7600 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 4:35pm Subject: The Myth of the Dhamma --- Erik wrote: > Dear Rikpa > > How are you this fine day? > > You know, I agree with you that speculating is not something Buddha encouraged, but what did you learn from those fairy tales if not that a) animals are always trying to get you, b) they are very, very clever, and c) they are not afraid to swim thousands of miles to get you? Great question, Joshua! :) The beauty of any well-spoken myth (like the Buddha's Dharma) is that it can be understood at many levels, and as such can enlighten certain principles--even subtle and profound ones--such that we are able to get the very most out of that myth, to whatever degree we're presently able to understand it and make use of it. Of course, as wisdom and insight grow, understanding of what may have at first appeared quite simple may reveal new dimensions and depths of profundity we could never have imagined upon our first hearing of a given myth--which is why I believe it is very beneficial to diligently seek out and try to understand the deeper meanings of any time-tested myth. Because any good myth, like the myth the Buddha spun, may be seen and understood at so many levels, and the level at which we first understand it may be a very suiperficial (yet nonetheless helpful) one indeed, with its true meaning yet hidden deeply away from us, dependent entirely upon our present degree of penetration of insight into its deeper meaning. And if we understand what the Buddha taught about emptiness and dependent origination, we must come to see that we are all living in a totally mythological world to begin with!--a world of constructs and labels and designations arising from other labels and designations that arise in dependence on other labels and designations, none of which have any substantial reality in and of themselves apart from the awareness conditioned by kamma creating these very distinctions in the first place! For example, there is no difference between the so-called material basis of a "pen" when viewed by a human or when viewed by a dog, to use a famous example employed by Geshe Michael Roach on the teachings on karma and emptiness, and how the two relate to one another. And yet, when we humans perceive "pen," there are an entirely different set of congnitive associations that tag along with that, such that we "see," in our minds, a "pen." And we see a "pen" SOLELY based on our ability to contextualize this cylindrical object via mental constructs overlaid onto a dark-liquid-filled cylindrical object, which is used conventionally to perform the function of writing; and also ercognize that this function of "writing" is in turn dependent on a fabrication we call language, which is in turn dependent on fabrications we call form, feeling, perception, mental impressions, and consciousness, which are in turn dependent on the notion of "self," the primary delusion the Buddha's myths were designed to lead us out of. To put it more simply, even though a dog and a human may see the very same cylindrical object we label "pen" (which is in turn composed of smaller cylindrical objects and pieces of metal, ink, and so on, which are in turn composed of molecules, that are in turn composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic particles, which, as modern physics has demonstrated lack any subsatntial nature in & of themselves to begin with, being mere arisings and passings away that can even behave in seemingly contradictory ways dependent on how they're viewed--as possiblwe "waves," or as "particles," but I digress), a dog and a human see two very different things indeed! In the case of us fortunate enough to have the karma to see a "pen" (when the eye-sene makes conastct with these various shapes and colors the conditions the arising of long chain of mental fabrications and associations leading to the idea "pen" to arise) we see a writing implement. However, those beings with the unfortunate karma to have been born in the form of an animal, in this case a dog, will have the karma to see perhaps (speculating here, since it's impossible to know another's actual mind-state and that "dog" could very well be an enlightened emanation of a Buddha, after all) a "chewable object," or if it's a more playful dog, perhaps as a stick to be happily thrown in a agme of "fetch"! So Joshua, there is the exact physical basis present in this case, and yet there is a VERY different perception of that same collection of parts! And that difference between a "chewable object" and a "pen" is NONE OTHER THAN KAMMA-VIPAKA, or more precisely, the sum-total result of all our previously accumulated thoughts, words, actions! This is the immutable law (in the same way gravity is an immutable law of kamma and its results. That we are literally FORCED to see a pen, in dependence on the karma we have as humans, who have been raised in an environment where there is written language, where there is the technology to produce ink-filled writing implements, etc. This law of kamma is true for ALL sentient beings, from hell-beings all the way up to those on the brink of Buddhahood! In the case of hell-beings, their previously accumulated tendencies toward anger and hatred FORCE them to see terrifying visions, FORCE them to see themselves enchained, tortured mercilessly (and one need not even be a hell-being to experience such torments, as anyone who has ever visited Tuol Sleng "Genocide Prison" just outside Phon Phen, Cambodia, can see directly). Or through perhaps extreme stinginess one will come to see oneself in a state of constant want, grasping, neediness, always hungry, never enough material goods, desperately impoverished, etc. Or perhaps one has been extremely kind and generous and is thereby forced to see oneself living in splendorous gardens, hear celestial music, taste the most sensually delightful food, etc. etc. And yet--no matter whether we are being forced by our previous accumulations to see hellish, nightmarish agony-filled realms; or whether we are forced to see the most beautiful sights, hear the most beautiful sounds, smell the most delightful fragrances, taste the most delightful food, tough the most pleasant objects--within all these states there is still suffering: there is still birth; there is still old age; there is still sickness; there is still death. Because this is still SAMSARA. And again, all of these conitions are merely composed of all these mental constructs and labels that arise in SOLE DEPENDENCE on what we call kamma--out volitional choices, in other words. It is in dependence on these factors that the Buddha taught this very Truth of Suffering; its Origin; its Cessation; and the Path Leading to its Cessation. And it is to the degree we have penetrated the Noble Truth of Suffering, its Origin, its Cessation, and the Path leading to its cessation, that makes the diffefrence between whether we see this world of samsara as something defiled, or, of we possess the purified vision of a Buddha--to playfully see this world these non-truly- existent