can place emphasis on one narrow perspective. Learning a little Pali has a similar effect, I think, because of new perspectives on words I've known only in English translation (often poor). Many thanks for the reminder. mike --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > When you look at a sutta, are you looking at a sutta > as a guide to the > dhamma / a good source of verification for your > experiences, or are you > looking at it to fit into your own belief / justify > your experiences? I would > say the second set has the danger of giving you the > possibly false sense of > security of knowing what you don't or > having/attaining when you haven't. 6077 From: Howard Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 6:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] S L O W L Y catching up...... Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - In a message dated 7/9/01 3:58:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=061166091237042154170199159248100253094145066046167121181150130127 writes: > HERMAN, hang in there, you're a very valued member of dsg and we all need you > ========================== I would like to second that, Sarah! Herman, I don't share your assessment in this matter, but if I did, I think my reaction would be to stay on the list and continue discourse with those from whom I thought I could benefit and those to whom I thought I might be of benefit. We have been in agreement at times, and not at other times. But I always consider your posts worthy of reading, and I urge you to remain. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6078 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Jul 9, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Spiritual arrogance Dear Herman, hope you are still out there? Thanks for your direct message - which has been a good condition for me to reflect. I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders or other members. A close friend also wrote to me today and was very kind; however the words "spiritual arrogance, overbearing, patronising" were also directed my way. I certainly have no lack of the above qualities - not to mention those in your post below. I guess these factors won't evaporate overnight but I think when friends like you are ready to say things clearly at least there is more chance of self-examination and so a moderation of behaviour. I hope you will accept this apology and stay on the list -I need you here more than anyone. thanks robert --- Herman wrote: > Bruce and Robert, > > Where is the authority that qualifies anyone as a member of > the mind > police? Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition after sending a > Hello. > > What, Anders has committed blasphemy now? And the scribes and > pharisees will silence him, hey? > > This is from a sutta known as Matthew 22:15 > Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might > entangle him > in his talk. > > And this was the retort: Matthew 23:13 > But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you > shut up > the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in > yourselves, > neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. > > > No reply necessary. I am removing myself from the list and the > other > one between which Robert divides his life. It is getting too > dark in > here. > > > Bye > > > Herman > 6079 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 0:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert Dear Herman Carl Jung wrote once: "The most terrifying thing is to accept oneself completely." This disarmony between you and Herman is a great opportunity of self examination without blame or guilt for you, for him, for all of us. What is most valuable in our sharings is exactly this application of Dhamma in real, burning, paining life. There is no text that can teach us how to deal with reality, only genuine experience can grant knowledge - there is no map in this wild territory - we have to accept the risk and go ahead exploring. Please Herman don't become yourself a 'censor' abbandoning the list; manifest your viewpoint, let's discuss and clarify without conceit, without denial or suppression. Let's take this fruitful chance to investigate our minds and hearts getting insights in our realities. Let's don't hold so tight to our views, let's loosen the grasp and accept whatever comes, let's remember that 'the map is not the territory' anyway and being indignant or offended with each other just don't sort out anything and as Shakespeare said 'There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.' Why don't just accept and let go... Love Cybele >Dear Herman, >hope you are still out there? >Thanks for your direct message - which has been a good condition >for me to reflect. >I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders >or other members. >A close friend also wrote to me today and was very kind; however >the words "spiritual arrogance, overbearing, patronising" were >also directed my way. I certainly have no lack of the above >qualities - not to mention those in your post below. >I guess these factors won't evaporate overnight but I think when >friends like you are ready to say things clearly at least there >is more chance of self-examination and so a moderation of >behaviour. >I hope you will accept this apology and stay on the list -I need >you here more than anyone. >thanks >robert 6080 From: Tori Korshak Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 0:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert, I find it hard to accept that these negative qualities are accurate in your case having been on the receiving end only of your dana and uppekha (not to mention your scholarship). However, it seems we realise that even unfairness and blame provide us with opportunities (reminds me of that bit of high Victoriana Kipling's 'If". I suspect he had exposure to Buddhism during his time in India). Do not be discouraged, my friend, (I know you are not), we value your help more than words can say. Metta, Victoria At 08:29 AM 7/9/01 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Herman, >hope you are still out there? >Thanks for your direct message - which has been a good condition >for me to reflect. >I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders >or other members. >A close friend also wrote to me today and was very kind; however >the words "spiritual arrogance, overbearing, patronising" were >also directed my way. I certainly have no lack of the above >qualities - not to mention those in your post below. >I guess these factors won't evaporate overnight but I think when >friends like you are ready to say things clearly at least there >is more chance of self-examination and so a moderation of >behaviour. >I hope you will accept this apology and stay on the list -I need >you here more than anyone. >thanks >robert 6081 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 1:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Hear, hear!, Tori, and nice to meet you. mike --- Tori Korshak wrote: > Dear Robert, > > I find it hard to accept that these negative > qualities are accurate in your > case having been on the receiving end only of your > dana and uppekha (not to > mention your scholarship). However, it seems we > realise that even > unfairness and blame provide us with opportunities > (reminds me of that bit > of high Victoriana Kipling's 'If". I suspect he had > exposure to Buddhism > during his time in India). Do not be discouraged, my > friend, (I know you > are not), we value your help more than words can > say. > > Metta, > Victoria 6083 From: Victor Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 2:32am Subject: Re: Howard on anatta and rebirth Hi, The Buddha did not teach "there is self" or "there is no self", for both are speculative views.* The Buddha taught: Form is not self. Feeling is not self. Perception is not self. Fabrications are not self. Consciousness is not self. Form is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change is not fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this is I, this is my self." Feeling is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change is not fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this is I, this is my self." Perception is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change is not fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this is I, this is my self." Fabrications are impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change is not fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this is I, this is my self." Consciousness is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change is not fit to be seen thus: "This is mine, this is I, this is my self." Form is to be seen as it actually is with right understanding thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self." Feeling is to be seen as it actually is with right understanding thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self." Perception is to be seen as it actually is with right understanding thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self." Fabrications are to be seen as they actually are with right understanding thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self." Consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right understanding thus: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self."** metta, Victor *Ananda Sutta, To Ananda, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html **Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html --- "Anders Honore" wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > Dear Group , > > Howard wrote this on d-l and I thought it could be put in the > > dsg files as a clear and pithy explanation. > > _______ > > To certain people > > the Buddha didn't teach that there is no self so as not to > > confuse them, > > being wary of leading them to an annihilationist view. But the > > Buddha > > certainly was the teacher of 'no-self'. He did indeed say that > > all dhammas > > are anatta (not-self, impersonal, insubstantial, and without > > independent > > identity). > > Hmm, could anyone tell me how it is not annihilation to say that > there is absoluetely no self? > in my experience the Buddha did *not* teach no self. Rather, he > taught that all dhammas are annatta (just as you say above Robert). I > agree with that wholeheartedly. The entire samsaric cycle of > dependent co-origination has absolutely nothing to do with self. > Ignorance arises at first, yet there is no-one being ignorant. > However, there is one thing which is beyond becoming and cessation, > Nibbana of course, which I would say, is self. > Of course, just holding the view "I have a self, and it's unceasing > and unmoving" is another obstruction, which the Buddha warned against > often. There is a big difference between truth and concept of truth. > The latter will always be a poor imitation which, ultimately, offers > no liberation. > > Just my two cents. > Anders 6084 From: Num Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 2:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance, Hello, The war of the suttas Dear Robert, Kom, Anders, Herman and everybody After being a lurker for couple days, I found out that it's not bad at all. I am little surprised with Herman's post! May be b/c we have different idea. My idea is that in last 2-3 days, the posts about "Hello", are pretty good. Glad to see persons who are interested in same thing discussing in a proper manner. Sorry, I do not feel that Robert is offensive at all. I think Anders, Kom and Robert all have done an excellent job. If I were Anders, I would be really appreciated to all the responds. The same to Kom and Robert as well. There is a rare chance in our lives that someone are willing to give a feedback, check and counter-check, examination, reexamination and cross-examination. I feel like the discussion finally has come into the same wavelength mode of communication, even though the opinions are still somewhat different. We come from different backgrounds, different accumulation but it's possible that we are able to communicate, which starts with listening, may be better called reading on this group. After receptive process, I think, we need to clarify and verify what does other mean. I remember listening to Aj.Sujin program, she gave an analogy from tipitaka, which I cannot remember where it's from. I think the Buddha said to Ven.Anond about being a monk in his ariya-vinaya is not an easy task. The Buddha gave an analogy that the pot maker needs to hit and struck the moist clay repeatedly, strenuously to soften the clay before making a pot on the wheel. He said that he too would criticize, examine and correct his disciples repeatedly, b/c if the pot maker does not treat the clay properly, he will not be able to make a good pottery. Anders, may I say late welcome to the dsg. I appreciate your posts a lot. Hope seeing you here for a long time. Your website is interesting, I still cannot say much about it b/c it's hard for me to really understand what you mean. Again thanks Robert, Kom, Anders and other for keeping the dsg active and interesting with great discussion. Really appreciate your time, energy and effort. Herman, I think I have to say that I could not see why you think Robert is acting like an Abhidhamma police. I really value him as a great, rare dhamma friend that hard to find. Feedback and criticism, I think, is food for dhamma study. I need food for understanding to grow. Num PS. Welcome to Thailand for Robert, Robert E and Erik. Hope you guys have a nice stay and enjoy the peak of rainy season there. 6085 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 7:03am Subject: Re: Spiritual arrogance, Hello, The war of the suttas Dear Robert, Robert E, and Erik, --- Num wrote: PS. Welcome to Thailand for Robert, Robert E and Erik. Hope you guys have a > nice stay and enjoy the peak of rainy season there. If you had been (or maybe you have?) there 15 years ago, you would have been able to see boats going around in the commerical district right on the street too! kom 6086 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:46am Subject: StreamEntrance Dear friends, First I thought anders is claiming that he's a sotapanna. But after he repeatedly said that hes not claiming it or promoting it, and its not even special to him, I understood that I mistakenly thought that he was claiming the state. I thank robert and kom for the thorough( and ongoing?) investigation, for its indeed a rare thing to encounter an ariyan. There are cases in tipitaka where ariyan students learnt the dhamma from puthujjana teachers. If anyone understands what I am trying to say , he/she can see no one needs to get offended here. :o) Thanks again robert & kom Dear Anders, I think that you are telling others about your direct experiences, and trying to describe an alternate path of 'not-giving-importance-to-Tipitaka'.( I may have misunderstood) And you have repeatedly said that your understanding of dhamma is very limited. Speaking for 'myself' I think that I still need tipitaka as a reliable source and guide. :oD Regards 6087 From: Joe Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:15am Subject: Re: anders in the blue corner, DSG in the red Yes, I take your point. It all becomes grist for the mill. And a lot of this stuff is interesting in its own right, so that keeps one's attention to the fore. Joe --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Joe, > > Thanks for this post. I only have one comment to add. > > --- <> wrote: > > If not, perhaps my favorite Zen saying will express my frustration with > > the way these debates open and fold without anyone changing their > > positions (I'm as guilty as everyone else): > > For me, although it would be neat for people to come together and agree, > it is not truly necessary. Knowing the differences for different people and > why they think that way is often enough to close of a thread. The process > of questions/answers often gives me an opportunity to understand more, > as I suspect I will in Ander's thread. > > Furthermore, if you believe in Pacaya and conditions, both the right and > the wrong views from other people will be conditioning the future > consciousness of how we interpret things even if we briefly, and > sometimes unconsciously, consider that what they say may have some > resemblance of truth. > > kom 6088 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: silabbataparamasa Dear Derek, Really pleased to hear of you plans. I arive July 28 but leave august 4 - however it is possible I'll be back in Thailand just before you leave. Yes, from what I know of Wat mahathat they usually have rooms for farang with a genuine interest. It is in a busy part of Bangkok but the atmosphere aroud the area is rather exotic - markets and so on. It will be hot this time of the year! Here is an url that gives you the address of the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation. If you have time it would be worthwhile meeting with Acharn Sujin - I think she meets western students on wednesdays and saturdays. I'll be popping in and out of there while in Bangkok - and can easily be contacted on my email address http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?protectID=194233250056127134213056109067021253018143238218134229182055166127046249149006227237009204035181 http://www.abhidhamma.org/schedule.html best wishes robert --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Robert, thanks for your note. I've just got back from the khao > pansa > ceremony at my local temple. I'm going to be in Bangkok until > September 10 as I can only afford 2 weeks away from work. > After > looking through all the guidebooks, the 2 temples I want to > try and > spend some time in are Wat Mahathat and Wat Thammamongkhon. > The > information I have on Wat Mahathat says you just show up and > inquire > if you can stay for a few days. Wat Thammamongkhon is > affiliated with > my local temple so I'll probably see if I can call them first > before > I leave, So ... apart from the dates which are fixed due to > flights, > I haven't made any definite plans yet. > > How about you? Do you have plans? > > Derek. > 6089 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:44am Subject: (Vakkali-Ray) Dear Ray, Thanks for pointing this out and good to have you on the forum. best wishes robert --- Ray Hendrickson wrote: > . > > > > > 'That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the > consciousness of > > > Vakkali the Clansman: "Where is the consciousness of > Vakkali the > > Clansman > > > established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished > consciousness that > > > Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nibbana.' > > > S XXII.87 > > > > >I am sorry; you will need to include an HTML link for that > reference. I > > cannot respond as I cannot find the sutta... > > > > It's a sutta extract from the book "Mind, like fire > unbound." > > In Bhikkhu Bodhi's new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, > "The Connected > Discourses of the Buddha," the paragraph is a bit different. > > " That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the > consciousness of > the clansman Vakkali, wondering: "Where now has the > consciousness of the > clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with > consciousness > unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final > Nibbana." > > The term "unestablished consciousness" seems to imply some > special type of > consciousness while the term "consciousness unestablsihed" > points to the > non-arising of consciousness, which seems to me to be much > more consistent > with the rest of this section on the aggregates...Ray > 6090 From: Derek Cameron Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:03am Subject: Re: silabbataparamasa Robert, thanks for your good wishes, and thank you also to several other people on the list who e-mailed me privately with good information. As I mentioned to one of my correspondents, I feel like the typical Western spiritual day-tripper. But, we can do only do what's practical. All the best for your trip, Robert, Derek. 6091 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:36am Subject: Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > dear Robert E. > --- Robert Epstein wrote: Of course, for one attempting to > > discriminate all of the > > mind states it is wiser not to act than to act, wiser to > > follow the precepts than > > not to. But for someone who has gone past those challenges, > > and with the > > understanding that most of us are not in that position, > > attachment to > > non-attachment can be a serious impediment. > __________ > Let's go beyond a sotapanna to an arahant - just to make things > stand out more. An arahant has eradicated unwholesome desire > forever. Thus if we take something as basic as sex they cannot > even form the desire for a woman. There could be a hundred naked > 19year olds in front of them but they couldn't possibly have the > least desire. > The sotapanna can still have sex but not in gross unwholesome > ways (such as rape),. > We might think the arahant is simply attached to his state of > detachment but according to the Theravada tradition all desire > has being utterly rooted out - > robert Thanks for your explanation. I understand your point. I am not sure who among us have met an arahant, but you say the tradition would define him as having no desire and being incapable of desiring unwholesome objects. Therefore I guess he would be incapable of desiring or even tolerating alcohol. On the other hand, my image [which is just an image to be sure] of an enlightened one is of one who is immune to ill effects and transcendent of such rules. Perhaps that is too idealistic and I am willing to stand corrected. Yet there are many masters throughout the Buddhist tradition who behaved in unconventional ways and occasionally broke precepts if it would lead to enlightening others. Another point is the relationship of desire to action. I may have a glass of wine just to be sociable, not because I have a strong desire for it. In fact, my wife used to dislike wine, but she would occasionally take a sip just to join in with friends. I know that an arahant would probably not be worried about such gestures, but my point is just to say that one can have a bit of wine without desire or addiction. If you'll forgive me going back to a Ch'an example, Hui Neng lived with hunters in the woods for 12 years. He had vowed not to kill or eat any living beings, and he refused to hunt, but was put in charge of watching the traps. Whenever he found an animal caught in a trap, he would secretly let it go. But out of politeness to his hosts, who lived by hunting, he did not openly criticize them. He also ate only vegetables, but cooked them along with the meat when the hunters cooked their meals. Technically I guess his vegetables were defiled. Did he break the precepts or not, I wonder? Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6092 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Dear Robert E., Thanks for the points. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > --- > > Thanks for your explanation. I understand your point. I am > not sure who among us > have met an arahant, but you say the tradition would define > him as having no > desire and being incapable of desiring unwholesome objects. > Therefore I guess he > would be incapable of desiring or even tolerating alcohol. _______ Yes he could not form the intention to drink alcohol. If a small amount of alcohol was mixed in with some medicine this would be fine as his intention is not to drink the alcohol but to take the medicine. If the medicine WAS alcohol he would not knowingly take it. _____ > > On the other hand, my image [which is just an image to be > sure] of an enlightened > one is of one who is immune to ill effects and transcendent of > such rules. > Perhaps that is too idealistic and I am willing to stand > corrected. Yet there are > many masters throughout the Buddhist tradition who behaved in > unconventional ways > and occasionally broke precepts if it would lead to > enlightening others. > __________ I think there are such instances in zen and tibetan Buddhism. Here in Japan a good friend of mine was one of the bodyguards of Chogyam trungpa and lived at Naropa for 5years. He has utter confidence in the enlightenment of Trungpa who was, according to my friend, pretty much an alcoholic (to outward appearances). My upbringing was in the Theravada tradition which has no such examples. _________ > Another point is the relationship of desire to action. I may > have a glass of wine > just to be sociable, not because I have a strong desire for > it. In fact, my wife > used to dislike wine, but she would occasionally take a sip > just to join in with > friends. I know that an arahant would probably not be worried > about such > gestures, but my point is just to say that one can have a bit > of wine without > desire or addiction. _________ yes there are certainly differences in intention and thus result. The texts say (I might dig out a reference later) that drinking a lot is very, very bad but that drinking a little is still bad. I think the wise see the danger - that a little can lead to more; and even a little clouds consciouness to a degree. The path of Dhamma is seeing into realities as they are, for which the factors of wisdom and sati (mindfulness ) must be developed- not weakened. This is not meant as a moralistic order. There was sarakani the sakkyan who left the order of monks, took to drink, became an alcoholic, and died with alcohol still on his breath; but who at the very moment he died became a sotapanna. He had confidence in the Dhamma and still went to the temple to listen to Dhamma and developed wisdom in spite of his addiction. You probably know the saying "first the man takes the drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man" ____ > > If you'll forgive me going back to a Ch'an example, Hui Neng > lived with hunters in > the woods for 12 years. He had vowed not to kill or eat any > living beings, and he > refused to hunt, but was put in charge of watching the traps. > Whenever he found > an animal caught in a trap, he would secretly let it go. But > out of politeness to > his hosts, who lived by hunting, he did not openly criticize > them. He also ate > only vegetables, but cooked them along with the meat when the > hunters cooked their > meals. Technically I guess his vegetables were defiled. Did > he break the > precepts or not, I wonder? ___________ In this case it depends on intention. It certainly sounds like he had no intention to kill and so lived blamelessly. There is an example in the theravada of a woman who was a sotapanna(enlightened). She fell in love with a hunter and married him. She used to make his arrows for him out of her love. The Buddha was asked how this devoted follower could do such a thing. The buddha said that she had no intention to kill or to assist the killing but was only thinking of her husband (who she deeply loved). It seems almost impossible that someone could demarcate intention so much (don't try this at home) but this was a very unusual case. later her husband gained confidence and became a sotapanna and gave up hunting. robert 6093 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 0:08pm Subject: Re: Hello Dear Anders, The subtle point that I was trying to point out to you is that the 2 suttas you provided which describe nibbana as consciousness are controversial at best, even among the pali scholars. As you also may have noted, they mention that nibbana is not defined as consciousness anywhere else in the suttas. The other one related to Animitta cetovimutti is described by an ancient acariya (probably more ancient than Buddhagosa himself) to be a sampatti attainment of an Arahat which is only possible if the arahant also develops jhana. Before I comment on the sutta you mentioned last, Pabhassara (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an01-049.html), in the future, it would be helpful if you have a reference to the sutta in its entirety (except the long ones, of course!), so everybody can see and interpret the sutta for themselves. I have enclosed the sutta at the end of this message. > The mind is luminous, yet retains that luminosity in spite of any changing > phenomena at work in the mind, meaning it is unchanging. If you notice the beginning of the sutta, the mind is luminous *prior* to the enlightenment and *after* the enlightenment. Besides, I think what is still at contention is whether or not nibbana can be described as consciousness. Not whether the mind, or nibbana, is luminous or not. You know, it gave me pause to see that there are two suttas that imply nibbana can be anything close to consciousness, so I did the work to see how it was interpreted by Pali scholars. Does it give you pause to see that they mention that, possibly, only 2 suttas in all the tipitakas *may* describe nibbana as consciousness? The two versions of the Thai tipitakas I have access to in fact disregard the interpretations (nibbana as consciousness) altogether in one of the suttas. I hope you continue referencing the tipitaka to verify your experience beyond the suttas mentioned in your books. kom "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the- mill person -- there is no development of the mind." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones -- there is development of the mind." 6094 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert, Herman, This morning I had a big fight with my wife. Not taking into consideration my own aggression, I took her behavior as an excuse to attack her religion. We did not argue on this point, but latter on while coming to work I thought about how following what I think to be the right path, inadvertently precipitates into the feeling of arrogance when confronted with other paths which I consider to be wrong. I thought further about whether it is possible to be dedicated in my studies yet at the same time not be bound by it. I decided that I would ask you Robert, about your experience when you visit Bangkok. But I imagined too that it must be a problem everyone else is facing to a little extent. And then when I arrive at my workplace, I see this post of yours. Herman, I was very glad to see you join the dhammalist, eventhough your questions have always been too 'deep' for me, I enjoyed thinking over them. Seeing that some of your questions to this list went unanswered, I even hoped that you could come to Bangkok and meet with Acharn Sujin, with the idea that she might be able to answer you. I do not think that Herman's remark to Robert was from this one incident with Anders, it must have been from other incidents too. My not finding Robert's letters to be offensive indicates for the most part that I agree with his ideas, had my views been in opposition with his, I might have percieved them to be somewhat overbearing. I am aware that I am speaking from a level of understanding very different to others and what I say may not apply. But the main point I want to point out is, none of us want to have 'wrong' view, and to this aim, agreement has the same value as disagreement. Afterall, we are not going to arrive at right view only from hearing about it, but also from knowing what is not right view. For example between Anders on the one hand and Kom and Robert on the other, it does not matter ultimately who is right or wrong. If it is Anders, I would have to change my viewpoint regarding buddhadhamma, if on the other hand it is K and R, I will feel relieved that I have already walked some distance along the correct path. Now what is more beneficial? Both or none!? Tori's quote from Acharn Succito in another post may apply, "It's only when we realise that all security is really taking away freedom and purity of presence that reliquishment comes about." But as of now I know that all I am looking for IS 'security' and I see no way out of it but only wish that studying with wise friends such as you all will help. Don't know if what I have written is pertinent or even sensible but I am posting it anyway. Sukin. Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Herman, > hope you are still out there? > Thanks for your direct message - which has been a good condition > for me to reflect. > I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders > or other members. > A close friend also wrote to me today and was very kind; however > the words "spiritual arrogance, overbearing, patronising" were > also directed my way. I certainly have no lack of the above > qualities - not to mention those in your post below. > I guess these factors won't evaporate overnight but I think when > friends like you are ready to say things clearly at least there > is more chance of self-examination and so a moderation of > behaviour. > I hope you will accept this apology and stay on the list -I need > you here more than anyone. > thanks > robert 6095 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 4:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Robert, Herman, > I thought further about whether it is possible to > be dedicated > in > my studies yet at the same time not be bound by it. I decided > that I would > ask > you Robert, about your experience when you visit Bangkok. But > I imagined too > that it must be a problem everyone else is facing to a little > extent. > > But as of now I know that all I am looking for IS 'security' > and I see no way > out of > it but only wish that studying with wise friends such as you > all will help. > _________________ Dear Sukin, there was so many helpful points in your post and I hope others will take them up, as well as this one. One of the dangers in learning about Dhamma is that one gets attached to some aspect of it. In the Patthana it says something to the effect that "conditioned by right view one has conceit, has grasping..." . It is almost natural for these unwholesome dhammas to arise because they are so ingrained, so tenacious that whatever we do lobha (grasping) mana, (conceit) comes in. However the DhammaVinaya has so many pointers that allow us to learn about the characteristic of lobha and mana - and so because of this when they arise they are seen directly a little more clearly. This is a gradual process but the seeing of their ugliness is an important step in itself. If we don't see the attachment to view - even to right view- then how can we ever let it go. Some people never even relaise that they have attachment to view. This is not a matter of seeing it and trying to relinquish but learning to see it again and again and again and again - at the very moments it arises. By seeing its conditioned nature this is also going together with satipatthana. It is the same with doubt. I used to dislike doubt, it conditioned an uncomfortable feeling until I realised that doubt was just another conditioned, uncontrollable dhamma: an object for sati, a chance to develop more understanding of its nature. These unwholesome dhammas lose their power over us the more we see the anattaness of them. they are not taken for self. They arise because they are conditioned to arise, how could things be any different. robert 6096 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Sukim Very insightful, much appreciation. Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu. It's all about fear and our compulsion for security. Love Cybele >Dear Robert, Herman, >This morning I had a big fight with my wife. Not taking into consideration >my own aggression, I took her behavior as an excuse to attack her religion. >We did not argue on this point, but latter on while coming to work I >thought >about how following what I think to be the right path, inadvertently >precipitates >into the feeling of arrogance when confronted with other paths which I >consider >to be wrong. I thought further about whether it is possible to be dedicated >in >my studies yet at the same time not be bound by it. I decided that I would >ask >you Robert, about your experience when you visit Bangkok. But I imagined >too >that it must be a problem everyone else is facing to a little extent. And >then when >I arrive at my workplace, I see this post of yours. >Herman, I was very glad to see you join the dhammalist, eventhough your >questions >have always been too 'deep' for me, I enjoyed thinking over them. Seeing >that > >some of your questions to this list went unanswered, I even hoped that you >could >come to Bangkok and meet with Acharn Sujin, with the idea that she might be >able to answer you. >I do not think that Herman's remark to Robert was from this one incident >with >Anders, >it must have been from other incidents too. My not finding Robert's letters >to be >offensive indicates for the most part that I agree with his ideas, had my >views been >in opposition with his, I might have percieved them to be somewhat >overbearing. I am >aware that I am speaking from a level of understanding very different to >others and >what I say may not apply. But the main point I want to point out is, none >of >us want >to have 'wrong' view, and to this aim, agreement has the same value as >disagreement. >Afterall, we are not going to arrive at right view only from hearing about >it, but also >from knowing what is not right view. For example between Anders on the one >hand >and Kom and Robert on the other, it does not matter ultimately who is right >or wrong. >If it is Anders, I would have to change my viewpoint regarding >buddhadhamma, >if on >the other hand it is K and R, I will feel relieved that I have already >walked >some distance >along the correct path. Now what is more beneficial? Both or none!? > Tori's quote from Acharn Succito in another post may apply, > "It's only when we realise that all security is really taking >away > freedom and purity of presence that reliquishment comes >about." > >But as of now I know that all I am looking for IS 'security' and I see no >way >out of >it but only wish that studying with wise friends such as you all will help. >Don't know if what I have written is pertinent or even sensible but I am >posting it >anyway. >Sukin. > > > 6097 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Tori I understand that your admiration for Robert lead you to be supportive with him , I respect it but we cannot judge Herman, we don't know about his motivations therefore we shouldn't assume that he is unfair. It's most evident that something has upset him to justify such a strong reaction and we cannot dismiss it just being partial and biased. Surely he has his onw reasons that right now are constricting him to be so severe. It's a chance to investigate mental processes as another. Robert is enough mature in his practice and insightful to face it without denial. Quite often we allow ourselves to ponder through our preferences. Robert is a very charismatic person and he seduces everybody with his charms, he is smart and fascinating. Nobody denies, I am the one of his most ardents fans but we have to be equanimous in any 'dispute'. I would like that Herman could just give himself the opportunity to clarify what has offended him so much in Robert's attitude instead of retreating in his indignation. Love and respect Cybele > >Dear Robert, > >I find it hard to accept that these negative qualities are accurate in your >case having been on the receiving end only of your dana and uppekha (not to >mention your scholarship). However, it seems we realise that even >unfairness and blame provide us with opportunities (reminds me of that bit >of high Victoriana Kipling's 'If". I suspect he had exposure to Buddhism >during his time in India). Do not be discouraged, my friend, (I know you >are not), we value your help more than words can say. > >Metta, >Victoria > 6098 From: Tori Korshak Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Cybele, Sadhu X 3 for your equanimity. Speaking from my own experience, Robert always shows restraint and adosa. What is Herman's experience? Metta, Victoria At 09:27 AM 7/10/01 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Tori > >I understand that your admiration for Robert lead you to be supportive with >him , I respect it but we cannot judge Herman, we don't know about his >motivations therefore we shouldn't assume that he is unfair. >It's most evident that something has upset him to justify such a strong >reaction and we cannot dismiss it just being partial and biased. >Surely he has his onw reasons that right now are constricting him to be so >severe. It's a chance to investigate mental processes as another. >Robert is enough mature in his practice and insightful to face it without >denial. >Quite often we allow ourselves to ponder through our preferences. >Robert is a very charismatic person and he seduces everybody with his >charms, he is smart and fascinating. >Nobody denies, I am the one of his most ardents fans but we have to be >equanimous in any 'dispute'. >I would like that Herman could just give himself the opportunity to clarify >what has offended him so much in Robert's attitude instead of retreating in >his indignation. > >Love and respect > >Cybele > 6099 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert, > This is not a matter of > seeing it and trying to relinquish but learning to see it again > and again and again and again - at the very moments it arises. > By seeing its conditioned nature this is also going together > with satipatthana. > It is the same with doubt. I used to dislike doubt, it > conditioned an uncomfortable feeling until I realised that doubt > was just another conditioned, uncontrollable dhamma: an object > for sati, a chance to develop more understanding of its nature. > These unwholesome dhammas lose their power over us the more we > see the anattaness of them. they are not taken for self. They > arise because they are conditioned to arise, how could things be > any different. I think this is what I need to be reminded again and again and again.... Thanks a lot Robert. Sukin. 6100 From: cybele chiodi Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:50pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Tori Relieved that you don't feel hostility in my words because there were none, I spoke out of detachment (wow I detached, can't barely believe...whom am I fooling?) :-) That's exactly the point - we don't know about his experience with Robert and we cannot make considerations on an issue where we don't have enough elements to evaluate. Perhaps this ever balanced and detached attitude of Robert that in my case and yours is much appreciated, in my case because counterbalance my exhuberance, is what gets on Herman's nerves as he can misread it like 'self sufficiency', being too much confident and beyond compassion. I don't know and I don't agree according with my experience but Rob's 'non involvement' attitude to keep equanimity could sound aloof or patronizing sometimes. I have learned to highly value it and that's why I am always teasing about anglosaxon coldbloodness. For me it worked perfectly, he is my opposite complementary and temperate my hot blood so he became my best dhamma friend. And if he ever start patronizing me I send him direct flight without stop to the 'buddhist hell'...I am joking! But what worked for me perhaps hurts somebody's else sensitivity. I noticed that Herman's is oversensitive to ethical questions for example. And here he felt at disadvantadge to discuss openly as everybody is supportive and very fond of Rob. I can see his embarrasement. By the way somebody has Herman's mail address, I would like to contact him and invite him to confront the situation and figure out a solution instead of giving up. Love Cybele >>Dear Cybele, > >Sadhu X 3 for your equanimity. Speaking from my own experience, Robert >always shows restraint and adosa. What is Herman's experience? > >Metta, >Victoria > 6101 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 7:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Cybele, If you don't mind me commenting; > By the way somebody has Herman's mail address, I would like to contact him > and invite him to confront the situation and figure out a solution instead > of giving up. Does Herman have to confront anything? Is there a 'situation' outside what our minds have created and holding on to? I think there are more important things that can be discussed. And if misunderstandings arise again in the future, I am sure the parties involved would have by that time learnt something from what has just happened and thus deal with it in a more constructive way. But perhaps I don't see clearly enough. Metta, Sukin. > Love > > Cybele > > >>Dear Cybele, > > > >Sadhu X 3 for your equanimity. Speaking from my own experience, Robert > >always shows restraint and adosa. What is Herman's experience? > > > >Metta, > >Victoria 6102 From: Herman Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:16pm Subject: Dear Group Dear Group, Unskillful words can be lethal weapons, and I'm afraid I've fired off some very heavy artillery in the last few days. I feel extremely stupid at this point of time, I sincerely hope that any scars my words have left out there in cyber space will heal quickly. I have this tendency to jump to the defense of people that I feel are under attack. I remember dear Amara had to put up with my knight in shining armour routine on occasion, and now Anders. I apologise unreservedly to the group as a whole and especially to Robert for the comments I have made in the last few days. I will lie low for a while, perhaps I will discover the secret joys of lurking :-) Thank you all for your encouragement Herman 6103 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Dear herman, I have to confess i've been hovering near my computer for the last day hoping to hear from you. I'm so touched by your words. I think I have a bit of a missionary element in me (maybe it rubs off from my mormon friends). Consequently as soon as I see what I think is a departure from MY view of the Tipitaka I get overzealous, and want to reform everyone to my way. I forget how useful it is to be exposed to different perspectives. I'll try to be a little more understanding - and please pull me up when I inevitably stray into dogmatic and imperious speech.( can't promise it will stop me but every reminder helps a little) Great to have you back. robert --- Herman wrote: > 6104 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Herman, really glad to know you're still with us. I hope we can look forward (when you're ready) for more of your excellent contributions. mike --- Herman wrote: > I will lie low for a while, perhaps I will discover > the secret joys > of lurking :-) 6105 From: Howard Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Hi, Robert E (and Robert K) - In a message dated 7/9/01 10:47:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Epstein writes: > If you'll forgive me going back to a Ch'an example, Hui Neng lived with > hunters in > the woods for 12 years. He had vowed not to kill or eat any living beings, > and he > refused to hunt, but was put in charge of watching the traps. Whenever he > found > an animal caught in a trap, he would secretly let it go. But out of > politeness to > his hosts, who lived by hunting, he did not openly criticize them. He also > ate > only vegetables, but cooked them along with the meat when the hunters > cooked their > meals. Technically I guess his vegetables were defiled. Did he break the > precepts or not, I wonder? > ================================ I don't eat meat, though I do eat sea creatures. I wouldn't knowingly eat vegetables prepared with meat. But, as I see it, that is because I am *only* me, at my lowly stage. In fact, I intellectually see refusing to eat vegetables cooked with meat as a kind of clinging to empty ritual. I see this, yet I am stuck. If I were "more along", I would be more like Hui Neng. As I see it, this story presents a remarkable person! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6106 From: Anders Honore Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:21pm Subject: Re: StreamEntrance --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > Dear friends, > > First I thought anders is claiming that he's a sotapanna. But after he > repeatedly said that hes not claiming it or promoting it, and its not even > special to him, I understood that I mistakenly thought that he was claiming > the state. The claim to be a stream-entrant is still a view, it requires an image to say that. Of course, there is the question of the attachment to that view or not, but... > There are cases in tipitaka where ariyan students learnt the dhamma from > puthujjana teachers. If anyone understands what I am trying to say , he/she > can see no one needs to get offended here. I am sorry for my poor Pali. What is a puthujjana? > Dear Anders, > > I think that you are telling others about your direct experiences, and > trying to describe an alternate path of > 'not-giving-importance-to-Tipitaka'.( I may have misunderstood) I would say that it is the case of saying 'don't give imortance to the written word' to those whom I feel give too much importance to it. I've found them tremendously beneficial in my practise, but it is a delicate balance act. > And you have repeatedly said that your understanding of dhamma is very > limited. In terms of the formal Dhamma, yes my knowledge is very limited compared to most people around here. Anders 6107 From: Anders Honore Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:25pm Subject: Re: Spiritual arrogance --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders > or other members. Personally, no offense was ever taken, simply because I found nothing for which any offense could be directed at. Nothing to apologise for regarding me. 6108 From: Anders Honore Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:36pm Subject: Re: Hello --- "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Anders, > Before I comment on the sutta you mentioned last, Pabhassara > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an01-049.html), in the > future, it would be helpful if you have a reference to the sutta in its > entirety (except the long ones, of course!), so everybody can see and > interpret the sutta for themselves. I have enclosed the sutta at the end of > this message. Sure. Good advice. > If you notice the beginning of the sutta, the mind is luminous *prior* to > the enlightenment and *after* the enlightenment. Exactly, or as they say in Zen: You are already a Buddha, so why seek elsewhere for it? > Besides, I think what > is still at contention is whether or not nibbana can be described as > consciousness. Not whether the mind, or nibbana, is luminous or not. > > You know, it gave me pause to see that there are two suttas that imply > nibbana can be anything close to consciousness, so I did the work to see > how it was interpreted by Pali scholars. Does it give you pause to see > that they mention that, possibly, only 2 suttas in all the tipitakas *may* > describe nibbana as consciousness? The two versions of the Thai > tipitakas I have access to in fact disregard the interpretations (nibbana as > consciousness) altogether in one of the suttas. > > I hope you continue referencing the tipitaka to verify your experience > beyond the suttas mentioned in your books. I will do so. Say, what do think about Zen in relation to Theravada? 6109 From: Alex Tran Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:37pm Subject: Re: Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert, Since reading your posts, I haven't sensed any spiritual arrogrance in you at all. All I can feel from reading yours is your sharing spirit from generosity, loving kindness, humility, wisdom, and scholarship. To sum up, I see that I have a lot to learn from you. Thank you for your help. With respect and appreciation, Alex Tran ======================================================== --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Herman, > hope you are still out there? > Thanks for your direct message - which has been a good condition > for me to reflect. > I want to apologise for any offensive behaviour to you or Anders > or other members. 6110 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: StreamEntrance Dear Anders, puthujjana means non-arian people, people who are yet to reach a stage of enlightenment. Rgds. 6111 From: Alex Tran Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:01pm Subject: Re: StreamEntrance --- "Anders Honore" wrote: > In terms of the formal Dhamma, yes my knowledge is very limited > compared to most people around here. > > Anders Dear Anders, I think that for an 18 year old young man, you are very mature. I'm glad that at this life time, and at such a young age, you have the fortune to walk on the Path. And I mean what I just wrote as a compliment. Keep on walking steadily. Metta, Alex Tran 6112 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:55am Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders --- "Anders Honore" > I will do so. > Say, what do think about Zen in relation to Theravada? I think I am not qualified to do a comparison between Zen and Theravada since I know very little of Zen except a few concepts. Since you are familiar with Zen, and are learning about Theravada, I hope you would be able to make the comparisons yourself. Believe it or not, there are enough variations among the theravadans that would keep me fully occupied for a long long while. kom 6113 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:01am Subject: Re: StreamEntrance Dear Anders (and Friends), Here's a page with some pali terms commonly used: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/glossary_of_pal i_terms.htm puthujjana: worldling or ordinary person, not a noble person who has attained enlightenment kom --- "Anders Honore" > > There are cases in tipitaka where ariyan students learnt the dhamma > from > > puthujjana teachers. If anyone understands what I am trying to say > , he/she > > can see no one needs to get offended here. > > I am sorry for my poor Pali. What is a puthujjana? > 6114 From: ppp Date: Tue Jul 10, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Hi, Kom: The essence of (Rinzai) Zen and that of the Theravada Buddhism are exactly the same: i.e., understading (not with "self" but with sati) of this moment (e.g., seeing and a visual object) as it is. In my case, before studying the Theravada Buddhism, I had read many Zen books, especially, those written by Suzuki Daisetsu. It was only after learning the heart of the Theravade Buddhism (from late Allen, Khun Sujin, etc.), I could see that Buddhas' teaching is all about understanding "this moment" as it is (i.e., no person, no table, no sushi but the moment of seeing, that of touching, or that of smelling, being tangled(?) with each of their corresponding objects. tadao 6115 From: Alex Tran Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:36am Subject: Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance --- Robert Kirkpatrick > If we don't see the attachment to view - even to right view- > then how can we ever let it go. Some people never even relaise > that they have attachment to view. This is not a matter of > seeing it and trying to relinquish but learning to see it again > and again and again and again - at the very moments it arises. > By seeing its conditioned nature this is also going together > with satipatthana. Dear Robert and friends, When reading the above statements, I was thinking about our Lord Buddha. He continuously advocates that we need to develop Right View. It seems that the Buddha and the Arahants are living (or swimming and breathing) in Right View all of Their lives on this earth. In another word, Right View adheres to Them. Therefore, my question is why do we need to let Right View go then? Metta, Alex 6116 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:52am Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear tadao, Thank you for the explanation. kom --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Kom: > The essence of (Rinzai) Zen and that of the Theravada Buddhism are exactly > the same: i.e., understading (not with "self" but with sati) of > this moment (e.g., seeing and a visual object) as it is. > > In my case, before studying the Theravada Buddhism, I had read many > Zen books, especially, those written by Suzuki Daisetsu. It was only > after learning the heart of the Theravade Buddhism (from late Allen, > Khun Sujin, etc.), I could see that Buddhas' teaching is all about > understanding "this moment" as it is (i.e., no person, no table, > no sushi but the moment of seeing, that of touching, or > that of smelling, being tangled(?) with each of their > corresponding objects. > tadao 6117 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:17am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Very nice, Herman. Glad you're staying on. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/10/01 8:18:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Dear Group, > > Unskillful words can be lethal weapons, and I'm afraid I've fired off > some very heavy artillery in the last few days. I feel extremely > stupid at this point of time, I sincerely hope that any scars my > words have left out there in cyber space will heal quickly. > > I have this tendency to jump to the defense of people that I feel are > under attack. I remember dear Amara had to put up with my knight in > shining armour routine on occasion, and now Anders. > > I apologise unreservedly to the group as a whole and especially to > Robert for the comments I have made in the last few days. > > I will lie low for a while, perhaps I will discover the secret joys > of lurking :-) > > Thank you all for your encouragement > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6118 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Dear Herman Welcome back and take it easy. ;-) Metta Cybele 6119 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 0:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Hi, Kom: I think that there are (a few) Zen sects whose founders had no proper understaning of the Dhamma. Soto Zen's founder is an example. So, every Zen is not alike. As far as I see, the founder of Rinzai Zen (i.e., Rinzai) was an enlightened one. And as an advocate of Zen, Suzuki Daisetsu also had the right understanding of the Dhamma (i.e., he knew at least what our objects of verification are). A problem with Suzuki is that he does explain the essence of the Dhamma (as clearly as, for instance, Khun Nina or Archaan Sujin does). tadao 6120 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Sukin >Dear Cybele, >If you don't mind me commenting; I don't mind. :-) > > > By the way somebody has Herman's mail address, I would like to contact >him > > and invite him to confront the situation and figure out a solution >instead > > of giving up. > >Does Herman have to confront anything? Herman does NOT have to confront anything if he choses to take such a decision and this is his kamma making and I am not bossing anybody around for sure but as a dhamma friend I could encourage him to face the issue instead of retreating in his indignation and this would be MY decision and my kamma making. >Is there a 'situation' outside what our minds have created and holding on >to? I think there are more important things that can be discussed. I disagree with you Sukin. Also this can be something that your mind have created and you are holding to. Threfore we should be not entitled to discuss anything anymore according with your view. I think that everything is subject of Dhamma and subject to Dhamma. Threfore specially the human aspects and our interaction here is a very much interesting and worthwhile and 'important thing' to be discussed. Because is very much a MIRROR of our actual practice. We can claim equanimity and relate academically to it quite a lot but is indeed in this confrontations with REAL life that our REAL pratice emerges. >And if misunderstandings arise again in the future, I am sure the parties >involved would have by that time learnt something from what has just >happened and thus deal with it in a more constructive way. That's why is worthwhile discussing it in order to clarify and develop right understanding out of it. And misunderstandings will arise again and the parties involved can learn something most out of their OWN experience because in that moment of hatred and mental confusion they are not going to refer to this interaction. When the mind is clouded by aversion you are not in a 'constructive mood'. What are we supposed to do, keep discussing 'nibbana' and enlightenment when we cannot even deal with simple emotions like this? I prefer getting real and base my knowledge on actual experience not in academic approach. Dhamma is all about real life the way I see it. >But perhaps I don't see clearly enough. Who does dear Sukin, who does? We are trying our best but not always we succeed, that's why we keep trying, to learn and improve I suppose. Metta Cybele 6121 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 8:14am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group - Rob Dear Robert So glad to see your thoughtfulness and capacity of getting down to earth when is necessary. Many times I told you that your commitment with the lists and the appreciation of your 'style' and helpfulness could not exactly built up modesty and detachment and instead be quite nurturing for your ego and induce self conceit. Very nice to see your openess and sincerity in your self examination. These are the moments that give me actual feedback of your practice and mine as well, the confrontation with REAL life, going far beyond academic discussions. LOve and respect Cybele > >Dear herman, >I have to confess i've been hovering near my computer for the >last day hoping to hear from you. I'm so touched by your words. >I think I have a bit of a missionary element in me (maybe it >rubs off from my mormon friends). Consequently as soon as I see >what I think is a departure from MY view of the Tipitaka I get >overzealous, and want to reform everyone to my way. I forget how >useful it is to be exposed to different perspectives. >I'll try to be a little more understanding - and please pull me >up when I inevitably stray into dogmatic and imperious speech.( >can't promise it will stop me but every reminder helps a little) >Great to have you back. >robert > 6122 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 11:13am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Tadao >Hi, Kom: >I think that there are (a few) Zen sects whose founders had no >proper understaning of the Dhamma. Soto Zen's founder is an example. >So, every Zen is not alike. As far as I see, the founder of Rinzai >Zen (i.e., Rinzai) was an enlightened one. And as an advocate of >Zen, Suzuki Daisetsu also had the right understanding of the Dhamma >(i.e., he knew at least what our objects of verification are). >A problem with Suzuki is that he does explain the essence of the Dhamma (as >clearly as, for instance, Khun Nina or Archaan Sujin does). tadao I am surprised that a person so impressed with clarity in the essence of teachings can declare such a thing like 'the founder of Soto Zen did not have proper undestanding of Dhamma'. Could you elaborate such affermation? I have practiced Soto Zen for many years myself and I always felt great affinity between Zen and Theravada and I don't see why in Soto Zen there is anything controversial compared with Rinzai. And in your lavish admiration of the many merits and wholesome actions of the late Suzuki perhaps you overlooked the fact that he was very much a fascist while in Japan (but then you are Japanese) and have been involved in political issues defending quite a racist attitude and this doesn't prevent me from respecting him afterwards in his diffusion of Buddhism in America. A person can do wholesome as unwholesome actions and we must be equanimous in observing it and not purely judgemental. Then let's don't talk about the Zen monks that trained the japanese soldiers instigating them in a 'wholesome war' for the sake of Japan what caused the rape of Nankin in China, one of the most appalling and cruel events in history and this is very much documented. Why are we so territorial in our beliefs? Metta Cybele 6123 From: David Blickenstaff Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 0:21pm Subject: Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear Robert My sincere apologies if this is going to embarrass you, but others and I have to make this a learning experience, this is the only way, we all can benefit from your qualities. Another morsel of pure Dhamma has surfaced again in a different form. Dear group once again it pays to observe and analyze. Robert's true self has been revealed, unknowingly by him. Amazing, what was revealed in the process. If these are not the qualities of Sotapanna than this level does not, and has never, existed. This level can only be realized by others onto the receiver and never by the receiver him/her self be realized (during life). Thank you Robert for the chance to observe this first hand. I assure you of my sincerity in my words. It is a pleasure for me to be in your presence. This post does not warrant a reply from you. Much Metta to All David Blickenstaff (India) --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear herman, > I have to confess i've been hovering near my computer for the > last day hoping to hear from you. I'm so touched by your words. > I think I have a bit of a missionary element in me (maybe it > rubs off from my mormon friends). Consequently as soon as I see > what I think is a departure from MY view of the Tipitaka I get > overzealous, and want to reform everyone to my way. I forget how > useful it is to be exposed to different perspectives. > I'll try to be a little more understanding - and please pull me > up when I inevitably stray into dogmatic and imperious speech.( > can't promise it will stop me but every reminder helps a little) > Great to have you back. > robert > 6124 From: Joe Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 0:45pm Subject: Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Surely anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Pali can discern whether the proper translation in 'unestablished consciousness' or 'consciousness unestablished'. Pali is very precise - almost as precise as Sanskrit or Latin - in the attributive. Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? Joe --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Ray, > Thanks for pointing this out and good to have you on the forum. > best wishes > robert 6125 From: ppp Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Hi, Cybele: (i) When I mention Suzuki, I only refer to his understaing of the the Buddhism. I am talking if he underdstands the essense of (all) the Buddhas' teaching or not, that is, if he understands that His teaching concerns understanding of this very moment of seeing/a visual object, etc. (ii) I have no intention of getting into discussing his political affiliation/inclination. (Although, as you do, I HATE the right wing ideology, I have no intention of mixing up the issues in hand.) (iii) When I read the Rinzai-roku, I could see that Rinzai is consistantly encouraging his diciples to SEE things as they are (or to pay their attentions to the phonomena(n) of "here and now"). Rinzai's way of teaching is very different from Gotama Buddha's. Given, partially, the historical fact that he is/was (east) Indian (in whose "genes" the notion of "logic"is embedded), the Buddha was able to explain, in a logical manner, of what kinds of the world we are living in: that is, the world of "naamas" and "ruupas", none of which can be equated to (our notions of), e.g., "a man", "a table", or "a piece of sushi". Although Gotama Buddha has taught us various things (dhammas) which may not have been "directly" related with his above view of the world, the core of his teaching deals with naamas/ruupas (the world we are in) and sati-patthaana (the way to verify/realize such a world). (iii) As I mentioned above, I see the same objective/goal of inquiry with Rinzai's words. Given that he is/was chinese, he avoids any logical/verbal way of showing his diciples the world he has/had realized. The same world/objective/, and highly likely, the same method (i.e. sati-patthaana). (iv) In my interpretation, I do not see the same kind of clear definition of the objective/goal of inquiry in Dogen's words. In other words, I do not think that he knew that the essence of the Buddhism is to realize this moment of, say, touching as it is. If my interpetation is correct, then, Dogen wasn't an enlightended one (i.e. Arakan). (v) Please understand that I am just presenting my opinion. tadao 6126 From: Joe Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 0:57pm Subject: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) As far as we can tell, the Buddha himself ate meat ... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert E (and Robert K) - > > In a message dated 7/9/01 10:47:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > If you'll forgive me going back to a Ch'an example, Hui Neng lived with > > hunters in > > the woods for 12 years. He had vowed not to kill or eat any living beings, > > and he > > refused to hunt, but was put in charge of watching the traps. Whenever he > > found > > an animal caught in a trap, he would secretly let it go. But out of > > politeness to > > his hosts, who lived by hunting, he did not openly criticize them. He also > > ate > > only vegetables, but cooked them along with the meat when the hunters > > cooked their > > meals. Technically I guess his vegetables were defiled. Did he break the > > precepts or not, I wonder? > > > ================================ > I don't eat meat, though I do eat sea creatures. I wouldn't knowingly > eat vegetables prepared with meat. But, as I see it, that is because I am > *only* me, at my lowly stage. In fact, I intellectually see refusing to eat > vegetables cooked with meat as a kind of clinging to empty ritual. I see > this, yet I am stuck. If I were "more along", I would be more like Hui Neng. > As I see it, this story presents a remarkable person! > > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > 6127 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Cybele, > >Is there a 'situation' outside what our minds have created and holding on > >to? I think there are more important things that can be discussed. > > I disagree with you Sukin. > Also this can be something that your mind have created and you are holding > to. You are right, this is what I realized later in the evening. I was indeed creating a situation myself, one that I saw Herman being 'judged' by others. But as I realized later, I also saw Herman strong enough to defend himself and if he chose to say anything or remain silent who was I to come up with any clarification for him. Besides I am trying to clarify myself now aren't I, what is the motive? I guess I just reacted from my deep seated habit of siding with the minority and also from hating to see people in conflict. > Threfore we should be not entitled to discuss anything anymore according > with your view. No I do not think that. > I think that everything is subject of Dhamma and subject to Dhamma. > Threfore specially the human aspects and our interaction here is a very much > interesting and worthwhile and 'important thing' to be discussed. > Because is very much a MIRROR of our actual practice. > We can claim equanimity and relate academically to it quite a lot but is > indeed in this confrontations with REAL life that our REAL pratice emerges. This is true. > >And if misunderstandings arise again in the future, I am sure the parties > >involved would have by that time learnt something from what has just > >happened and thus deal with it in a more constructive way. > > That's why is worthwhile discussing it in order to clarify and develop right > understanding out of it. Somehow I still feel to some extent for example that, if Herman had just written and said 'sorry' without adding an explaination, it would have been enough for me. I do not think explanations are neccessarily accurate especially when it comes to hidden motives and strong feelings, discussing them might draw more on personal stories than on the actual reality. For example what I said above about my 'deep seated habit', it is just what I am telling myself, but is it accurate or is it all there is to it? Yet it might satisfy someone who reads about it and there might not be any further talk about it, and I may end up with a fixed and faulty view of myself. > And misunderstandings will arise again and the parties involved can learn > something most out of their OWN experience because in that moment of hatred > and mental confusion they are not going to refer to this interaction. > When the mind is clouded by aversion you are not in a 'constructive mood'. > What are we supposed to do, keep discussing 'nibbana' and enlightenment when > we cannot even deal with simple emotions like this? Whether discussing 'nibbana' is useful or not I do not know, but I would rather discuss something I am capable of perceiving and understand. But I also do not believe that I have to deal with emotions as such, I only need to know them when they arise, when I decide to do anything about it, it is another moment. But this is only my understanding. > I prefer getting real and base my knowledge on actual experience not in > academic approach. > Dhamma is all about real life the way I see it. Personally I wish I was more academic than I am. If I could spend more time studying the Tipitaka rather than being mindless and indulging in objects of the senses, I am certain that that would condition more mindfulness of the realities that are appearing all the time. > >But perhaps I don't see clearly enough. > > Who does dear Sukin, who does? > We are trying our best but not always we succeed, that's why we keep trying, > to learn and improve I suppose. Yes and it would be very nice if we could all help one another,as much as possible, to 'live' the 'Right View'. Metta, Sukin. 