contructs we label "sentient beings" (for whom this non- truly-existent suffering nonetheless appears VERY real, even though as we have seen in truth even this suffering is a total fabrication arising from a set of accumulated tendencies stretching back to beginningless time) perceive as suffering of birth, old age, sickness, and death, as none other than a Buddha-paradise, Nirvana itself! May all beings see this world as a pure Buddha-field! :) :) :) 7601 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 5:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Suan (& Erik), --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > Dear Sarah > > How have you been? How is your stay in Hong Kong? Pretty hot right now and lots of hustle bustle as Num described...but we like it! Must be pretty cool and breezy these days in Canberra! I'm waiting for you to bump into Michael Jackson and give him dsg best wishes! (not Michael Jackson, the pop star;-) > Back to our discussion: > You wrote: > > "Suan, it all sounds very easy as af anyone can just decide to go for > levels of jhana without any understanding of the development of > samatha and without clearly understand how a particular object calms > the mind or the difference between kusala and akusala cittas > (wholesome and unwholesome mental states) at this moment." > > I agree with you. It is a very difficult path for us just to reach > the stage of pre-jhanic concentration (upaca samadhi). > > That is why I wrote: > > "So if you ever get to the stage of pre-jhanic concentration (upaca > samadhi), you won't stop at there." > > Please notice the adverb "ever" in the above statement. > > I was merely following the flow of Sakula's questions, so I had to > start with the assumption that a hypothetical woman sush as Sakula > had already attained pre-jhanic concentration. Once you got there, > though, you would aim at higher levels. OK, maybe I misunderstood a little here....you're talking about higher levels of samatha and jhana practice, starting with this assumption, which may well be true. > > You also wrote: > > "I know that many teachers encourage these views, but I find them > quite disturbing." > > You must forgive me, Sarah, I do not understand the above statement. > What do "these views" refer to? Are there any views in my message > that you find disturbing? If so, please help me identify them so that > I could properly address them to your satisfaction. What I meant, but perhaps clumsily didn't express well, was what I wrote in the first paragraph which you've already agreed with. In other words, I was talking about the beginning of the development of samatha. I find it disturbing to read that anyone can attain jhana with no understanding of moments of samatha even. > > But, I do stand by my following statements: > > "The most important keyword to remember to make jhana within our > reach is the phrase ".. only by keeping away from sensuous > preoccupations (kamesu vivicceva)". Once you understand this > keyword and like the idea of it, you are on your way to jhana. > Nothing can stop you. Jhana is within reach of anyone who could turn > their back on sensuous preoccupations. As simple as that (in theory, > of course)!" > > Please kindly read (kamesu vivicceva, my spelling error) as vivicceva > kamehi. > > You also asked: > > "What about as soon as we open our eyes or hear a sound? Sensuous > preoccupations immediately! No self that can stop or control clinging > at these times." > > Not necessarily so, Sarah, I am afraid. You sounded somewhat Freudian > here. But, whatever we see or hear do not necessarily bring > about the mental events with clinging or greed (lobhamula cittani) > responsible for sensuous pre-occupations. I think that for most of us, there is so very little understanding in the day of moments of clinging (lobha). All we know is when there are obvious gross degrees of it appearing. Just as when we talk about mana (conceit), there may be some understanding of mana when we find ourselves superior to others, but we begin to see more subtle shades appearing when we consider its nature more. And what we consider to be subtle shades of mana now will be seen as very gross shades when more wisdom has been accumulated! What about the mana when we get dressed in the morning or touch the keyboard before we even write anything? It darts in so quickly. In the same way with lobha, there are more and more subtle shades to be known. What about when we just look at a glass of water or has Rob once said, when we just look at a neutral coloured wall....lobha as soon as we open our eyes. > > If they were true as you adviced, you would have contradicted > yourself because you wrote the following: > > " any understanding of the development of samatha and without clearly > understand how a particular object calms the mind or the difference > between kusala and akusala cittas (wholesome and unwholesome mental > states) at this moment." > > Your statement above clearly shows that there are certain other types > of people whose preoccupatins are other than sensuous ones. There are different moments, different cittas for us all. Even when there is lobha, its characteristic can be known (immediately following its arising to be technical) by sati (awareness) whether at the level of samatha or vipassana. At that moment of awareness, the citta is calm from lobha and akusala. It's a moment of samatha, different from the moment with lobha. Kom mentioned recently how difficult it is to be aware of dana (I think) and how seldom there is any understanding when we make an offering as to which moments are kusala and which are akusala (whether with mana or lobha or whatever). If there is no knowing what is skilful and what isn't skilful, samatha cannot begin to develop. This was my point. With understanding, it can begin (for anyone), but not at the moments of lobha. Just one moment of samatha, and then another later. That's the beginning, but it has to be with right understanding. Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik wrote about. Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble qualities which he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, viriya (energy), mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of lobha), have a lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work afterwards (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, calm feeling. Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 objects. It is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome samadhi mostly. At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it isn't wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness of mental factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea that these refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In fact they have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's death-bed, they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and torpor) which we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to skilful states of mind. Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of citta) are also interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As the mana discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is mental rigidity or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with the body or flexibility! Again Nina discusses all these mental factors in great detail in 'Cetasikas. None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst practising yoga or swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's wrong to follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot of lobha whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and better and begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even now while we're considering dhamma! Suan, please excuse me for rambling onto Erik's post....(I'll just wait for the 'NO NO SARAH, you're quite WRONG;-)) Suan, please keep up your helpful contributions and let me know if we're still on different tracks! Sarah 7602 From: Erik Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 7:08pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Suan (& Erik), > Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik wrote about. > Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble qualities which > he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, viriya (energy), > mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending lovingkindness out to others). > For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of lobha), have a > lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work afterwards > (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, calm feeling. > Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 objects. It > is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome samadhi mostly. You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are moments of lobha, even if there is mana? I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business again!) > At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it isn't > wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness of mental > factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea that these > refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In fact they > have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's death-bed, > they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and torpor) which > we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional > slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to skilful > states of mind. > Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of citta) are also > interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As the mana > discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is mental rigidity > or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with the body or > flexibility! I would question this interpretation using only "cetasikas" (how do mental factorsrelate to the body, other than the mind & body being they are mutuality conditions for one another?), given it is specifically called as KAYA muduta. I am not suggesting this in the sense we can stretch into various contortions performing yoga asanas, but am referring to a sort of pliancy and suppleness to the body that can be experienced, for example, in seated meditation, when there is the development of samatha & absorption. There is a special "lightness & pliancy" which is one of the characteristics of effective samatha and jhana meditation, that carries out throughout the day even outsidfe of formal meditation practice one can experience. These factors are experienced directly by meditators once one's meditation begins to get traction. > None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst practising yoga or > swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's wrong to > follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot of lobha > whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and better and > begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even now while > we're considering dhamma! Great advice, Sarah! And appreciate your filling in some more details on these six yugalas! :) 7603 From: Herman Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 7:12pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness: Awareness Of Anger As Kusala Dear Suan, I read from your post that any mindfulness is kusala. Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala? Thank you herman --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > > Dear Herman > > How are you? > > You asked: > > "Would that mean that if I was aware of anger, that this would be a > kusala moment?" > > Yes, if you are aware of anger in the sense of sati (recollection, > mindfulness), that would be a kusala moment. > > The supporting Pali in the words of the Buddha is as follows. > > "sadosam va cittam `sadosam cittan'ti pajanati" > > "Monks, how does the monk live as an observer of the mind in the > mind? .....Monks, here, the monk knows comprehensively the mind with > anger as the mind with anger..." > > The above quotation comes from Section 114, Cittanupassana, > Mahasatipatthana Suttam, Mulapannasa, Majjimanikaya. > > You also asked: > > "Is kusala/akusla considered absolute eg is all anger akusala, is all > dana kusala?" > > Yes,each of them should be considered as such because kusala and > akusala gives different results. But, awareness of akusala can bring > about kusala as a result. Even if one's anger has transformed one > into a kind individual later for various reasons such as regret, (even > if anger served as the cause of kindness) anger at the moment of > arising is akusala. Dana at the moment of arising is kusala even if > motivation for it was based on calculated selfishness. > > > With regards, > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ 7604 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 9:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Mana dear erik, this is what u said: > I have given this isseue much careful consideration, but still, this > mana business is TOUGH! It appears in so many guises. It's a real > shape-shifter, appearing at one moment as the conceited "king" > issuing his edicts; the next as the "humble" beggar playing oh-so > lowly, the next as comparing my progess with others; the next as the > conceit of appearing so open and honest about my mana! Ack! it is Tough and it is True, I think you are approaching the area of 'Cheating' nature of the mind. (May be a year or year and a half ago )we discussed it in the group. I did a search and found the posts. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3545 Basically, the akusala dhammas cheat disguising as kusalas.Exactly as the word you used ,'shape-shifter's. The path is tough, but 'knocking-out'ly interesting. regards gayan 7605 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 21, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Herman --- Herman wrote: > Jon, > > To be totally honest, I wouldn't know kusala or akusala if I fell > over them. Especially since joining this forum. This is not a > criticism of the forum, by the way. How on earth do I know the > difference between wrong view and kusala? Where is the yardstick that > tells me that? Could there not be a deception lurking near every > citta that suggests wholesomeness? These are all very valid and useful questions. It is easy I think to fall into the trap of thinking one knows by direct experience when actually one only knows by deduction from the surrounding circumstances eg. 'I am discussing dhamma it must be kusala', or 'I am helping someone it must be dana', or 'I am studying the moment it must be awareness' etc. This is in truth just a form of thinking. Knowing by direct experience refers to panna that knows the characteristic of the reality. Each reality has its own unique characteristic (seeing, visible object, feeling, aversion etc). In addition, the realities that are kusala share the characteristic of being kusala. There is no yardstick by which we can measure these characteristics, but there is abundant description of them in the teachings. That is why I think it is important to have an understanding of things at that level. As we have seen with the recent discussion on mana, there are many aspects to it that we probably have not been aware of, even if e have heard it before, and some of we may well have been taking for kusala. So knowing more about this can help us to begin to understand directly the different realities. The good thing is, we needn't feel we have to know one kind of reality sooner than or better than another. If the characteristic that is kusala does not appear directly, that is not a problem. The more we know about akusala and recognise it when it arises, the less likely we are to take it for kusala, which is what may be happening otherwise. So keep up the healthy scepticism! > What is the basis for a monks confidence that there was a wholesome > citta? I think knowing akusala well can be a good basis, because the difference when kusala arises and appears should then be more apparent. Jon 7606 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:07am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! op 19-08-2001 20:04 schreef Kom Tukovinit op Kom Tukovinit: Nina: as I explained in "Conditions", Ch 14, jhana-factors > can be taken in >> a wide sense and then, according to the Patthana, akusala jhana- > factors are >> related to the associated aggregates by jhana-condition. See also >> Dhammasangani, in the Summary, where jhana-factors are mentioned > arising >> with kusala citta which is unaccompanied by panna and also with > akusala >> citta (§147, and § 397 a) Without the jhana-factors good or evil > deeds >> cannot be performed. > Kom: . Do you by > any chance have further explanation about why Domanassa would assist > the citta to be fixed on the object (but not anger, for example)? I > think I can understand about how the rest of the factors assist the > citta in being fixed on the object, but I still don't see how > domanasa does this. Nina: In the Guide to Conditional Relations, by U Narada, Ch II, 17 Jhana Condition) it is explained that the jhanafactors make the associated states fix themselves formly to pleasant and unpleasant objects. We should see domanassa not in isolation, but associated with the other jhanafactors. He gives examples taking his material from the commentaries, but does not mention from which texts. It is stated that someone could not shoot birds and animals without the jhanafactors. He has to aim and concentrate on the animal he will shoot. Examples and analogies he gives are interesting. He says, "For even in the case of hate which offends, it is one-pointedness of mind that firmly fixes the mind on the unpleasant object although painful feeling is experienced with that object. We need the jhanafactors to pronounce one word correctly, he says. Also when there is lobha, desire for extraordinary experiences, jhanafactors can make the associated dhammas fix firmly on a pleasant object. Someone may take for real jhana what is not, he can be misled. You dealt again with another aspect, domanassa that can be pursued, as explained in the Co. This is actually similar to desire that should not be pursued and that could be pursued, in the 'Guide", the Netti, that Robert K. brought up some time ago. A delicate question, we studied the Pali commentary but are not finished with it. . I must run along now, preparing for a week of vacation next week. Nina. > > 7607 From: Joshua Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 4:36am Subject: Book recomendatons 1. We're All Doing Time, by Bo Lozoff 2. Wisdom of the Desert, by Thomas Merton These books are especially good for dogmatists & sectarians. I know they help me out with this every time I read them. Especially 'We're all doing time'. I cry (in my silent, tough-guy way) nearly every time I read the letters section. Recently, my mother got tested for breast cancer. We won't know if she has it or not for while, I think. It hasn't bothered me much, but I plan to ordain as a monk someday, and if she does have it and there's no one to take care of her, it wouldn't be very Buddhist to ordain, would it? She's been fretting a little over the idea of me becoming a monk. There's a local Wat here, but I don't think they have any monks who speak English, and in 1991 all the monks, a nun, a novice & attendent were all shot dead by (supposedly) 2 teenagers. Anyway, it will be 2 years before I can do it, and this gives me ample time to think it over (if my mother doesn't have cancer). Personally, Abhayagiri seems like a good place. Ajahn Chah goes in my Holy Trinity (along with Anders & Schopenhauer) of folks who clarified Buddhism for me, and this is in his "lineage", I suppose. 7608 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 6:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Ripka and Sarah, I was very happy to read this exchange. It seems in such a helpful and non-dogmatic spirit. Isn't it great if we can be compassionate and find ways to help ourselves as well as others? The path, not to complain, is so hard...... If there are wholesome ways of making it work for each of us, isn't that great? One of the things the Buddha was explicit about was that hardship and asceticism in and of themselves brought us no closer to realization. Wouldn't it be a form of 'fasting' to refrain from yoga, or to be unduly unhappy about it, if it supports your ability to progress, rather than distracting from it? That would be my main criterion. I was a yoga teacher for almost 15 years. I guess I still am, but have no one to teach at the moment, and not much time to do it as it is not my main line of work at the moment. One of my teachers became deeply involved with the long meditation retreats at the Insight center at Barre, Mass., in the U.S., and sat almost constantly there for three years, doing three month retreats. He apparently reached a deep level of insight during this time. One of the questions was whether or not it was okay for him to do yoga sessions inbetween sitting. The outcome was that he explained that for him to be able