6128 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hello & welcome Anders! Hi Anders, --- Anders Honoré wrote: > Hello, my name is Anders Honore. > > Perhaps this is an inappropriate time to join, as circumstances in my > current practise call for singular practise, so to speak. Nonetheless, I > would like to join and be a part of this group, once I come out of my > "solitude" (in practise only) and figured I might as well join now. I've just been catching up with all your very intersting and good-humoured posts...I'm very impressed by your consideration and sincere interest and study of the dhamma and look forward to plenty more. Anytime is very appropriate to join dsg and I'm so glad you found your way here...I think you're well out of 'solitude' now and I look forward to more discussion about current practices and also what it means to 'live alone in solitude' at this moment....! > My background: > 18 years old, have been practising Buddhism for little more than a > year-and-a-half, making progress in my own pace. Ch'an has been my primary > expedient means during that time, although Theravada has also played an > important part in my practise. That is all I can think of at the moment. If > you wanna know more, I'd just like to know where you're from and where you live...(couldn't see this at a quick look at your unusual and well-presented website...;-)) thanks again for yr contributions and joining us here, Sarah 6129 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Thankyou for the welcome & welcome David Dear David, --- David Blickenstaff wrote: > Dear All > It is I again and wish to thank everyone for such a warm welcome. I > am truly grateful for the kindness shown by everyone. This is a very > nice Buddhist site and I am pleased to be here. I will let technology > take its slow efficient course this time and hope this mail gets > through. I'm glad you got the technology figured out eventually..sometimes it gives us all tests of patience when we lose our mails, or they get sent in duplicate for a starter...! I'm also glad you're enjoying what you're reading and I find your intro just as unusual and interesting as Anders'. I have access to the Internet a few times a week so please > excuse me if my replies seem to arrive rather late and off the trend > of the discussion sometimes. Any thread stays open here...no hurry at all....(this is just one example of a late reply and I hope to do a few more!) For the few that enquired, yes I was > monastic for 35yrs, I am a Layperson now. It was by personal choice I'm sure it wasn't easy either and hope you're adapting well. Whereabouts were you in robes (if you care to reply only)? I think you say later you're living in India..may I know where? > and I still follow as much monastic precepts as I am able except for > the robes and obtaining food. It has become part of my life for so > many years. There that should satisfy those that were wondering a bit > about my background. > Thanks again for this and also for your 'heart-felt' contributions to date which I've enjoyed reading. Best wishes, Sarah 6130 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Non-killing& welcome Seah Dear Seah, Always good to read useful questions like the one below. What did you think about Nina's answer which I found very helpful? (ignore this if you alr. replied to it on list) as I'm not quite up-to-date yet. If you care to tell us anymore about your interest in dhamma and where you live, I'm sure everyone would like to hear more! Glad you joined us. Sarah p.s sorry we didn't f/w the first message you sent to the dsg moderator a/c which we didn't see 'til after you re-wrote it here..at least you got the system worked out! --- Syk wrote: > A friend put to me this question: > "In Buddhism, non-killing is extended to animals, even poultry and > insects. Is this because life is precious or is it more because it > causes suffering to the victim? If it is because it causes suffering > to both the doer and the victim, which receives more harm or > suffering? > > Thanks > > Syk > 6131 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1 Dear Robert E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to this list and have very little knowledge of it or most > members, so I am just jumping in to make a comment. > > By way of introduction, my name is Robert, I am involved in a practice > which I consider to be Buddhist, but I am also influenced by Advaita > Vedanta and other disciplines, so I cannot say I *am* a Buddhist. > Perhaps that's unnecessary in any case. You've jumped in with good questions and good comments and good food for thought...especially on the alcohol issue....yes, many different moments, different intentions...A few earlier posts on 'drinking alcohol' have been saved under 'useful posts' on the dsg homepage..you may care to look at these too. (Kom may add the link- I don't know how away from my home computer). > > I am inspired by Buddhist teachers of various lineages, but > particularly Hui-Neng, Chao-Chou and other sudden-school Ch'an and Zen > masters. But I also have a strong interest and some practice in > Vipassana, and regard all the teachings as significant. > > Now for my comment. I can understand the issue of drinking alcohol as > being relevant to following precepts, but what on earth does it have to > do with being enlightened? Do you really think that a Buddha would be > concerned as to whether a drop of alcohol touched his lips, or that > perhaps he would lose his enlightenment because of taking a drink? I'm sure he wouldn't be concerned if inadvertently this happened, but the more wisdom develops the fewer conditions there are to have any intentions to take alcohol or break other precepts..not by forcing, but naturally... I haven't drunk any alcohol for..well a very long time (and I don't remember when I last had any interest or craving for it)... a few years ago I was given a homeopathic medicine which I didn't realise was in an alcoholic solution..I drank it in one 'swig' and immediately fainted on the floor!! (and I'm just a worldling at a very beginner stage of studying the dhamma, with very little wisdom!) > > I don't see that following the letter of prohibitions and precepts is > directly related to realization at all. If you think it is, I would be > happy to hear your explanation. Greatly look f/w to more of yr comments! Not necessary to call yourself a Buddhist here either! Num mentioned something about your being in Bkk..I'm not sure if I've missed a post or if he's dreaming??? If not, where are you?? Thanks for joining us here. If you wish to know anything more about dsg or any of us, just shout..though by now, you'll have got to know quite a few people and will have found your way around. Best regards, Sarah 6132 From: Sarah Procter Abbott Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] other welcomes in a hurry-sorry! Derek, Glad to see you back on list ;-)) Pls be patient with us and shout when you don't agree with anything.. We just might get over to Bkk for a long w'end, last w'end in August (if you and Erik are there, that would help persuade us!). Will let you know. Erik, Very excited to here you're in or about to be in Bkk. I think all the oldies, at least, on dsg would be interested to read a kind of diary from you..especially when you have discussions with K.Sujin, Rob and others....any impressions, ideas or whatever...We'd both love to meet you and talk more..keep in touch with us all. Ken & Visakkha, As Rob mentioned, we're honoured to have you..hope you enjoy dsg and look forward to more timely quotes and comments Ray H, Very glad to see how closely you're following the discussion and appreciated yr comments on the nibbana-consciousnes thread. Look f/w to more. Where do you all live....(if you care to share..) Suan, Thanks so much for yr reply to me which I read with great interest...Michael jackson (currently taking a 'break') also lives in Canberra with his family. Victor, thanks for yr contributions too....Hope to hear a little more background about you too! We like to consider dsg as a 'growing family', but just ignore the probes if it seems too nosey! Best wishes to all..have to rush to meet my mother (a real treat for me!) rgds, Sarah --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Robert, thanks for your good wishes, and thank you also to several > other people on the list who e-mailed me privately with good > information. As I mentioned to one of my correspondents, I feel like > the typical Western spiritual day-tripper. But, we can do only do > what's practical. p.s....yes and this is daily life....the dhamma should fit in and help us with our other duties and responsibilities I feel and not hinder or take us away from them as laypeople. Have a great trip Derek and look f/w to hearing about your experiences as well. 6133 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance --- Alex Tran wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > > If we don't see the attachment to view - even to right view- > > then how can we ever let it go. Some people never even > relaise > > that they have attachment to view. This is not a matter of > > seeing it and trying to relinquish but learning to see it > again > > and again and again and again - at the very moments it > arises. > > By seeing its conditioned nature this is also going together > > with satipatthana. > > Dear Robert and friends, > > When reading the above statements, I was thinking about our > Lord > Buddha. He continuously advocates that we need to develop > Right > View. It seems that the Buddha and the Arahants are living > (or > swimming and breathing) in Right View all of Their lives on > this > earth. In another word, Right View adheres to Them. > > Therefore, my question is why do we need to let Right View > go then? > > Metta, > Alex ______________ Dear Alex, it is not the right view that is to be discarded but the attachment to it. To my mormon friends attachment to their ideas, to their faith is seen as beneficial and to be cultivated. This is not so in the Dhamma because attachment is a distorting factor that clouds right vision. Some people hear this, for example the famous sutta about the raft (do we carry it around after crossing the river), and decide that they will just discard all view. Thye don't realise that view can't be discarded by decision or thinking, but only by actual clear comprehension of the dhammas that arise at the 6 doors. By this way direct insight knows things as they are. Then there is right view but it arises in association with alobha (non-attachment) unlike wrong view that always comes with lobha(attachment). Some people imagine they have no view because they have such ideas as "I don't say this is right, I don't say that is right" -they don't have opinions: but this is simply another view that is attached to. The most deeply held views are those revolving around the idea of self. Those that take concepts for being something real, and realities for self or lasting. This is quite a hard topic and otehrs may be able to put it better. There is an article by Bhikkhu bodhi that is worth reading on this: http://www.abhidhamma.org/essay25.html robert . 6134 From: Howard Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Hi - In a message dated 7/11/01 2:27:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Joe writes: > As far as we can tell, the Buddha himself ate meat ... > > ================================ Mmm, hmmm. Whatever was put into the bowl was dana that was gratefully accepted. I don't desist from meat-eating because of an edict from the Buddha. It's a personal choice. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 6135 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:09pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Kom: > The essence of (Rinzai) Zen and that of the Theravada Buddhism are exactly > the same: i.e., understading (not with "self" but with sati) of > this moment (e.g., seeing and a visual object) as it is. Well, I won't claim to be an authority on Zen either, although I know more about than Theravada. As far as Rinzai Zen is concerned (it's Japanese. I am more well-versed in the Chinese aspect of Zen: Ch'an), the most common method there is koans, rather than actual Sati. Overall Sati is more often used in Soto Zen, which grew out of the Chinese Caodong (Silent Illumination) school, which emphasises not- dwelling awareness, meaning awareness without object. > In my case, before studying the Theravada Buddhism, I had read many > Zen books, especially, those written by Suzuki Daisetsu. It was only > after learning the heart of the Theravade Buddhism (from late Allen, > Khun Sujin, etc.), I could see that Buddhas' teaching is all about > understanding "this moment" as it is (i.e., no person, no table, > no sushi but the moment of seeing, that of touching, or > that of smelling, being tangled(?) with each of their > corresponding objects. > tadao Personally, I've never been much fond of D.T. Suzuki. He complicates matters much more than is needed (not that I am necessarily for or against a simplistic approach). Ever read the Platform Sutra of Hui- neng? 6136 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance --- <> wrote: > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > Dear Robert and friends, > > When reading the above statements, I was thinking about our Lord > Buddha. He continuously advocates that we need to develop Right > View. It seems that the Buddha and the Arahants are living (or > swimming and breathing) in Right View all of Their lives on this > earth. In another word, Right View adheres to Them. > > Therefore, my question is why do we need to let Right View go then? Because their Right View is not bound by images/appearances. Free yourself from images, and you have true Right View. 6137 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:13pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Kom: > I think that there are (a few) Zen sects whose founders had no > proper understaning of the Dhamma. Soto Zen's founder is an example. What, Dogen? What makes you think that? 6138 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:19pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > I am surprised that a person so impressed with clarity in the essence of > teachings can declare such a thing like 'the founder of Soto Zen did not > have proper undestanding of Dhamma'. > Could you elaborate such affermation? I think it is a bit unfair to evaluate Zen based on Theravadan concepts (and I do mean concepts), since they use a different approach/belief system to get to Nibbana. Personally, the more I've learned about Theravada and Mahayana, the deeper I go, the more I see how similar they really are. The only real deifference, I think is the Arhat vs. Bodhisattva debate ,and even that isn't clear. Many Zen teachers, such as Hui-neng, advocated the transcendence of all paths [meaning that one must free oneself from all views entirely). > I have practiced Soto Zen for many years myself and I always felt great > affinity between Zen and Theravada and I don't see why in Soto Zen there is > anything controversial compared with Rinzai. > And in your lavish admiration of the many merits and wholesome actions of > the late Suzuki perhaps you overlooked the fact that he was very much a > fascist while in Japan (but then you are Japanese) and have been involved in > political issues defending quite a racist attitude and this doesn't prevent > me from respecting him afterwards in his diffusion of Buddhism in America. I never liked D.T. Suzuki myself. I question his alleged enlightenment. Personally, Soto and Rinzai Zen has never really appealed to me (I'm more into the Chinese aspect), but the writings of Dogen have always struck me as deeply profound. I like him very much. > A person can do wholesome as unwholesome actions and we must be equanimous > in observing it and not purely judgemental. > Then let's don't talk about the Zen monks that trained the japanese soldiers > instigating them in a 'wholesome war' for the sake of Japan what caused the > rape of Nankin in China, one of the most appalling and cruel events in > history and this is very much documented. > Why are we so territorial in our beliefs? 6139 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:27pm Subject: Re: Hello & welcome Anders! --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Hi Anders, > I've just been catching up with all your very intersting and good- humoured > posts...I'm very impressed by your consideration and sincere interest and study > of the dhamma and look forward to plenty more. Thank you. I'll be looking forward to expanding my horizon as well. > Anytime is very appropriate to join dsg and I'm so glad you found your way > here...I think you're well out of 'solitude' now and I look forward to more > discussion about current practices and also what it means to 'live alone in > solitude' at this moment....! Actually, it was my intention to wrap up the discussion I pariticipated in here and then take a break, but something Robert Esptein (also new) said to me in a private email might make me change my mind after all. Still contemplating... > I'd just like to know where you're from and where you live... (couldn't see this > at a quick look at your unusual and well-presented website...;-)) I live in Denmark, near Elsinore (of Hamlet fame). Was born there as well. BTW, I have another website, which I would consider to be better (and much bigger). It's at: hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ Especially those here who might also have an interest in Zen might find it appealing. Thanks for the welcome :-) Regards Anders 6140 From: Jim Anderson Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Vakkali-Ray) Dear Joe, >Surely anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Pali can discern >whether the proper translation in 'unestablished consciousness' >or 'consciousness unestablished'. Pali is very precise - almost as >precise as Sanskrit or Latin - in the attributive. > >Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? appati.t.t.hitena ca bhikkhave vi~n~naa.nena Vakkali kulaputto parinibbuto ti. (S iii 124 pts) For further information: commentary: appati.t.t.hitenaa ti pa.tisandhivi~n~naa.nena appati.t.thitena. appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti attho. (SA i 184 pts) (with the re-linking or rebirth consciousness not re-established) subcommentary: appati.t.thitenaa ti patit.tha.m alabhantena. itthambhuutalakkha.ne eta.m kara.navacana.m, anuppattidhammenaa ti attho. sati hi uppaade pati.t.thita.m naama siyaa, a.t.thakathaaya.m pana yadeva tassa vi~n~naa.nassa appati.t.thaanakaara.na.m, tadeva parinibbaanakaara.nan ti vutta.m appati.t.thitakaara.naa ti. (SA.T i 218 cscd) Best wishes, Jim 6141 From: Derek Cameron Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:58pm Subject: Re: (Vakkali-Ray) --- Ray wrote: > Do you happen to know the exact Pali phrase? It's "appati.t.thitena viññaa.nena" (SN XXII.87). This isn't one of the ones translated at Access to Insight, but the Pali is online at http://www.tipitaka.org/ Samyutta Nikaya, Khandhavagga, section 22 (Khandhasa.myutta), number 87 (Vakkali). The context is that after the liberation and death of Vakkali, the monks see a cloud of black smoke moving around. The Buddha tells the monks that this is Mara, looking for Vakkali's consciouness. But, says the Buddha, Vakkali attained final Nibbana "appati.t.thitena viññaa.nena". appati.t.thitena = instrumental of a- (not) + appati.t.thita, which is the past participle of pati.t.thahati, meaning "to stand fast or firmly, to find a support in, to be established, to fix oneself, to be set up, to stay" (PED). Derek. 6142 From: Derek Cameron Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 10:11pm Subject: Re: other welcomes in a hurry-sorry! --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > We just might get over to Bkk for a long w'end, last w'end in August (if you > and Erik are there, that would help persuade us!). Will let you know. Sarah, that's the weekend I plan to be at Wat Mahathat. I'll keep my eyes open for you. Best regards, Derek. 6143 From: David Blickenstaff Date: Wed Jul 11, 2001 11:40pm Subject: Re: Thankyou for the welcome & welcome David Dear Sarah Thank you very much for your lovely post. Fortunately for me I now have the use of a computer almost anytime I require it. I am now staying in Soochana Bhawan, Park Road Lucknow 226001 (UP). I was a resident monk in the Burmese Buddhist Temple in Sigra, Varanasi. It is a small but lovely temple, which is divided by a road, so our sleeping quarters were on one side while the main temple was on the other. Its the only temple in India which has developed so. The people in Sigra are very kind but extremely poor. Time spent there was most interesting, many stories to tell, and a lot of Dhamma was learnt, but would take more than one lifetime to relate. It was certainly a pleasure for me to relate this to you, brought back a lifetime of memories while doing so. I appreciate your directness it is a very good quality to uphold. Much Metta to All David Blickenstaff (India) --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Dear David, > > --- David wrote: > Dear All > > It is I again and wish to thank everyone for such a warm welcome. I > > am truly grateful for the kindness shown by everyone. This is a very > > nice Buddhist site and I am pleased to be here. I will let technology > > take its slow efficient course this time and hope this mail gets > > through. > > I'm glad you got the technology figured out eventually..sometimes it gives us > all tests of patience when we lose our mails, or they get sent in duplicate for > a starter...! > > I'm also glad you're enjoying what you're reading and I find your intro just as > unusual and interesting as Anders'. > > I have access to the Internet a few times a week so please > > excuse me if my replies seem to arrive rather late and off the trend > > of the discussion sometimes. > > Any thread stays open here...no hurry at all....(this is just one example of a > late reply and I hope to do a few more!) > > For the few that enquired, yes I was > > monastic for 35yrs, I am a Layperson now. It was by personal choice > > I'm sure it wasn't easy either and hope you're adapting well. Whereabouts were > you in robes (if you care to reply only)? I think you say later you're living > in India..may I know where? > > > and I still follow as much monastic precepts as I am able except for > > the robes and obtaining food. It has become part of my life for so > > many years. There that should satisfy those that were wondering a bit > > about my background. > > > Thanks again for this and also for your 'heart-felt' contributions to date > which I've enjoyed reading. > > Best wishes, > Sarah > > 6144 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:21am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Thankyou for the welcome & welcome David Much mettaa back at you, too, David. I think we'll be very fortunate to have you here. mike --- David Blickenstaff wrote: > Dear Sarah > Thank you very much for your lovely post. > Fortunately for me I now > have the use of a computer almost anytime I require > it. I am now > staying in Soochana Bhawan, Park Road Lucknow 226001 > (UP). I was a > resident monk in the Burmese Buddhist Temple in > Sigra, Varanasi. It > is a small but lovely temple, which is divided by a > road, so our > sleeping quarters were on one side while the main > temple was on the > other. Its the only temple in India which has > developed so. The > people in Sigra are very kind but extremely poor. > Time spent there > was most interesting, many stories to tell, and a > lot of Dhamma was > learnt, but would take more than one lifetime to > relate. It was > certainly a pleasure for me to relate this to you, > brought back a > lifetime of memories while doing so. I appreciate > your directness it > is a very good quality to uphold. > > Much Metta to All > David Blickenstaff (India) > 6145 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Spiritual arrogance Dear Sukin >Besides I am trying to clarify myself now aren't I, what >is the motive? >I guess I just reacted from my deep seated habit of siding with the >minority >and also from hating to see people in conflict. Well we are in the very same position; indeed as you can observe from my posts on this issue I also defended Herman's right of not being judged (despite my friendship and fondness of Robert) and I felt moved to invite him to reconsider because as you I feel very unconfortable by conflictual relationships and my policy is frankness. >> > > I think that everything is subject of Dhamma and subject to Dhamma. > > Threfore specially the human aspects and our interaction here is a very >much > > interesting and worthwhile and 'important thing' to be discussed. > > Because is very much a MIRROR of our actual practice. > > We can claim equanimity and relate academically to it quite a lot but is > > indeed in this confrontations with REAL life that our REAL pratice >emerges. > >This is true. And this is beautiful and very profitable, all the rest is frame Sukin, this is the real picture in my opinion. >I do not think explanations are neccessarily accurate especially when it >comes to hidden motives and strong feelings, discussing them might draw >more on personal stories than on the actual reality. For example what I >said above about my 'deep seated habit', it is just what I am telling >myself, but is it accurate or is it all there is to it? Yet it might >satisfy someone who reads about it and there might not be any further talk >about it, and I may end up with a fixed and faulty view of myself. I agree our mind is extremely manipulative but then Sukin what is the meaning of all this Abhidhamma study if we don't apply it in observing and dealing with our mental processes? While discussing we should bear in mind that we are supposed to exercize mindfulness and respecting the guidelines of the teachings we can deepen our vision of Dhamma; otherwise would be only mumbo jumbo to show off intellectual skilfulness. Our interactions here are a true laboratory for our practice. I wrote: > > And misunderstandings will arise again and the parties involved can >learn > > something most out of their OWN experience because in that moment of >hatred > > and mental confusion they are not going to refer to this interaction. > > When the mind is clouded by aversion you are not in a 'constructive >mood'. > > What are we supposed to do, keep discussing 'nibbana' and enlightenment >when > > we cannot even deal with simple emotions like this? You replied: >Whether discussing 'nibbana' is useful or not I do not know, but I would >rather discuss something I am capable of perceiving and understand. Indeed I agree. >But I also do not believe that I have to deal with emotions as such, I only >need to know them when they arise, when I decide to do anything about it, >it is another moment. But this is only my understanding. Well let's don't slip away from the thread; what you decide about your practice and how to conduce it is your spiritual responsability and I have no right to interferre and the other way round. Everybody has their own understanding and obviously we can practice only basing on our capacity of assimilating the teachings in the present moment, otherwise we are fooling ourselves. I wrote: > > I prefer getting real and base my knowledge on actual experience not in > > academic approach. > > Dhamma is all about real life the way I see it. You replied: >Personally I wish I was more academic than I am. If I could spend more time >studying the Tipitaka rather than being mindless and indulging in objects >of the senses, I am certain that would condition more mindfulness of the >realities that are appearing all the time. Well I don't neglect or despise studying but for me Abhidhamma is in real life not in printed pages. I cannot spend my life behind a book but I can constantly practice daily awareness in the challenges of my life. My depression for example has taught me a great deal because I could keep my mind sharp observing what was going on and right understanding has arisen despite the immense grief and overwhelming emotions. > > > >But perhaps I don't see clearly enough. > > > > Who does dear Sukin, who does? > > We are trying our best but not always we succeed, that's why we keep >trying, > > to learn and improve I suppose. > >Yes and it would be very nice if we could all help one another,as much as >possible, to 'live' the 'Right View'. > >Metta, >Sukin. > Well here I am and I am always willing to share my experience in this Dhamma school of life. Metta Cybele 6146 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:49am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] other welcomes in a hurry-sorry! > Ray H, > > Very glad to see how closely you're following the discussion and appreciated yr > comments on the nibbana-consciousnes thread. Look f/w to more. > > Where do you all live....(if you care to share..) > Hi Sarah, I mostly just read, this is a wonderful group. I have leaned a great deal about applying Abhidhamma teachings,. which can be very abstract, to daily living. Sounds like a good title for a book :) To find a list where Nina Van Gorkom posts is really a wonderful find. I hope she finds a US distributor for her books soon, I just do not seem to be able to get comfortable with e-books. I live in Southern California and found Buddhism about 8 years ago in an AOL chat room. I was lucky to have made friends with someone who was very knowledgeable about Buddhism. In fact I still help with Buddhist chats on AOL, we even have a Pali Sutta Chat :) I originally read Mahayana texts and then found Thich Nhat Hanhs' Sutta translations and knew I had found a home. For the past 5 years or so I have read mostly Theravada material. It would be interesting to read about how others came to their current path :) 6147 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance Dear Alex, If I recall correctly, the Buddha somewhere defined nibbana as complete and perfected right view. Does this ring a bell with anyone? mike --- Alex Tran wrote: > When reading the above statements, I was thinking > about our Lord > Buddha. He continuously advocates that we need to > develop Right > View. It seems that the Buddha and the Arahants are > living (or > swimming and breathing) in Right View all of Their > lives on this > earth. In another word, Right View adheres to Them. > > Therefore, my question is why do we need to let > Right View go then? > > Metta, > Alex 6148 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:30am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Tadao, I was a (rather half-baked) student of Rinzai Zen for about ten years. Your understanding of Rinzai's teachings in the light of abhidhamma makes a connection between Zen and Dhammavinaya I'd never thought of and shows me Rinzai in an entirely new light. Also liked your Indian/Chinese analysis. All very interesting! Thanks very much. mike --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Cybele: > > (i) When I mention Suzuki, I only refer to his > understaing of the > the Buddhism. I am talking if he underdstands the > essense of (all) > the Buddhas' teaching or not, that is, if he > understands that His > teaching concerns understanding of this very moment > of > seeing/a visual object, etc. > > (ii) I have no intention of getting into discussing > his political affiliation/inclination. (Although, as > you do, > I HATE the right wing ideology, I have no intention > of mixing up > the issues in hand.) > > (iii) When I read the Rinzai-roku, I could see that > Rinzai > is consistantly encouraging his diciples to SEE > things as they are > (or to pay their attentions to the phonomena(n) of > "here and now"). > Rinzai's way of teaching is very different from > Gotama Buddha's. > Given, partially, the historical fact that he is/was > (east) Indian > (in whose "genes" the notion of "logic"is embedded), > the Buddha was able to explain, in a logical manner, > of what kinds of the world we are living in: that > is, > the world of "naamas" and "ruupas", none of which > can be equated to > (our notions of), e.g., "a man", "a table", or "a > piece of sushi". > Although Gotama Buddha has taught us various things > (dhammas) > which may not have been "directly" related with his > above > view of the world, the core of his teaching deals > with naamas/ruupas > (the world we are in) and sati-patthaana > (the way to verify/realize such a world). > > (iii) As I mentioned above, I see the same > objective/goal of inquiry > with Rinzai's words. Given that he is/was chinese, > he avoids > any logical/verbal way of showing his diciples the > world he has/had > realized. The same world/objective/, and highly > likely, the same > method (i.e. sati-patthaana). > > (iv) In my interpretation, I do not see the same > kind of clear > definition of the objective/goal of inquiry in > Dogen's words. > In other words, I do not think that he knew that the > essence of > the Buddhism is to realize this moment of, say, > touching as it is. > If my interpetation is correct, then, Dogen wasn't > an enlightended one (i.e. Arakan). > > (v) Please understand that I am just presenting my > opinion. > > tadao 6149 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:41am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear David, This is very interesting! I'm curious about one point: --- David Blickenstaff wrote: > This level can only > be realized by others onto the receiver and never by > the receiver > him/her self be realized (during life). I hadn't heard this before that I can recall. Is it from the Tipitaka? Nice to hear from you again. mike 6150 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders, --- Anders Honore wrote: > As far as Rinzai Zen is > concerned (it's > Japanese. I am more well-versed in the Chinese > aspect of Zen: Ch'an), > the most common method there is koans, rather than > actual Sati 'Rinzai' is the (romanized) Japanese translation of Lin Chi, a ninth-century Chinese Ch'an master, whose teaching was characterized by a very heavy emphasis on koan (kung-an) study. He was a student of Huang Po (Obaku in Japanese). Tadao's recent post makes a very interesting connection between Lin Chi and the Dhammavinaya. Best wishes, sir, mike 6151 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Hi Tadao > >Hi, Cybele: > >(i) When I mention Suzuki, I only refer to his understaing of the >the Buddhism. I am talking if he underdstands the essense of (all) >the Buddhas' teaching or not, that is, if he understands that His >teaching concerns understanding of this very moment of >seeing/a visual object, etc. > >(ii) I have no intention of getting into discussing >his political affiliation/inclination. (Although, as you do, >I HATE the right wing ideology, I have no intention of mixing up >the issues in hand.) Well Tadao, I am so sorry but Suzuki was an scholar, a 'title' that personally I don't respect very much because I have met so many scholars that had a 'profound knowledge' of Buddhism and would lose their tempers over the menu in a restorant and have never practiced meditation what let's me a bit perplexed. However paying attention to my own prejudices there is the fact that you cannot split apart the man Suzuki, from the scholar Suzuki, from the political Suzuki; you have to consider the integrality of his being. If he preachs one thing and practices another I would dare to say that I would be slightly suspicious of the authenticity of his teachings. But then you have the right to chose as you like naturally. > >(iii) When I read the Rinzai-roku, I could see that Rinzai >is consistantly encouraging his diciples to SEE things as they are >(or to pay their attentions to the phonomena(n) of "here and now"). >Rinzai's way of teaching is very different from Gotama Buddha's. >Given, partially, the historical fact that he is/was (east) Indian >(in whose "genes" the notion of "logic"is embedded), >the Buddha was able to explain, in a logical manner, >of what kinds of the world we are living in: that is, >the world of "naamas" and "ruupas", none of which can be equated to >(our notions of), e.g., "a man", "a table", or "a piece of sushi". >Although Gotama Buddha has taught us various things (dhammas) >which may not have been "directly" related with his above >view of the world, the core of his teaching deals with naamas/ruupas >(the world we are in) and sati-patthaana >(the way to verify/realize such a world). I agree with all this about nama rupa and actuality of the present moment except for the alleged fact of 'Indian genes being embedded in the notion of logic' what having lived in India for a long time I would widely disclaim. It looks quite like an ethnocentric theory considering that you are eastern evaluating another eastern culture. A bit of stereotypical mould in what I do not believe. > >(iii) As I mentioned above, I see the same objective/goal of inquiry >with Rinzai's words. Given that he is/was chinese, he avoids >any logical/verbal way of showing his diciples the world he has/had >realized. The same world/objective/, and highly likely, the same >method (i.e. sati-patthaana). I don't discuss Rinzai as I have little experience. Again I would not explain the tendence of being pragmatic and non logical as genetical prone. This is segregational and a mental entrapment for me. Has a taste of ethnical cleansing that is not palatable to me I reckon. But then I must consider my background and my own preferences, however it doesn't convince me at all. > >(iv) In my interpretation, I do not see the same kind of clear >definition of the objective/goal of inquiry in Dogen's words. >In other words, I do not think that he knew that the essence of >the Buddhism is to realize this moment of, say, touching as it is. >If my interpetation is correct, then, Dogen wasn't >an enlightended one (i.e. Arakan). How it comes that you have the skills to interpretate the level of right understanding of Dogen so to infer if he was enlightened or not? This really puzzles me Tadao. This list is a kind of Illumination Fair, we have various scholars, an Stream Entered, a Sotopana and now you with prodigious mental clarity. I think I should unsubscribe, I cannot take all this dazzling light! :-) I am definetely feeling highly inadequate - I am only a seeker nothing more. 'To study Buddhism is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to drop off our body and mind, And to drop off the bodies and minds of others. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.' DOGEN > >(v) Please understand that I am just presenting my opinion. > >tadao I suppose that nobody here is claiming to declare the absolute truth but sometimes it seems that our assertiveness is very much like that. Tadao doesn't occur to you that perhaps your presented opinion is just a subjective preference your mind is holding to? Metta Cybele 6152 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders >> >--- "cybele chiodi" >wrote: > > I am surprised that a person so impressed with clarity in the >essence of > > teachings can declare such a thing like 'the founder of Soto Zen >did not > > have proper undestanding of Dhamma'. > > Could you elaborate such affermation? You replied: >I think it is a bit unfair to evaluate Zen based on Theravadan >concepts (and I do mean concepts), since they use a different >approach/belief system to get to Nibbana. Personally, the more I've >learned about Theravada and Mahayana, the deeper I go, the more I see >how similar they really are. The only real deifference, I think is >the Arhat vs. Bodhisattva debate ,and even that isn't clear. Many Zen >teachers, such as Hui-neng, advocated the transcendence of all paths >[meaning that one must free oneself from all views entirely). Good Lord, you know I agree with you, a 'stream enterer', can I live over your reflected light, second hand illumination??!!! ;-) I wrote: > > I have practiced Soto Zen for many years myself and I always felt >great > > affinity between Zen and Theravada and I don't see why in Soto Zen >there is > > anything controversial compared with Rinzai. > > And in your lavish admiration of the many merits and wholesome >actions of > > the late Suzuki perhaps you overlooked the fact that he was very >much a > > fascist while in Japan (but then you are Japanese) and have been >involved in > > political issues defending quite a racist attitude and this doesn't >prevent > > me from respecting him afterwards in his diffusion of Buddhism in >America. You replied: >I never liked D.T. Suzuki myself. I question his alleged >enlightenment. Personally, Soto and Rinzai Zen has never really >appealed to me (I'm more into the Chinese aspect), but the writings >of Dogen have always struck me as deeply profound. I like him very >much. Ahhh I am delighted!! Now that you agree with me everything is cool. Why it's so easy get along well when somebody says what you like to hear; life would be so simple if everybody agrees with me indeed. ;-) Apart jokes, I admire Dogen as well. > > > A person can do wholesome as unwholesome actions and we must be >equanimous > > in observing it and not purely judgemental. > > Then let's don't talk about the Zen monks that trained the japanese >soldiers > > instigating them in a 'wholesome war' for the sake of Japan what >caused the > > rape of Nankin in China, one of the most appalling and cruel events >in > > history and this is very much documented. > > Why are we so territorial in our beliefs? > > Goodness gracious me, a stream enter that bows to me, I am in ecstasy, pure religious frenzy. Can you accept me as your disciple? Anders I know that you are goodhumoured and don't take even yourself seriously, guess about me. Thank you for the sharing. Love Cybele 6153 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:06am Subject: Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear David, --- David wrote: > Another morsel of pure Dhamma has surfaced again in a different form. > Dear group once again it pays to observe and analyze. Robert's true > self has been revealed, unknowingly by him. Amazing, what was > revealed in the process. If these are not the qualities of Sotapanna > than this level does not, and has never, existed. This level can only > be realized by others onto the receiver and never by the receiver > him/her self be realized (during life). What is an exclusive quality of a sotapanna that can be observed but the person himself/herself does not know? Curious mind wants to know... Is it perhaps his illumination (as rumored somewhere else???) ;-) kom 6154 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 6:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses given by the buddha, about 'self-streamentry-check'. where one can look into (as a mirror) and self-declare that he/she is a sotapanna.(dhammadasa). Rgds 6155 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 7:46am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Thanks, Gayan--I'd read these before (years ago) but had forgotten all about them. That's Vol. 5 (SN.55) of the PTS Samyutta Nikaya, if anyone's interested. mike --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses > given by the buddha, about > 'self-streamentry-check'. > where one can look into (as a mirror) and > self-declare that he/she is a > sotapanna.(dhammadasa). > > Rgds > > > 6156 From: Alex Tran Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 8:26am Subject: Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Alex, > > If I recall correctly, the Buddha somewhere defined > nibbana as complete and perfected right view. Does > this ring a bell with anyone? > > mike Dear Mike, Robert, and Anders, Ah, there's nothing wrong with Right View. It's my not-yet enlightened citta that needs to be straightened up by panna. It's the attachment to concept, to self! Thank you. Metta, Alex 6157 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:24am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Dear Rob Ha!!!How naughty of you! Not only mysoginist, selfish, and merciless but also overzealous. You are beyond redemption... ;-) Rob now that you have reached the 1st stage of realization how are we supposed to address you from now on? And how many times should I bow to you? Please give instructions, I am only a poor unwise woman searching for guidance. Joking with a sotapanna will condenm me to reborn in a lower realm? Love and bows Cybele > >Dear herman, >I have to confess i've been hovering near my computer for the >last day hoping to hear from you. I'm so touched by your words. >I think I have a bit of a missionary element in me (maybe it >rubs off from my mormon friends). Consequently as soon as I see >what I think is a departure from MY view of the Tipitaka I get >overzealous, and want to reform everyone to my way. I forget how >useful it is to be exposed to different perspectives. >I'll try to be a little more understanding - and please pull me >up when I inevitably stray into dogmatic and imperious speech.