to not be distracted by physical symptoms that beset him when he didn't do yoga, it was necessary, and that was ultimately accepted. He could have just 'noted' the physical problems and not done anything to 'clear out' his body, but at his advanced stage of practice it was considered counter-productive to create unnecessary problems. And he did not over-'indulge' in the yoga, just did it the way he took his noon day meal or his walking meditations. Anyway, I thought your response to Sarah, Ripka, was very open and helpful. I hope we can all be compassionate to ourselves and find skillful means to make the path *work*, not make it harder than it already is. Another note: Can you imagine the Buddha being too stiff in the hips to assume the full lotus posture? Not really, but what about the rest of us? It is not unhelpful to work towards having a body that can cooperate with the best possible physical forms for our work. Robert ================================== --- Erik wrote: > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Suan (& Erik), > > > Perhaps I'll just digress quickly to the yoga example which Erik > wrote about. > > Like Erik, my friends who do yoga are sure they have many noble > qualities which > > he mentioned while practising such as calmness, concentration, > viriya (energy), > > mental pliancy. They even talk about generosity to themselves! > > This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also > engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and > even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been > taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat > Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating > lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending > lovingkindness out to others). > > > For me, I practise daily because I enjoy it very much (lots of > lobha), have a > > lot of attachment to the body, feel more energetic in my work > afterwards > > (nothing kusala about this energy) and like the quiet, pleasant, > calm feeling. > > Again, this is not calm as in samatha which must have one of the 40 > objects. It > > is the pleasant feeling associated with lobha or unwholesome > samadhi mostly. > > You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, > Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your > own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) > > In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward > ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with > yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this > practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are > moments of lobha, even if there is mana? > > I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my > nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves > over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of > them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly > worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) > is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business > again!) > > > At this moment, if there isn't a citta of sila, dana or bhavana, it > isn't > > wholesome. For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness > of mental > > factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea > that these > > refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In > fact they > > have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's > death-bed, > > they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and > torpor) which > > we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional > > slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to > skilful > > states of mind. > > > Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of > citta) are also > > interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As > the mana > > discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is > mental rigidity > > or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with > the body or > > flexibility! > > I would question this interpretation using only "cetasikas" (how do > mental factorsrelate to the body, other than the mind & body being > they are mutuality conditions for one another?), given it is > specifically called as KAYA muduta. > > I am not suggesting this in the sense we can stretch into various > contortions performing yoga asanas, but am referring to a sort of > pliancy and suppleness to the body that can be experienced, for > example, in seated meditation, when there is the development of > samatha & absorption. There is a special "lightness & pliancy" which > is one of the characteristics of effective samatha and jhana > meditation, that carries out throughout the day even outsidfe of > formal meditation practice one can experience. These factors are > experienced directly by meditators once one's meditation begins to > get traction. > > > None of this means there cannot be wholesome cittas whilst > practising yoga or > > swimming (you didn't follow that suggestion, Erik!), or that it's > wrong to > > follow these activities because we know there is bound to be a lot > of lobha > > whatever we do. Just better, I'd say, to know 'oneself' better and > better and > > begin to see a little more than before how often lobha arises even > now while > > we're considering dhamma! > > Great advice, Sarah! And appreciate your filling in some more details > on these six yugalas! :) > > ===== 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" 7609 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: Book recomendatons --- Erik wrote: Hi Joshua, > Recently, my mother got tested for breast cancer. We won't know if she has it or not for while, I think. It hasn't bothered me much, but I plan to ordain as a monk someday, and if she does have it and there's no one to take care of her, it wouldn't be very Buddhist to ordain, would it? The Buddha taught that it very important to honor take care of our parents. My dear Dhamma-friend Amara asked me to find for her yesterday a wonderful Sutta with a passage addressing taking care of our parents (for a householder, not a monk): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn31.html#to-parents I don't know if this is any help to you with your present dillemma or not. To add a bit to this, I do recall being taught by my (Tibetan) teachers that even more precious than our lamas are our parents. That's almost shocking to hear if you understand how much one is enjoined to revere one's lamas in the Tibetan tradition. > She's been fretting a little over the idea of me becoming a monk. There's a local Wat here, but I don't think they have any monks who speak English, and in 1991 all the monks, a nun, a novice & attendent were all shot dead by (supposedly) 2 teenagers. Was this the Wat in Arizona where several Thai monks were killed a few years ago? > Anyway, it will be 2 years before I can do it, and this gives me ample time to think it over (if my mother doesn't have cancer). Personally, Abhayagiri seems like a good place. Ajahn Chah goes in my Holy Trinity (along with Anders & Schopenhauer) of folks who clarified Buddhism for me, and this is in his "lineage", I suppose. I just have HUGE happiness as regards Anders' amazing contributions here in DSG! And that has nothing to do with the fact he's a fellow Dane, either. He speaks simply some of the best Dhamma I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. Speaking of Schopenhauer, I too found him very helpful at one point in my development--in fact I recall reading him around the same time as I began my Zen practice, in The Will. While Schopenhauer may not have been a Buddhist, I nevertheless found his book "The Will" very helpful--and my favorite paraphrase of his to this day remains: "we're all on this same boat of suffering together, so why be mean to each another; why don't we all love each other instead?". In my case I found Neitzsche helpful as well ("Beyond Good and Evil"), while again, not Buddhist, served to help get me past the notions of absolute good vs. absolute evil and helped me see in a far less dogmatic fashion that I had been accustomed to seeing before, so I consider him one of my great teachers as well. And I think I mentioned Hans Christian Andersen yesterday, so no need to elaborate further on that. Om Shanti, Erik 7610 From: Joshua Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: Book recomendatons > The Buddha taught that it very important to honor take care of our > parents. My dear Dhamma-friend Amara asked me to find for her > yesterday a wonderful Sutta with a passage addressing taking care of > our parents (for a householder, not a monk): > Oh, it wasn't really a big dilemma. I wouldn't go off and be a monk if she had cancer in any case. > > I don't know if this is any help to you with your present dillemma or > not. To add a bit to this, I do recall being taught by my (Tibetan) > teachers that even more precious than our lamas are our parents. > That's almost shocking to hear if you understand how much one is > enjoined to revere one's lamas in the Tibetan tradition. > Yep. Like I said, I wouldn't do it unless she was OK. > Was this the Wat in Arizona where several Thai monks were killed a > few years ago? > Same Wat. I can't imagine anything more horrifying than harming monks & nuns. Some of the corpses were supposedly seen with their hands still clasped in prayer. It's hard to feel metta towards such killers, but Lord knows I try. > I just have HUGE happiness as regards Anders' amazing contributions > here in DSG! And that has nothing to do with the fact he's a fellow > Dane, either. He speaks simply some of the best Dhamma I've ever had > the pleasure of hearing. > Words can't express how grateful I am to him. > While Schopenhauer may not have been a Buddhist, I nevertheless found > his book "The Will" very helpful--and my favorite paraphrase of his > to this day remains: "we're all on this same boat of suffering > together, so why be mean to each another; why don't we all love each > other instead?". Amen. In Dhamma Joshua 7611 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > It would be Annihilationist to think that the Tathagata existed and > ceases to be > > with the onset of Parinibbana. But is it Nihilistic to say that the > Tathagata > > never existed as an entity in the first place, and that when the kandhas > dissolve > > having no more tendency to rebirth in his case, they merely do not arise > again? > > I am just re-reading this post again. I am pretty thrilled (I think beyond > the point of being appreciative---must be attachment in this case!) that > you understood both opposing arguments. Now, understanding both > arguments and the rationals for the arguments, you will have a chance for > yourself to find out (perhaps through reading the tipitakas and > commentaries?) what Buddha's explanation was. > > kom ah, I didn't think there was an easy way 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" 7612 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? ! --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > The idea that the consciousness and mental factors can cognize the true > > characteristics of the object, yet *not necessarily penetrate deeply* as > you put > > it, is particularly interesting. > > Yes, only when the wisdom (panna) arises at the moment of cognition (of > realities) that the consciousness and its mental factors can begin to > cognize, remember, penetrate, concentrate on, know thoroughly the true > characteristics of the dhamma. Without panna, there is no way that the > characteristics of impermanence (anicca), dukkha, and non-self (anatta) > can be truly known (beyond the concept). I can understand a cognition that is 'pannic' or a cognition that is 'apannic', but I have trouble understanding 'panna' as something that arises separately from cognition and is added onto it. Perhaps this is just semantics? ...conditioned > consciousness, with panna co-arising, can thoroughly penetrate the > characteristics of other realities, including the unconditioned one. how does panna co-arise with conditioned consciousness? this doesn't make sense to me, probably because i don't understand the mechanics. I can again understand a pannic consciousness arising in a moment, rather than a conditioned one, but the co-arising I don't quite get. > > I think you would agree that there must be some measure of > > understanding that is reserved for the experience of Nibbana itself, and > that > > cannot be accessible to any prior state, however highly developed. > > Yes, only one who have attained successive degrees of vipassana wisdom > can eventually truly know nibbana. > > > So the question is in what way and to what extent Nibbana is > apprehended prior to > > being realized. > > As *concept* only, as far as I know. .......... > Thank you for all the reminders. Thank you for your helpful answers. Robert E. 7613 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 0:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Robert E --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > I would say that what we think of as Kom or Robert E. does not exist as > an actual > > 'thing'. Instead it is an accumulated impression of various > characteristics, > > actions, etc. You exist for me as certain impressions that I have of > you. Put > > together, they form a mind-image which I call "Kom". The fact that I > experience > > you through the internet or by having coffee with you every day for 20 > years is > > probably inconsequential to the result. Except in the case of knowing > you for a > > long time, I would have an even stronger presumption that I knew who > and what > > *you* were. > > Thank you for putting a close on this thread. Your explanation is clear > and helpful, and I am appreciative of your explanation that regardless of > how we meet, our impressions of each other are just concepts which are > only possible because of sense impressions. thanks, kom. It's a pleasure communicating with you. Maybe in a moment of meeting of minds conceptualization is transcended for a moment. Just a possibility. Best, 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" 