( >can't promise it will stop me but every reminder helps a little) >Great to have you back. >robert > >--- Herman wrote: > > 6158 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear tadao, I also much appreciated your analysis. Thanks robert --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Tadao, > > I was a (rather half-baked) student of Rinzai Zen for > about ten years. Your understanding of Rinzai's > teachings in the light of abhidhamma makes a > connection between Zen and Dhammavinaya I'd never > thought of and shows me Rinzai in an entirely new > light. Also liked your Indian/Chinese analysis. All > very interesting! > > Thanks very much. > > mike 6159 From: ppp Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Hi, Robert: (i) What kind of things do you teach at your University? (ii) Do you teach Pali? Do you have any Japanese students who are advanced in Pali? (ii) I am asking these questions because I've found my (old) Japanese translation of Visuddhimagga (from Ch. one to Ch. four). I did the translation when I was staying at the Island hermitage at Dudanduwa(?) in Sri Lanka It's very literal word-by-word, to be more precise, morpheme-by-morpheme translation. As far as I recall, I used a Pali-text in Thai script and a Pali-text in Roman alphabet (i.e., using the very copy Venerable Bhikkhu Nyanamoli(?) used for his English translation). I must also have cosulted both Thai and English transltions. If you have any students who can make use of my translation, I would like to talk with them. tadao 6160 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Tadao, I teach English plus one seminar class on world religion (for which Buddhism in daily life by Nina is the text for the large Buddhist component). My students know only a little pali but are amazingly keen to learn more! 5 of them are doing the japnese translation of buddhism in daily life - now on chapter 6. Their biggest problem with the translation is the sutta sections . I have ordered the japanese translations of the tipitaka and commenatries (70 volumes) but even once it arrives they are going to have a hard time finding the right suttas - i don't know kanji so can't help. perhaps we can fax the lists of the 70 volumes to you and you could tell us the english equivalent. Very good to hear of your Visudd. translation Anyway lets talk more off list. my email is 194233250056127134213056109067021253018143238218134229182055166127046249149006227237009204035181 best wishes robert --- ppp wrote: > Hi, Robert: > (i) What kind of things do you teach at your University? > (ii) Do you teach Pali? Do you have any Japanese students > who are advanced in Pali? > (ii) I am asking these questions because I've found my (old) > Japanese translation of Visuddhimagga (from Ch. one to > Ch. four). I did the translation when I was staying at the > Island hermitage at Dudanduwa(?) in Sri Lanka > It's very literal word-by-word, to be more precise, > morpheme-by-morpheme translation. > As far as I recall, I used a Pali-text in Thai script and > a Pali-text in Roman alphabet (i.e., using the very copy > Venerable Bhikkhu Nyanamoli(?) used for his English > translation). > I must also have cosulted both Thai and English transltions. > If you have any students who can make use of my translation, > I would like to talk with them. > tadao 6161 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Spiritual arrogance --- cybele chiodi wrote: > This disarmony between you and Herman is a great opportunity of self > examination without blame or guilt for you, for him, for all of us. > What is most valuable in our sharings is exactly this application of Dhamma > in real, burning, paining life. > There is no text that can teach us how to deal with reality, only genuine > experience can grant knowledge - there is no map in this wild territory -we > have to accept the risk and go ahead exploring. This is very good. Thanks for pointing this out. Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6162 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 0:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Spiritual arrogance, Hello, The war of the suttas --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert, Robert E, and Erik, > > --- Num wrote: > PS. Welcome to Thailand for Robert, Robert E and Erik. Hope you guys > have a > > nice stay and enjoy the peak of rainy season there. > > If you had been (or maybe you have?) there 15 years ago, you would > have been able to see boats going around in the commerical district > right on the street too! > > kom That would be nice. I have never been to Thailand. So far my Eastern travels have been to parts of India and Nepal on two occasions. I hope I'll get to Southeast Asia one of these days. Thailand is supposed to be quite wonderful. Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6163 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Cybele, Only now I am begining to understand you, and I like what I see. Nice knowing you. Sukin. cybele chiodi wrote: > Dear Anders > > >> > >--- "cybele chiodi" > >wrote: > > > I am surprised that a person so impressed with clarity in the > >essence of > > > teachings can declare such a thing like 'the founder of Soto Zen > >did not > > > have proper undestanding of Dhamma'. > > > Could you elaborate such affermation? > > You replied: > >I think it is a bit unfair to evaluate Zen based on Theravadan > >concepts (and I do mean concepts), since they use a different > >approach/belief system to get to Nibbana. Personally, the more I've > >learned about Theravada and Mahayana, the deeper I go, the more I see > >how similar they really are. The only real deifference, I think is > >the Arhat vs. Bodhisattva debate ,and even that isn't clear. Many Zen > >teachers, such as Hui-neng, advocated the transcendence of all paths > >[meaning that one must free oneself from all views entirely). > > Good Lord, you know I agree with you, a 'stream enterer', can I live over > your reflected light, second hand illumination??!!! ;-) > > I wrote: > > > I have practiced Soto Zen for many years myself and I always felt > >great > > > affinity between Zen and Theravada and I don't see why in Soto Zen > >there is > > > anything controversial compared with Rinzai. > > > And in your lavish admiration of the many merits and wholesome > >actions of > > > the late Suzuki perhaps you overlooked the fact that he was very > >much a > > > fascist while in Japan (but then you are Japanese) and have been > >involved in > > > political issues defending quite a racist attitude and this doesn't > >prevent > > > me from respecting him afterwards in his diffusion of Buddhism in > >America. > > You replied: > >I never liked D.T. Suzuki myself. I question his alleged > >enlightenment. Personally, Soto and Rinzai Zen has never really > >appealed to me (I'm more into the Chinese aspect), but the writings > >of Dogen have always struck me as deeply profound. I like him very > >much. > > Ahhh I am delighted!! Now that you agree with me everything is cool. > Why it's so easy get along well when somebody says what you like to hear; > life would be so simple if everybody agrees with me indeed. ;-) > Apart jokes, I admire Dogen as well. > > > > > > A person can do wholesome as unwholesome actions and we must be > >equanimous > > > in observing it and not purely judgemental. > > > Then let's don't talk about the Zen monks that trained the japanese > >soldiers > > > instigating them in a 'wholesome war' for the sake of Japan what > >caused the > > > rape of Nankin in China, one of the most appalling and cruel events > >in > > > history and this is very much documented. > > > Why are we so territorial in our beliefs? > > > > > > Goodness gracious me, a stream enter that bows to me, I am in ecstasy, pure > religious frenzy. > Can you accept me as your disciple? > Anders I know that you are goodhumoured and don't take even yourself > seriously, guess about me. > Thank you for the sharing. > > Love > > Cybele 6164 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 1:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Dear Robert, Thanks very much for your response. I have to say that this seems like a very nice, clear, dedicated group. I'm happy to have run into you all. I know much much less than you regarding the suttas and the proscribed path. My background is very eclectic, although lengthy and I tend to do things unofficially rather than officially. This has its limitations in terms of being part of a tradition or having a strong body of knowledge to fall back on. In other ways, however, my spiritual experiences have been very strong and clear at times. I welcome the chance to come and visit you here and learn so much with each message that I read. I am probably closest to Zen in my Buddhist experience, but also have a brief but very powerful [for me anyway] experience with being trained in Vipassana by a very unusual teacher. My knowledge is probably very basic in this regard, but when I have had the discipline to sit the basic knowledge of Vipassana has been a very clear guide for me. My readings have often been in Mahayana texts such as the Lankavatara Sutra and writings of Hui Neng, Chao Chou and zen Master Ikkyu, but I am also a great fan of Thich Nath Hanh, whose Zen is really firmly rooted in Theravada texts and traditions. Anyway, I believe that the Theravada tradition is the firm foundation on which all Buddhism rests. Every bit of knowledge I get makes me a little stronger in my pursuit, so thanks for having me as a guest. Robert, thanks for your response to my last message. There are some very good things there, and I will comment below. --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Here in Japan a good friend of mine was one of the bodyguards of > Chogyam trungpa and lived at Naropa for 5years. He has utter > confidence in the enlightenment of Trungpa who was, according to > my friend, pretty much an alcoholic (to outward appearances). My > upbringing was in the Theravada tradition which has no such > examples. I was friends with some American practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism in Boston for a while, and got to briefly meet Trungpa which was quite an unusual and exciting experience. We only spoke for a moment but his refined energy was quite palpable. I find it possible to believe that he drank and was yet enlightened, although this seems contradictory. I am impressed that you are willing to consider this possibility, which seems pretty openminded to me. I am wondering what you think the effect of alcohol would be on an enlightened being? Do you think that person would still experience the effects of alcohol clouding awareness or reducing mindfulness? If the cloudiness of the mind itself has been removed, can it be re-installed? I am just wondering whether those of you who know about these things believe that there is a physical causality that affects the experience of an enlightened person, or whether they have gone beyond that and can't have their awareness affected by the conditions of the body. If they are subject to be affected by the conditions of the body, it is hard for me to say that they are beyond dependent arising and karma, for they would appear to still be affected by causal conditions, even in their inmost consciousness. If they are not affected inwardly, but some external faculties of the sense objects were clouded by the alcohol, this would not impinge on their enlightenment in any way, since they would already be functioning independently of the input of the senses, having withdrawn from such relations. If an arahant was captured by an enemy and forced to drink large quantities of alcohol against his will, what do you think would be the affect on his faculties and his inward awareness? The reason I ask all this is because I am trying to get a sense of the boundaries of what 'freedom from all conditions' the enlightened being would really have while still on this earth. > > Another point is the relationship of desire to action. I may > > have a glass of wine > > just to be sociable, not because I have a strong desire for > > it. In fact, my wife > > used to dislike wine, but she would occasionally take a sip > > just to join in with > > friends. I know that an arahant would probably not be worried > > about such > > gestures, but my point is just to say that one can have a bit > > of wine without > > desire or addiction. > _________ > yes there are certainly differences in intention and thus > result. The texts say (I might dig out a reference later) that > drinking a lot is very, very bad but that drinking a little is > still bad. I think the wise see the danger - that a little can > lead to more; and even a little clouds consciouness to a degree. Yes, for someone who is not awakened, the clouding of consciousness is a crucial issue, so I can understand that one would not want to interfere with their own progress by indulging in wine, anger, a frivolous amount of sex, or sexual relations that were not in harmony, or an unhealthy lack of sleep, or too much sleep, or the wrong sorts of disturbing foods, etc. Any of these indulgences would cloud consciousness and distract from progress on the path, which is already hard enough. > The path of Dhamma is seeing into realities as they are, for > which the factors of wisdom and sati (mindfulness ) must be > developed- not weakened. Understood. > This is not meant as a moralistic order. There was sarakani the > sakkyan who left the order of monks, took to drink, became an > alcoholic, and died with alcohol still on his breath; but who at > the very moment he died became a sotapanna. He had confidence in > the Dhamma and still went to the temple to listen to Dhamma and > developed wisdom in spite of his addiction. Thanks for that example. > You probably know the saying "first the man takes the drink, > then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man" > > > > If you'll forgive me going back to a Ch'an example, Hui Neng > > lived with hunters in > > the woods for 12 years. He had vowed not to kill or eat any > > living beings, and he > > refused to hunt, but was put in charge of watching the traps. > > Whenever he found > > an animal caught in a trap, he would secretly let it go. But > > out of politeness to > > his hosts, who lived by hunting, he did not openly criticize > > them. He also ate > > only vegetables, but cooked them along with the meat when the > > hunters cooked their > > meals. Technically I guess his vegetables were defiled. Did > > he break the > > precepts or not, I wonder? > ___________ > > In this case it depends on intention. It certainly sounds like > he had no intention to kill and so lived blamelessly. > There is an example in the theravada of a woman who was a > sotapanna(enlightened). She fell in love with a hunter and > married him. She used to make his arrows for him out of her > love. > The Buddha was asked how this devoted follower could do such a > thing. The buddha said that she had no intention to kill or to > assist the killing but was only thinking of her husband (who she > deeply loved). It seems almost impossible that someone could > demarcate intention so much (don't try this at home) but this > was a very unusual case. later her husband gained confidence and > became a sotapanna and gave up hunting. > robert I hope this is not an idle question, but is intention everything? If she helps to make the arrows that kill the animals, and they are indeed killed, is her hand not in the killing, and does this not affect her karma in some way? It seems that the Buddha is saying that only the intention matters. If I ignorantly kill someone because I am enjoying a song on my car radio and don't pay attention, I am responsible for being irresponsible. If the woman is so in love that she forgets the animals that will be killed, how come she has no connection to the suffering that is caused? On the other hand, there may be a connection between her love and non-judgmental attitude and her husband giving up hunting of his own accord. In that case, she has actually saved more animals in the long run than she has hurt. Hope this isn't too silly. Robert E. ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 6165 From: Purnomo . Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 3:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Fw: Purification of Mind Dera friend, Thank for your explain. with metta, purnomo >From: "Kom Tukovinit" >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Fw: Purification of Mind >Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 18:23:23 -0000 > >Dear Purnomo, > >Thank you for further explaining the analogy of babies having little to >negative feelings. I would like to discuss this a little further. > >I think we should be aspired by people who have no defilement >tendencies, such as the Buddha and his disciples. Why? Then, we are >always attuned to the ultimate goal in the teachings of the Buddha: the >permanent eradication of all kilesa at all levels. Without this goal in >mind, >we can be attached to many things for examples: > >1) Nice analogy that is not completely matching the meaning of the >teachings - e.g., why are we aspired to be like those who still have all >the >conditions to be reborn in both unhappy and happy planes of existence? > >2) Nice analogy that is matching the meaning of the teachings - e.g., have >you met people who try so hard to understand the analogy even though >they might have understood the meaning (well, you have met me!). >Analogy, taken the wrong way, can be objects of craving, conceits, and >wrong views. > >3) The intellectual understandings of the dhamma - again, this is not the >goal, and can be object of craving, conceits, and wrong views. > >4) The rising of sati cognizing the realities as they truly are - again, >this is >not the goal and can be object of craving, conceits, and wrong views. > >5) The temporary cessation of defilements that may have something to do >with the sati arising - again, this is not the goal and can be object of >craving, conceits, and wrong views. > >6) The calmness and the equanimity that may have something to do with >the sati arising - again, this is not the goal and can be object of >craving, >conceits, and wrong views. > >7) The sharpness of insights - again, this is not the goal and can be >object >of craving, conceits, and wrong views. > >8) Other nimitas and signs - again, this is not the goal and can be object >of craving, conceits, and wrong views. > >There is one ultimate goal, and there is only one path getting there. I >believe it is beneficial to keep this in mind, and to understand what the >path is. > >kom > >ps: Outward appearance of a person sometimes doesn't reflect what there >true state of mind is. Have you ever met Thai people? They smile when >they are happy, when they are sad, when they are mad at you, when the >want something, when they don't know what you are talking about. Don't >be fooled by a Thai person, a baby, or even a brahma god. This sutta >(The Simile of the Saw) may apply: > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html > > > 6166 From: Purnomo . Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear freinds, I noticed that we discuss about zen and Theravada. May I take your time ? I think that Zen and Theravada is different. The great is Theravada is used Tripitaka as "path" to Nibbana. So, if we discuss of weak or strong of religion it is no use. I just to point that The Buddha learn us Samatha and Vipassana. Are those in Zen ? I think there aren't. Vipassana is only one way to Nibbana. with metta, purnomo >From: Sukinderpal Narula >Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:18:36 +0700 > >Dear Cybele, >Only now I am begining to understand you, and I like what >I see. >Nice knowing you. > >Sukin. > 6167 From: Tori Korshak Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Dear Group Dear Herman, Welcome back! We can all learn from each other. How is your fiancee? Metta, Victoria (Tori) At 12:16 PM 7/10/01 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Group, > >Unskillful words can be lethal weapons, and I'm afraid I've fired off >some very heavy artillery in the last few days. I feel extremely >stupid at this point of time, I sincerely hope that any scars my >words have left out there in cyber space will heal quickly. > >I have this tendency to jump to the defense of people that I feel are >under attack. I remember dear Amara had to put up with my knight in >shining armour routine on occasion, and now Anders. > >I apologise unreservedly to the group as a whole and especially to >Robert for the comments I have made in the last few days. > >I will lie low for a while, perhaps I will discover the secret joys >of lurking :-) > >Thank you all for your encouragement > > >Herman > > > 6168 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > Thanks very much for your response. I have to say that this > seems like a very > nice, clear, dedicated group. I'm happy to have run into you > all. _______ Dear Robert E. And we are certainly glad you have. I like your polite and apposite comments and questions. ----- > > Anyway, I believe that the Theravada tradition is the firm > foundation on which all > Buddhism rests. Every bit of knowledge I get makes me a > little stronger in my > pursuit, so thanks for having me as a guest. -= i agree and hope you'll be here for a long stay. > --- Robert Kirkpatrick > wrote: > > > Here in Japan a good friend of mine was one of the > bodyguards of > > Chogyam trungpa and lived at Naropa for 5years. He has utter > > confidence in the enlightenment of Trungpa who was, > according to > > my friend, pretty much an alcoholic (to outward > appearances). My > > upbringing was in the Theravada tradition which has no such > > examples. > > I was friends with some American practitioners of Tibetan > Buddhism in Boston for a > while, and got to briefly meet Trungpa which was quite an > unusual and exciting > experience. We only spoke for a moment but his refined energy > was quite palpable. > I find it possible to believe that he drank and was yet > enlightened, although > this seems contradictory. I am impressed that you are willing > to consider this > possibility, which seems pretty openminded to me. > > I am wondering what you think the effect of alcohol would be > on an enlightened > being? Do you think that person would still experience the > effects of alcohol > clouding awareness or reducing mindfulness? If the cloudiness > of the mind itself > has been removed, can it be re-installed? I am just wondering > whether those of > you who know about these things believe that there is a > physical causality that > affects the experience of an enlightened person, or whether > they have gone beyond > that and can't have their awareness affected by the conditions > of the body. > > If they are subject to be affected by the conditions of the > body, it is hard for > me to say that they are beyond dependent arising and karma, > for they would appear > to still be affected by causal conditions, even in their > inmost consciousness. If > they are not affected inwardly, but some external faculties of > the sense objects > were clouded by the alcohol, this would not impinge on their > enlightenment in any > way, since they would already be functioning independently of > the input of the > senses, having withdrawn from such relations. If an arahant > was captured by an > enemy and forced to drink large quantities of alcohol against > his will, what do > you think would be the affect on his faculties and his inward > awareness? _________ These are good questions and ones that I can only speculate on. Erik has thought a good deal about these matters and might have something to say (but he might be on his way to Bangkok). An arahant can never have any akusala such as dosa (aversion) or lobha(craving) or delusion about the nature of existence. If alcohol was forced down him I think it would be like a poison (as it is to us). It would not cause any lobha or delusion or aversion but would be a condition for certain bodily feelings to arise. He might get sick, feel dizzy or get blurry vision or something based on this. _________ > > The reason I ask all this is because I am trying to get a > sense of the boundaries > of what 'freedom from all conditions' the enlightened being > would really have > while still on this earth. > > > > Another point is the relationship of desire to action. I > may > > > have a glass of wine > > > just to be sociable, not because I have a strong desire > for > > > it. In fact, my wife > > > used to dislike wine, but she would occasionally take a > sip > > > just to join in with > > > friends. I know that an arahant would probably not be > worried > > > about such > > > gestures, but my point is just to say that one can have a > bit > > > of wine without > > > desire or addiction. > > _________ > > yes there are certainly differences in intention and thus > > result. The texts say (I might dig out a reference later) > that > > drinking a lot is very, very bad but that drinking a little > is > > still bad. I think the wise see the danger - that a little > can > > lead to more; and even a little clouds consciouness to a > degree. > > Yes, for someone who is not awakened, the clouding of > consciousness is a crucial > issue, so I can understand that one would not want to > interfere with their own > progress by indulging in wine, anger, a frivolous amount of > sex, or sexual > relations that were not in harmony, or an unhealthy lack of > sleep, or too much > sleep, or the wrong sorts of disturbing foods, etc. Any of > these indulgences > would cloud consciousness and distract from progress on the > path, which is already > hard enough. _________ One point though - it might even be better for someone not to try to force themselves to abstain (on occasions). At least that way they can see they have unwholesome