7614 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 1:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The limits of awareness --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Cognitive science teaches that awareness is just a bubble of > froth on > > > the ocean of reality. It is a Johny-come-lately in the evolution > of > > > matter. Awareness is a by-product of matter coalesced in a > particular > > > sequence. > > > > I disagree, but have no scientific basis for doing so. Perhaps > this is because I > > believe that science can never prove anything other than what it > already > > establishes as a given. And thus sheds no light on the truth of > human experience, > > which is beyond presuppositions. > > > > Robert > > > > Did you read about the woman who recently gave birth naturally to a > baby after having been in a vegetative state since the first week of > pregnancy? > > I do not propose to project some truth of human experience onto this > woman, because I know nothing about her experience. But to have human > experience as the starting point for any truth statement sounds to > me like an invitation for a self to arise. Awareness identified with > is self. Solipsism if you will. > > The laws of physics and kamma would still be working if there were no > bodies to experience their effects. The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from a specific standpoint. The acknowledgment of subjectivity is the acknowledgment of sentience, a precondition for both ignorance and enlightenment. Buddhism, in my opinion, does not operate in a 'cold' environment but in the 'warm' atmosphere of subjectivity. Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can predict the movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's knowledge of how experience takes place. An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. The self that may think is being invited to arise has already arisen, otherwise we would not be having this conversation. The question is not whether or not to invite it, but what to do with it. Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by direct understanding. This is because relization is indeed a subjective project, although the end result may be 'objective', in a sense that is beyond science. Science does not work this way -- the average person can learn it from a book. I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the individual. 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" 7615 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:05pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness --- Robert Epstein wrote: > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from > a specific standpoint. Excellent observations, Robert. In fact, even in physics this has been demonstrated to be the case! There no actual separation of "observer" from "observed" ultimately (which sounds suspiciously like the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination when understood from the ultimate perspective!). The way the combination of these things arises has been described in a number of ways, but in terms of what the Buddha taught, kamma is always a co-factor present in ALL experience (there may be other factors as well, such as consciousness, nutriment, and "heat" in some way of describing this, for example Vis XI.111). However, the most helpful presentation I've found so far is to understand that our experience of the world and its material objects arises in dependence on three primary factors: 1) In dependence on their parts (i.e. a car is a collection of wheels, axles, panels, windows, and engine) 2) In dependence on their conditions (i.e. the same car will have had many conditions for its arising, such as miners who mine iron ore, smelters, designers, assembly-line workers, and this includes the TIME dimension as well, since these process are not concurrent but unfold over time). 3) In dependence on the mind labeling this collection of parts arisen from all aforementioned causes and conditions as "car." If any of these three factors is absent there is no "car" to talk about. Absent any of these factors "car" is totally meaningless; undefined, therefore of no use whatsoever in terms of getting out of suffering. So in essence abesent these factors a "car" can't even be said to exist at all! How COULD it exist without all of these factors being present? Where would "it" be? > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can predict the > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's > knowledge of how experience takes place. Yet more excellent observations, Robert. > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. Indeed, it does not. There's no reason why the necessity of the aforementioned three co-factors implies in any way there aren't also other subjective-experiencers out there at the same time. While in the ultimate analysis even these are non-truly-existent, conventionally we can use labels to denote that other sentient beings do exist--in dependence on the aforementioned parts (head, torso, arms, legs) and their conditions (mom & dad, food, time, etc.). But if we take three-part analysis on dependent origination above to its logical conclusion, it will serve to deconstruct all notions that there is any fixed, singular "entity" anywhere to be found in the triple-realm, apart from these three factors: parts, conditions, and cognizer applying labels to these parts. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that there is a fixed, eternal, truly-existent entity--for example a "self." This self-view, when taken to its logical conclusion, entails the absurd consequence that there is an entity that has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be UNCHANGING, in other words PERMANENTLY EXISTENT EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW. To suggest such a thing exists would be to suggest that a lotus might magically appear in midair in front of us, for no reason at all! Could you imagine living in a world where things like this just "happened" without any preceding cause at all? The Buddha challanged this "eternalistic" view in so many ways. Often by asking a few simple questions as he did in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by > direct understanding. Indeed, vicikicca (doubt) is a fatal hindrance. Thankfully, Gayan has both translated and pointed out to us here the list of "near enemies" which can manifest in so many sutble ways. Vicikicca (doubt) is among the very worst of these enemies: "ubhayapakkha santhiranamukhena vicikicchang vangchethi--This dhamma is profound, and expands into large areas ie, merits/demerits, kamma, rebirth, world systems, beings, jhanas etc... This is initially 'too much' for an untrained mind, limited mind. (to see the micro- organisms use of a microscope is needed, can't do it with the naked eye). So there are more things to develop mentally and physically. One feels that 'I have to know all the reasons, all the scenarios, all the logic,...then I'll start going along the noble path' ... he mistakes