desire and can understand that they have a way to go on the spiritual path. Could be a good antidote for spiritual overestimation. _____ > > > There is an example in the theravada of a woman who was a > > sotapanna(enlightened). She fell in love with a hunter and > > married him. She used to make his arrows for him out of her > > love. > > The Buddha was asked how this devoted follower could do such > a > > thing. The buddha said that she had no intention to kill or > to > > assist the killing but was only thinking of her husband (who > she > > deeply loved). It seems almost impossible that someone could > > demarcate intention so much (don't try this at home) but > this > > was a very unusual case. later her husband gained confidence > and > > became a sotapanna and gave up hunting. > > robert > > I hope this is not an idle question, but is intention > everything? If she helps to > make the arrows that kill the animals, and they are indeed > killed, is her hand not > in the killing, and does this not affect her karma in some > way? ______ It seems that the > Buddha is saying that only the intention matters. If I > ignorantly kill someone > because I am enjoying a song on my car radio and don't pay > attention, I am > responsible for being irresponsible. _________ Yes, there is some irresonsibility here, there is lack of mindfulness. There is akusala citta (unwholesome mindstate). However, it is not considered to be killing in the buddhist sense because there is no intention to kill. I think even a sotapanna who liked music could have such an accident. If the woman is so in > love that she forgets > the animals that will be killed, how come she has no > connection to the suffering > that is caused? > > On the other hand, there may be a connection between her love > and non-judgmental > attitude and her husband giving up hunting of his own accord. > In that case, she > has actually saved more animals in the long run than she has > hurt. > > Hope this isn't too silly. ________ Not at all- very good points. This case is a rare one where only the Buddha or the person themself could really see the subtlety of the intention. I think you've hit the mark with "connection betwen her love and non-judgemental attitude". One of the things Acharn sujin sometimes says when asked about matters such as paying taxes, part of which may go towards the army etc. is that she "is not the manager of the world". That woman was a sotapanna and could never have the intention to kill . However, she was not an anagami or arahant and still had attachment to her husband. I think there are others who could add more to this. look forward to more from you Robert robert 6169 From: Herman Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 7:34pm Subject: Re: Dear Group Thank you Victoria, You are certainly right. Vicki, my fiancee, is going well. We are getting married on the 1st September. We are proving to ourselves, that given the right conditions, Brady Bunches can work. We have five boys between us. We don't have plans for a maid, or a dog, and definitely no more children. That has to be panna :-) Thank you again Tori With Metta Herman --- Tori Korshak wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Welcome back! We can all learn from each other. How is your fiancee? > > Metta, > Victoria (Tori) > 6170 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 8:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Spiritual arrogance Dear Robert E. >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > This disarmony between you and Herman is a great opportunity of self > > examination without blame or guilt for you, for him, for all of us. > > What is most valuable in our sharings is exactly this application of > >>>Dhamma in real, burning, paining life. > > There is no text that can teach us how to deal with reality, only >genuine experience can grant knowledge - there is no map in this wild >territory - we have to accept the risk and go ahead exploring. >This is very good. Thanks for pointing this out. > >Robert E. > Thanks for appreciating my sharing. I really mean it and try to keep coherent to this awareness in daily life. Love Cybele 6171 From: Ken and Visakha Kawasaki Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:47am Subject: Theravada in NY Dear Friends, A friend wants to meditate in New York. She is interested in Thereavada/Vipassana. She tried calling The Loka Chantha Temple & America Burma Buddhist Association but the person she got on the phone spoke little English. Does this temple have any Dhamma teaching in English? Is there any organized meditation scheduled? The Loka Chantha Temple & America Burma Buddhist Association 619 Bergen Street, New York 11238 Tel: (718) 622-8019 Tradition: Theravada, Burmese Any other suggestions? Thanks for any information. With metta, Visakha 6172 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 9:59pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > > As far as Rinzai Zen is > > concerned (it's > > Japanese. I am more well-versed in the Chinese > > aspect of Zen: Ch'an), > > the most common method there is koans, rather than > > actual Sati > > 'Rinzai' is the (romanized) Japanese translation of > Lin Chi, a ninth-century Chinese Ch'an master, whose > teaching was characterized by a very heavy emphasis on > koan (kung-an) study. He was a student of Huang Po > (Obaku in Japanese). Yes. Actually, neither Linji nor Huangpo ever taught about the use of kung-ans (and later, hua-tou), if my memory serves me correctly. I believe this was introduced by Xinghua Cunjiang, who was a student of Linji (and thus carried on his line of heritage). 6173 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:05pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > I don't discuss Rinzai as I have little experience. Well, if you wanna read some of his writings, they are available at my website: hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ > Stream Entered, a Sotopana and now you with prodigious mental clarity. > I think I should unsubscribe, I cannot take all this dazzling light! :-) > I am definetely feeling highly inadequate - I am only a seeker nothing more. Actually, I find being around assholes tremedously good practise (not that I'm implying that this is the case here. But you seem to idicate that this is all a bit too much for you). Whenever I find myself agitated over such things, I try to look at what might trigger such a reaction in me, rather than the external cause. > 'To study Buddhism is to study the self. > To study the self is to forget the self. > To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. > To be enlightened by all things is to drop off our body and mind, > And to drop off the bodies and minds of others. > No trace of enlightenment remains, > and this no-trace continues > endlessly.' > > DOGEN What can I say: Absolutely brilliant! Dogen has a way of formulating things that just make you go 'bang' at times. 6174 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:14pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > Dear Anders > You replied: > >I think it is a bit unfair to evaluate Zen based on Theravadan > >concepts (and I do mean concepts), since they use a different > >approach/belief system to get to Nibbana. Personally, the more I've > >learned about Theravada and Mahayana, the deeper I go, the more I see > >how similar they really are. The only real deifference, I think is > >the Arhat vs. Bodhisattva debate ,and even that isn't clear. Many Zen > >teachers, such as Hui-neng, advocated the transcendence of all paths > >[meaning that one must free oneself from all views entirely). > > Good Lord, you know I agree with you, a 'stream enterer', can I live over > your reflected light, second hand illumination??!!! ;-) Hold on, let me get a candle so you can find your way. Damn, it's too dark in here. Can't find a damn thing... ;-) > You replied: > >I never liked D.T. Suzuki myself. I question his alleged > >enlightenment. Personally, Soto and Rinzai Zen has never really > >appealed to me (I'm more into the Chinese aspect), but the writings > >of Dogen have always struck me as deeply profound. I like him very > >much. > > > Ahhh I am delighted!! Now that you agree with me everything is cool. > Why it's so easy get along well when somebody says what you like to hear; > life would be so simple if everybody agrees with me indeed. ;-) > Apart jokes, I admire Dogen as well. Have you ever read the Platform Sutra of Hui-neng? If there ever was a teacher apart from the Buddha, whom I felt assured was completely enlightened, he would probably be it. > > > > > Goodness gracious me, a stream enter that bows to me, I am in ecstasy, pure > religious frenzy. > Can you accept me as your disciple? > Anders I know that you are goodhumoured and don't take even yourself > seriously, guess about me. > Thank you for the sharing. Haha, if I took myself seriously, why on earth would I write a web- journal describing what a flawed human being I am? As Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa once said: "One's own opinion is the weakest authority of all" 6175 From: Darren Goh Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:22pm Subject: Re: Theravada in NY Visakha, Most Theravada temples in New York only serve their particular ethnic communities. There usually offer no meditation class. The New York Insight society taught Vipassana meditation. As it's quite common that westerners "often lift Vipassana meditation out from its setting in Buddhist faith and doctrine, presenting it almost as an autonomous discipline of psychological insight and self- awareness." But it'll do if all she wants is to learn meditation. http://www.nyimc.org/ Hope this help. Sincerely, Darren --- Ken and Visakha Kawasaki wrote: > Dear Friends, > > A friend wants to meditate in New York. She is interested in > Thereavada/Vipassana. > > She tried calling The Loka Chantha Temple & America Burma Buddhist > Association but the person she got on the phone spoke little English. Does > this temple have any Dhamma teaching in English? Is there any organized > meditation scheduled? > > The Loka Chantha Temple & > America Burma Buddhist Association > 619 Bergen Street, New York 11238 > Tel: (718) 622-8019 > Tradition: Theravada, Burmese > > Any other suggestions? Thanks for any information. > > With metta, > Visakha 6176 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:27pm Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "Purnomo ." wrote: > Dear freinds, > > I noticed that we discuss about zen and Theravada. May I take your time ? > I think that Zen and Theravada is different. The great is Theravada is used > Tripitaka as "path" to Nibbana. So, if we discuss of weak or strong of > religion it is no use. > I just to point that The Buddha learn us Samatha and Vipassana. Are those in > Zen ? I think there aren't. Vipassana is only one way to Nibbana. Hmm, I think that is perhaps a bit onesided interpretation. But yes, Vippasana and Samatha are very much a part of Zen (the Tien- t'ai "manuals for stopping and seeing" are the primary guides), although there is more of an emphasis on all-round awareness. By the way, I don't think it is true that Vippasana is the only way to Nibbana. There are suttas indicating that seated meditation is not necessarily needed to complete the path. 6177 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Sukin I am so glad that we are communicating eventually. I am prone to persist in this dialogues exactly to improve our communication skills and clarify doubts and misunderstandings. This sharings are a great, meaningful opportunity of practice of right understanding for me. A bit if goodwill, a handful of humour and let's take it easy without competitions, being honest and not conceited in our exchanges. Nice knowing you too. Btw do you live in Thailand? If so for sure we are going to meet soon, around september or so. Love Cybele > >Dear Cybele, >Only now I am begining to understand you, and I like what >I see. >Nice knowing you. > >Sukin. > 6178 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:43pm Subject: Re: StreamEntrance --- <> wrote: > --- "Anders Honore" > wrote: > > In terms of the formal Dhamma, yes my knowledge is very limited > > compared to most people around here. > > > > Anders > > Dear Anders, > > I think that for an 18 year old young man, you are very mature. > I'm glad that at this life time, and at such a young age, you have > the fortune to walk on the Path. And I mean what I just wrote as a > compliment. > > Keep on walking steadily. It was not taken any other way :-) I've heard that so much by now, that I'd be a nervous wreck if I were to take any offence ;-) Anders 6179 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders > > > Stream Entered, a Sotapanna and now you with prodigious mental >clarity. > > I think I should unsubscribe, I cannot take all this dazzling >light! :-) > > I am definetely feeling highly inadequate - I am only a seeker >nothing more. > >Actually, I find being around assholes tremedously good practise (not >that I'm implying that this is the case here. But you seem to indicate >that this is all a bit too much for you). >Whenever I find myself agitated over such things, I try to look at >what might trigger such a reaction in me, rather than the external >cause. Me too actually. And Anders please a bit of sense of humour! I put a smile after my sentence on purpose to indicate that I was just kidding. I am not easily intimidated Anders by normal human beings or gurus and I am not at all agitated or reacting. I have met assholes as very wise people in my life and I've learned to cope with them without losing that much composure. You misread me totally this time but then you don't know me enough. You will realize very soon I hope. ;-) Don't be mislead by my passionate tones. I am a comedian. > > > 'To study Buddhism is to study the self. > > To study the self is to forget the self. > > To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things. > > To be enlightened by all things is to drop off our body and mind, > > And to drop off the bodies and minds of others. > > No trace of enlightenment remains, > > and this no-trace continues > > endlessly.' > > > > DOGEN >What can I say: Absolutely brilliant! Dogen has a way of formulating >things that just make you go 'bang' at times. > > Indeed bang, bang!!!! Love Cybele 6180 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Attachment to Right View - Spiritual arrogance Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Alex, > > If I recall correctly, the Buddha somewhere defined > nibbana as complete and perfected right view. Does > this ring a bell with anyone? > > mike Interesting. I've had a browse around but have not come up with anything. Most of the synonyms for or descriptions of nibbana are in terms that do not relate to conditioned realities (eg, the deathelss, cessation, void), but given your excellent recall of suttas I am sure the reference is there somewhere. Please let us know if you come across it anytime. Jon 6181 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders >--- "cybele chiodi" >wrote: Many >Zen > > >teachers, such as Hui-neng, advocated the transcendence of all >paths > > >[meaning that one must free oneself from all views entirely). > > > > Good Lord, you know I agree with you, a 'stream enterer', can I >live over > > your reflected light, second hand illumination??!!! ;-) > >Hold on, let me get a candle so you can find your way. Damn, it's too >dark in here. Can't find a damn thing... ;-) My goodness I was searching for a guru to lean on and let him find the 'salvation' on my behalf: what a disappointment. You let me down. Now I have to give a try with the sotapanna Robert, let's see if he does better. At least he is handsome, are you handsome? This is first request for being a guru! Otherwise you are not qualified, so sorry. ;-) > > > > Ahhh I am delighted!! Now that you agree with me everything is cool. > > Why it's so easy get along well when somebody says what you like to >hear; > > life would be so simple if everybody agrees with me indeed. ;-) > > Apart jokes, I admire Dogen as well. > >Have you ever read the Platform Sutra of Hui-neng? If there ever was >a teacher apart from the Buddha, whom I felt assured was completely >enlightened, he would probably be it. > > > > Bows to him indeed. I have read it and enjoyed a lot. I don't read only Tipitaka I am afraid I am not fundamentalist. > > > > Goodness gracious me, a stream enter that bows to me, I am in >ecstasy, pure > > religious frenzy. > > Can you accept me as your disciple? > > Anders I know that you are goodhumoured and don't take even >yourself > > seriously, guess about me. > > Thank you for the sharing. > >Haha, if I took myself seriously, why on earth would I write a web- >journal describing what a flawed human being I am? As Bhadantacariya >Buddhaghosa once said: "One's own opinion is the weakest authority of >all" > Good now that I can relate to sotapanna, I feel highly flattered! ;-) Love Cybele 6182 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders > >Hmm, I think that is perhaps a bit onesided interpretation. But yes, >Vippasana and Samatha are very much a part of Zen (the Tien- >t'ai "manuals for stopping and seeing" are the primary guides), >although there is more of an emphasis on all-round awareness. By the >way, I don't think it is true that Vippasana is the only way to >Nibbana. There are suttas indicating that seated meditation is not >necessarily needed to complete the path. > What a daring affermation; in this list most of the people doesn't meditate at all, you are in good company! This is a good subject for Robert. Enjoy! Love Cybele 6183 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] other welcomes in a hurry-sorry! Dear Friends I'd like to add my welcome to Sarah's to all who have posted their first message during our absence, and many thanks to everyone for the great reading while we were away. Jon PS Robert E, someone mentioned in a post that you were also going to be in Bangkok soon, but as I read your reply to Sarah this may not be so. Perhaps the writer was getting his Roberts mixed up! --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Derek, > > Glad to see you back on list ;-)) Pls be patient with us and shout when > you > don't agree with anything.. > > We just might get over to Bkk for a long w'end, last w'end in August (if > you > and Erik are there, that would help persuade us!). Will let you know. > > Erik, > > Very excited to here you're in or about to be in Bkk. > > I think all the oldies, at least, on dsg would be interested to read a > kind of > diary from you..especially when you have discussions with K.Sujin, Rob > and > others....any impressions, ideas or whatever...We'd both love to meet > you and > talk more..keep in touch with us all. > > Ken & Visakkha, > > As Rob mentioned, we're honoured to have you..hope you enjoy dsg and > look > forward to more timely quotes and comments > > Ray H, > > Very glad to see how closely you're following the discussion and > appreciated yr > comments on the nibbana-consciousnes thread. Look f/w to more. > > Where do you all live....(if you care to share..) > > Suan, > > Thanks so much for yr reply to me which I read with great > interest...Michael > jackson (currently taking a 'break') also lives in Canberra with his > family. > > Victor, > thanks for yr contributions too....Hope to hear a little more background > about > you too! We like to consider dsg as a 'growing family', but just ignore > the > probes if it seems too nosey! > > Best wishes to all..have to rush to meet my mother (a real treat for > me!) > > rgds, > Sarah > 6184 From: cybele chiodi Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Purnomo >So, if we discuss of weak or strong of >religion it is no use. Indeed Purnomo nobody is discussing it but about the differences and affinities on Zen and Theravada. >I just to point that The Buddha learn us Samatha and Vipassana. Are those >in >Zen ? I think there aren't. Vipassana is only one way to Nibbana. Sure they are Purnomo and before affirming hazardously things you should research much more carefully. Nyanaponika Thera, a most eminent monk and translator of the Tipitaka in many occasions for your calrification remarked that there are enormous affinities between Zen and Theravada. And in my view there is not only a way to Nibbana. And lots of people here doesn't practice formal meditation at all. Did you know it? Well folks, it seems no Nibbana for you naughty ones who doesn't practice meditation. So bad. :-( Love Cybele > >with metta, > > >purnomo > 6185 From: Victor Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:16pm Subject: Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Hi Mike, If interested, you might want to refer to Vera Sutta, Animosity http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-092.html Metta, Victor --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear David, > > This is very interesting! I'm curious about one > point: > > --- David wrote: > > > This level can only > > be realized by others onto the receiver and never by > > the receiver > > him/her self be realized (during life). > > I hadn't heard this before that I can recall. Is it > from the Tipitaka? > > Nice to hear from you again. > > mike > 6186 From: David Blickenstaff Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:24pm Subject: Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert Dear Gayan I am very sorry, but it is published translations like this and similar, that allow skeptics to Buddhism to have a field day with us. Firstly we must take what the Buddha has said in its totality and than apply these teachings. We cannot take bits and pieces from a host of translators, patch them together and take the resultant as Buddha's Dhamma." The only way to end this historical problem is to spend time reading the Tipitaka in full in its "Original Pali" and not translated versions, which are infact individual opinions, quite different insome cases from the original Author, the Buddha. This is if you wish to delve deep into Dhamma, otherwise if you are comfortable in just learning in general than the study of Tipitaka in Original Pali is not necessary. For deep Dhamma understanding you must be the translator yourself, then your translations will be weighted by the strength in your own belief. This will be affected, once again based on your inner likings to sections you prefer more than others. My readings (and that of my Buddhist brothers) of the Tipitaka (Pali Version) has never revealed anything to imply self-realization even remotely. There are many variants in translations of the original which unfortunately are dependent on the origin of the translator. This is not new and has been a point of contention for centuries. Much Metta to All David --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses given by the buddha, about > 'self-streamentry-check'. > where one can look into (as a mirror) and self-declare that he/she is a > sotapanna.(dhammadasa). > > Rgds 6187 From: Anders Honoré Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:50pm Subject: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Okay, Kom. I will let go of the subject of whether Nibbana is released consciousness or not now. Before that, however, I would just like you to answer one simple question. Please try to use your own understanding, rather than the scriptures. Besides, I don't think they'll be much help to you in this regard. The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire Samsaric circle arises from is ignorance. My question is simple: Where did ignorance arise? If you say nowhere, then you confirm the doctrine of annihilation, on account of that there was nothing before, and there will thus be nothing after the ending of ignorance and Samsara. If you say Nibbana, how is this possible since Nibbana is a cognisable object? How can the cognisable ever cognise something else? Patiently awaiting your answer... 6188 From: Anders Honoré Date: Thu Jul 12, 2001 11:49pm Subject: Stream Entry - clarification It seems that my website caused some confusion as to the whether or not, I am a stream-entrant. So I figured I'd spell it out and make my own view clear in this regard. I have made no claim, nor will I ever, make the claim that I am a stream-entrant. As I said, I confess to consuming alcoholic substances from time to time, so on that account, anyone who feels that this "disqualifies" me, are in their right mind to do so. But, nor will you see me deny that I might be a stream-entrant. As they Diamond Sutra wisely says: "Subhuti, what do you think? The stream entrant is able to think, 'I have attained the stream entrant's reward', no?" Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. And why? 'Stream entrant' is the name for entering the stream and for entering nowhere else: not entering forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tactile sensations, or ideas. This is called a 'stream entrant'." "Subhuti, what do you think? The Once-returner is able to think, 'I have attained the Once-returner's reward', no?" Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. And why? 'Once-returner' is the name for one more arrival and really is without future arrival. This is called a 'Once-returner'." "Subhuti, what do you think? The Non-returner is able to think, 'I have attained the Non-returner's reward', no?" Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. And why? 'Non-returner' is the name for no further arrival, and really has no non-arrival. This is why he is called 'Non-returner'." "Subhuti, what do you think? The Worthy (arhat) is able to think, 'I have attained the Worthy's enlightenment', no?" Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. And why? Really, there is nothing called a 'Worthy'. "World Honored One, if a Worthy were to think, 'I have attained the Worthy's enlightenment', then it would be because of attachment to a self, a person, sentient beings, and a soul. World Honored One, the Buddha has said that I have attained the samàdhi of non-dispute that among others is the best. It is the best because I am free of the desire to be a Worthy. I do not think, 'I am free of the desire to be a Worthy'. World Honored One, if I were to think, 'I have attained the Worthy's enlightenment', then the World Honored One would not have said that Subhuti is a happy woodland practitioner, because Subhuti really practices nowhere. And so he is called 'Subhuti, the happy woodland practitioner'." ------------------- So even if I were a stream-entrant, it would be erroneous to say "I am a stream-entrant," as this would still be an attachment to the image of self (I know; because I used to think I was. Big mistake! Hindered my practise a great deal). As I said, I do not care if I am stream-entrant or not, nor do I have any interest in finding out. Some may interpret this as a sign that I really am a stream-entrant. That too is an illusion! To say that someone is a stream-entrant or not, would require you to take static "snapshot" of reality an evaluate this. Already, the flux of existence has moved on, and the snapshot is no longer in accord with reality, so what is the point? Ultimately, it can never be a correct assessment. If it is really that important for anyone here to find out, then I suggest that you find someone who might be qualified to make that assessment, namely an actual stream-entrant and qualified teacher, and I will be happy to comply. For myself, such a thing has no relevancy however. Having confirmed whether I am enlightened or not, will not serve to further my own practise and progress. To those, who would like to know, I would quote the words of Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen in this regard: "If you are under delusion and cannot realize your Essence of Mind, you should seek the advice of a pious and learned friend. When your mind is enlightened, you will know the Essence of Mind [Nibbana], and then you may tread the Path the right way. Now you are under delusion, and do not know your Essence of Mind. Yet you dare to ask whether I know my Essence of Mind or not. If I do, I realize it myself, but the fact that I know it cannot help you from being under delusion. Similarly, if you know your Essence of Mind your knowing would be of no use to me. Instead of asking others, why not see it for yourself and know it for yourself?" Personally, I do not see the point of discerning such things. It has no relevancy for me; and as Hui-neng points out, it should not have any relevancy for anyone else either. Some may argue "but we should know, so that we might know whether your words are valid or not." To this, I would say, go and read the Kalama Sutta, which essentially says: "Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' -- then you should abandon them. ------------------- Basically, it tells you to go from your own direct experience of the Dhamma. If you find your own direct experience of the Dhamma inadequate to answer such a question, then what is the point of lingering on it, since it has no practical application for you that might help you further your own daily practise? I think there are many people here who might find themselves violating the principles laid forth in this sutta, but again, this is not something that they should accept from my words, or even the Kalama Sutta itself! This is something they have to discover from their own personal experience. But as I said, if it is important for some people "know" (although it is a false knowing), then I will be happy to comply provided they can find someone qualified to give an answer in this regard. Regards, Anders 6189 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drinking (was: Re: To Kom (and also Robert)1) Robert E I found your comments on drinking and kamma interesting. > I am wondering what you think the effect of alcohol would be on an > enlightened > being? Do you think that person would still experience the effects of > alcohol > clouding awareness or reducing mindfulness? If the cloudiness of the > mind itself > has been removed, can it be re-installed? I am just wondering whether > those of > you who know about these things believe that there is a physical > causality that > affects the experience of an enlightened person, or whether they have > gone beyond > that and can't have their awareness affected by the conditions of the > body. As Robert I think said, we are in the realm of speculation here. However one thing is certain, final enlightenment is not attained until the very roots of any unwholesomeness have been removed. So for the arahant there is no longer any condition for unwholesomeness of any degree, no matter what the circumstances. This distinguishes the arahant from say the mere jhana attainer whose conduct may be perfect (he has suppressed the hindrances) but who retains the potential for unwholesome conduct as latent tendencies (anusaya). > If they are subject to be affected by the conditions of the body, it is > hard for > me to say that they are beyond dependent arising and karma, for they > would appear > to still be affected by causal conditions, even in their inmost > consciousness. The arahant still receives the results of good and bad deeds performed in the past, but there are no conditions for attachment or aversion to arise on that account. > > yes there are certainly differences in intention and thus > > result. The texts say (I might dig out a reference later) that > > drinking a lot is very, very bad but that drinking a little is > > still bad. I think the wise see the danger - that a little can > > lead to more; and even a little clouds consciouness to a degree. > > Yes, for someone who is not awakened, the clouding of consciousness is a > crucial > issue, so I can understand that one would not want to interfere with > their own > progress by indulging in wine, anger, a frivolous amount of sex, or > sexual > relations that were not in harmony, or an unhealthy lack of sleep, or > too much > sleep, or the wrong sorts of disturbing foods, etc. Any of these > indulgences > would cloud consciousness and distract from progress on the path, which > is already > hard enough. The first 4 precepts (abstention from killing, stealing, lying and sexual misconduct) are all completed unwholesome actions (akusala kamma patha) that can condition rebirth in a lower plane. It is said that such rebirth makes development of wholesomeness in the future exceedingly difficult, although not of course impossible. The taking of intoxicants, while not in itself necessarily unwholesome, reduces one's already limited sense of propriety with regard to the other 4. This I think distinguishes breaches of the 5 precepts from other conduct such as you mention that might in conventional terms be regarded as not particularly conducive to the development of wholesomeness. > I hope this is not an idle question, but is intention everything? If > she helps to > make the arrows that kill the animals, and they are indeed killed, is > her hand not > in the killing, and does this not affect her karma in some way? Another good question. Intention is what gives an act its moral flavour. So in that sense, intention is indeed everything. If there is no thought of encouraging the killing, it could not be said that the person's hand is in the killing. ('Intention' here does not however mean motive.) We can know for ourselves in our daily life anytime we do something that in conventional terms might be seen as 'encouraging unwholesomeness' in others whether the citta (moment of consciousness) accompanying that action is kusala or akusala. Jon 6190 From: Anders Honore Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:09am Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > > Dear Anders > >Actually, I find being around assholes tremedously good practise (not > >that I'm implying that this is the case here. But you seem to indicate > >that this is all a bit too much for you). > >Whenever I find myself agitated over such things, I try to look at > >what might trigger such a reaction in me, rather than the external > >cause. > > Me too actually. > And Anders please a bit of sense of humour! > I put a smile after my sentence on purpose to indicate that I was just > kidding. > I am not easily intimidated Anders by normal human beings or gurus and I am > not at all agitated or reacting. > I have met assholes as very wise people in my life and I've learned to cope > with them without losing that much composure. > You misread me totally this time but then you don't know me enough. > You will realize very soon I hope. ;-) > Don't be mislead by my passionate tones. I am a comedian. I will try to watch out :-) > >What can I say: Absolutely brilliant! Dogen has a way of formulating > >things that just make you go 'bang' at times. > > > > > > Indeed bang, bang!!!! Aarrrrghhh 6191 From: Anders Honore Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:12am Subject: Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > > Dear Anders > > > > >Hmm, I think that is perhaps a bit onesided interpretation. But yes, > >Vippasana and Samatha are very much a part of Zen (the Tien- > >t'ai "manuals for stopping and seeing" are the primary guides), > >although there is more of an emphasis on all-round awareness. By the > >way, I don't think it is true that Vippasana is the only way to > >Nibbana. There are suttas indicating that seated meditation is not > >necessarily needed to complete the path. > > > > What a daring affermation; in this list most of the people doesn't meditate > at all, you are in good company! > This is a good subject for Robert. Enjoy! I don't mediate much myself to be honest. My emphasis is on awareness in daily life. 6192 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert dear david, There is a possibility that I have misunderstood what you said. could you pls elaborate on 'self-realisation'? what I pointed out was that one can check according to the guidelines given by the buddha, as to whether the qualities of a sotapanna are established in him/herself. regards ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 11:24 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Another lesson Learned - Robert > Dear Gayan > I am very sorry, but it is published translations like this and > similar, that allow skeptics to Buddhism to have a field day with us. > Firstly we must take what the Buddha has said in its totality and > than apply these teachings. We cannot take bits and pieces from a > host of translators, patch them together and take the resultant as > Buddha's Dhamma." The only way to end this historical problem is to > spend time reading the Tipitaka in full in its "Original Pali" and > not translated versions, which are infact individual opinions, quite > different insome cases from the original Author, the Buddha. This is > if you wish to delve deep into Dhamma, otherwise if you are > comfortable in just learning in general than the study of Tipitaka in > Original Pali is not necessary. For deep Dhamma understanding you > must be the translator yourself, then your translations will be > weighted by the strength in your own belief. This will be affected, > once again based on your inner likings to sections you prefer more > than others. > > My readings (and that of my Buddhist brothers) of the Tipitaka (Pali > Version) has never revealed anything to imply self-realization even > remotely. There are many variants in translations of the original > which unfortunately are dependent on the origin of the translator. > This is not new and has been a point of contention for centuries. > > Much Metta to All > David > > --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > > In sotapatti samyutta there are many discourses given by the > buddha, about > > 'self-streamentry-check'. > > where one can look into (as a mirror) and self-declare that he/she > is a > > sotapanna.(dhammadasa). > > > > Rgds > > > > > 6193 From: Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 0:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Theravada in NY Dear K & V, Namaste! Sorry for not being able to communicate more regularly. I am in Cleveland this week until Sunday! As for your inquiry, try these: http://www.nyimc.org/ New York Insight P.O. Box 1790, Murray Hill Station, New York, NY 10156 (917) 441-0915 Fax: (212) 979-2943 E-mail: 091028020185099132048199031248130253039230204179053123191150141050004 http://www.buddhanet.net/americas/usa_ny.htm http://seasiancrafts.com/spiritworld/links.htm#nycBuddhism When you search the Net, I suggest you good and kind folks use a search string like this: New York + Theravada + Meditation --- and use the "+" symbol in the string, as this will save time! Let me know if I can be of further help. Anumodana to you both! Love and Metta, Dhammapiyo Bhante P.S. Will contact you soon! -----Original Message----- From: Ken and Visakha Kawasaki To: Recipient list suppressed Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:59 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Theravada in NY >Dear Friends, > >A friend wants to meditate in New York. She is interested in >Thereavada/Vipassana. > >She tried calling The Loka Chantha Temple & America Burma Buddhist >Association but the person she got on the phone spoke little English. Does >this temple have any Dhamma teaching in English? Is there any organized >meditation scheduled? > >The Loka Chantha Temple & >America Burma Buddhist Association >619 Bergen Street, New York 11238 >Tel: (718) 622-8019 >Tradition: Theravada, Burmese > >Any other suggestions? Thanks for any information. > >With metta, >Visakha > 6194 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 1:07am Subject: the end to rebirth Dear Jim and all, I just wish to thank Jim for his excellent post on with commentary and subcommentary. This is really wonderful, quite clear and precise. Nina. 6195 From: Ken and Visakha Kawasaki Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 4:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Theravada in NY Dear Bhante, Sorry to miss you ... we'll be in Cleveland (and in nearby Brownhelm where Ken grew up) next week Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Then off to Virginia and Washington DC. Safe travels! With metta, Visakha and Ken At 12:58 PM 7/12/2001 -0400, you wrote: >Dear K & V, > >Namaste! Sorry for not being able to communicate more regularly. I am in >Cleveland this week until Sunday! > >As for your inquiry, try these: > >http://www.nyimc.org/ >New York Insight >P.O. Box 1790, >Murray Hill Station, >New York, NY 10156 >(917) 441-0915 >Fax: (212) 979-2943 >E-mail: 091028020185099132048199031248130253039230204179053123191150141050004 > >http://www.buddhanet.net/americas/usa_ny.htm > >http://seasiancrafts.com/spiritworld/links.htm#nycBuddhism > >When you search the Net, I suggest you good and kind folks use a search >string like this: New York + Theravada + Meditation --- and use the "+" >symbol in the string, as this will save time! > >Let me know if I can be of further help. > >Anumodana to you both! > >Love and Metta, > >Dhammapiyo Bhante > >P.S. Will contact you soon! >-----Original Message----- >From: Ken and Visakha Kawasaki >To: Recipient list suppressed >Date: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:59 AM >Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Theravada in NY > > 6196 From: cybele chiodi Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 1:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) Dear Anders > > >although there is more of an emphasis on all-round awareness. By >the > > >way, I don't think it is true that Vippasana is the only way to > > >Nibbana. There are suttas indicating that seated meditation is not > > >necessarily needed to complete the path. > > > > > > > What a daring affermation; in this list most of the people doesn't >meditate > > at all, you are in good company! > > This is a good subject for Robert. Enjoy! > >I don't mediate much myself to be honest. My emphasis is on awareness >in daily life. Ahhh, Ahh, Ahhh I caught you! ;-) But then you are a stream enterer... The emphasis of everybody must necessarily be on awareness in daily life Anders unless you seclude yourself in an Himalayan cave to practice formal meditation continuously and even so.... But do you think that formal meditation is not necessary do develop insight, considering that it was the 'magic formula' taught by the Buddha himself and it was through Satipathana that he reached enlightenment? Love Cybele 6197 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 2:44am Subject: Vipassana - In Nina's words I just read that interview with Nina vG, by Robert (k) today. Her definition of Vipassana certainly caught my eye: ---------------- Nina: Vipassana, insight, is actually Panna (wisdom) which has been developed to clearly understand realities as they are, as non-self. It is not some special practice, it is not sitting or breathing. If one wishes to induce calm by sitting one still wants to get something. There is subtle clinging which can pass unnoticed. The aim of Vipassana is to have less ignorance of realities, including our defilements, even subtle ones. Therefore it can and should be developed in daily life; any object can be an object for mindfulness and understanding. Robert: But can't sitting quietly be an assistance for mindfulness to arise? Nina: Even mindfulness is Anatta, non-self, it cannot be induced just by concentrating or trying to be calm or by sitting quietly. The conditions for mindfulness to arise are listening to the Buddha's teaching, discussing, considering and pondering over realities. And it develops by studying realities as they appear in our daily lives. Some people find it difficult to accept that one cannot force Sati to arise, and they wonder whether this means idleness. The Buddha taught us to develop all good qualities, such as generosity and metta, along with right understanding. It is understanding, actually, that should be emphasised. ------------------ That is almost exactly how my own practise developed. I never had much luck trying to just be aware of my mental formations, but rather I investigated those mental formations, and gradually learned more about what they are. It sort of just developed naturally for me (bummer if it didn't. I never had much luck trying to follow written or spoken instructions). I wouldn't say that I am surprised to find someone described such an approach to practise, but I wouldn't really have expected it either. Then again, I have never really read much about Vipassana, so I wouldn't know if this is a general layout of it. Thank you for writing this, Nina! Regards, Anders Honore ************************************************* Leaves from the Buddha's Grove: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/ ************************************************* 6198 From: Anders Honoré Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 2:33am Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) ----- Original Message ----- From: cybele chiodi Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Zen & Theravada (was Hello) > >I don't mediate much myself to be honest. My emphasis is on awareness > >in daily life. > > Ahhh, Ahh, Ahhh I caught you! ;-) > But then you are a stream enterer... > The emphasis of everybody must necessarily be on awareness in daily life > Anders unless you seclude yourself in an Himalayan cave to practice formal > meditation continuously and even so.... > But do you think that formal meditation is not necessary do develop insight, > considering that it was the 'magic formula' taught by the Buddha himself and > it was through Satipathana that he reached enlightenment? I think that it depends on your own capacities for progress. Personally, I'd always recommend seated meditation for those who are prepared to make the effort, as it can certainly do no harm (unless, you are really really poor at it :-)). But then you have people like Hui-neng, who don't even need to practise. He hears one phrase from the Diamond Sutra and "Poof", he's enlightened. On the other hand, I know people who have meditated sincerely for 25 years, and are still as stuck as they were before (well, may be not entirely, but....). It depends on what your own capacities are. If you find that you are incapable of being mindful, and that you are constantly being dragged around by your defilements, then meditation might be good for you, so as to loosen up your deferments. Meditation as such, should be used as a catalyst to foster awareness throughout your daily life. If you just sit for one hour and then go on with your normal daily activities as ignorantly as always, then it doesn't matter if you even attain the Jhanas. You will be a master of meditation, but hardly a master when it comes to Panna. On the other hand, if you are more than capable of being equanimous in your daily life, and observe your mind-states and learn from it, then you might not need it. Those who aren't sick have no need for medicine. Expedient means, such as meditation, are purely used to counter defilements. If there's nothing to counter, why do it? A good friend of mine, also a Theravadan, has found seated meditation extremely beneficial, and has been able to use that as a catalyst for daily awareness and thus nurture Panna, which is amazingly strong in him. He has practised for some four years I think, yet if it was up to his own teacher, he would already be teacher today. He would like to continue his practise though (I think he said he'll start teaching soon, but I don't know when). He doesn't know much about concepts like Vippasana and Jhana, but the practical aspects of it, he probably knows better than anyone else I know. Regards Anders 6199 From: Alex Tran Date: Fri Jul 13, 2001 2:54am Subject: Re: Consciousness vs. Nibbbana - Final round! Hi Anders, May I join in the discussion? I know that I was born with ignorance and defilements. I don't need to know where they came from. Your question about the origin of our ignorance sounds very much like the story of the person shot by an arrow. His care provider needed to take the arrow out and attended the wound before trying to investigate the incident. With Metta, Alex > The Buddha taught that the first link from which the entire Samsaric circle > arises from is ignorance. My question is simple: Where did ignorance arise?