this for the kusala dhamma ubhayapakkha santhirana, but its none other than the vicikiccha. His development stops, he starts to worry about things that will not lead to progress. Vicikiccha (in true appearence or in disguise) is unavoidable and a great obstacle. Beings have to develop more and more saddha to fight with and find out vicikiccha. (saddha indriya)" And one antidote to this vicikicca, for example: "attadhipateyyata patirupataya garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita vangceti--attadhipateyyata - Giving the due careful consideration for the facts spoken and taught by others., thereby taking the takable and leaving out the non-takable." The enemy, "garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita is not taking the advice of teachers. The 'know all' type. Associated with atimaana and thambha (non-flexibility). In refined form this may cheat as attadhipateyya." > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the > individual. I could not agree more wholeheartedly with you on this point, Robert! Thank you for pointing this out! :) 7616 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Robert E --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E. > > Thanks for your many skilful and interesting posts to Kom and others. In one > you mentioned that you 'sometimes step off a limb on this list', using your > 'own logic and my knowledge of Buddhism...'. I'd just like to encourage you to > 'step off a limb' as much as you'd like and I hope you're finding the > discussions rewarding. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > Do I really exist? When I've tried to look into the 'non-existence of self' > > personally, in the past I was just confused. But lately when I've tried to > > investigate this, there has been more of a conviction that there is no "I" as > > a > > kind of internal entity, but that "Robert E." is a habitual convention of > > thought, > > feeling and belief. If I accept the fact that Robert E. does not really > > exist as > > such, there is a feeling of loneliness that arises. It is as if this system, > > this > > bodymind, is very sad without the thought of an ego inhabiting it. When it > > cognizes its own existence as nothing but a series of arisings with no > > inhabitant > > to experience them, there is a feeling of sadness, almost of despair. > > > > There are many wise words here and you seem to be appreciating the core of the > Buddha's Teachings. it seems for many people that when understanding begins to > develop there are these times of despair, sadness or loneliness arising at > times. I think it's thinking with aversion (dosa) and of course it doesn't > last. Of course as we know, clinging (whether to a self or anything else) > brings aversion and sadness in its wake. > > Of course loneliness and living alone are very different. The first is a kind > of aversion but living alone at a moment of seeing or hearing without the > bondage of craving , whether we are in the city or forest is what the Buddha > encouraged us to do: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-063.html > > I've always found this particular sutta to be really inspiring. Instead of > being depressing or lonely, being aware of these realities as not self is > liberating and uplifting I think. > > Rob E, ....let me just encourage you to keep posting and sharing your > experiences. > > Sarah Thank you, Sarah, for both your acknowledgment and encouragement. I will read the Sutta you recommend as well. I think your comment about 'sadness' and 'loneliness' being in the mode of aversion to actually be very helpful. It means that while the realization of the non-existence of self may initially be stunning to the conditioned mind, it is a transitional response, and of course, ultimately, this realization is liberating and a cause for joy. There are many snares along the way. On the other hand, there may also be a 'legitimate' grieving for the loss of that which was a familiar sense of self or way of life, and perhaps in completing the grieving process, as one might do for someone else who had died, one may be able to go to the next phase with a clear path. Not to say that I'm ready to do that, but it's something to look forward to. 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" 7617 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drugs and the Dharma Dear Gayan, you wrote a few interesting comments below;-) --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > >Personally, I eat very > > little meat, > > Well, I a lot. We all have different preferences (and even physiological requirements) - no rule as lay people at all... > > Yeah, I know what you mean. People sometimes(but more often than we think) > get offended by these kind of stuff. > I am thankful for that experience. > I noted some people have hidden aversion towards other people's sila. > That's true...but I don't see how abstaining from meat eating (except Christine's examples given) has anything to do with sila? (BTW, Christine, great links. In parts of Korea and China dog meat is eaten and in Hong Kong snake soup is eaten...I wonder if this is just cultural in the exclusion area b/c of offence that might be caused to others? BTW, Num, K.Sujin has also written abook 'Did the Buddha Eat meat' in Thai...) > > > > With regard to the precepts and vows, we can see how these can be followed > for > > a very long time, but sooner or later when there are the right conditions > they > > will be broken if enough wisdom has not been accumulated. I've known monks > > who've kept excellent vinaya for long periods, but when they disrobe, the > same > > accumulations and tendencies are there. Even if one remains a monk for the > rest > > of this life, what about next life? > > yeah, but my study of texts suggests that those periods of excellent vinaya > are not useless at all. > They are great foundation stones. And these sila will provide one with > better surroundings and conditions to follow the path in future times. We had some discussion on this theme with Mike ages ago..I think you were around then. I certainly agree that if one becomes a monk, one should follow vinaya strictly to the best of one's ability, otherwise one just contributes to the downfall of the Buddha's Teachings. I also (from my little study of the vinaya) have a lot of confidence that there were very good reasons for each rule laid down by the Buddha with his far-sightedness and compassion. For this reason, If I am present with monks, I will do my best to observe these rules (e.g. not being alone as a woman with a monk, not offering money or similar etc etc.) I don't consider the rules to be old-fashioned or sexist at all...I would not like to aid the downfall of the Sangha or the Teachings in anyway. I realise some of my views expressed are controversial and am not intending to criticize others who have different attitudes in these areas! Having digressed (getting into Erik's habits;-)), I don't think the right reason to become a monk is in order to follow better sila than one is able to do as a lay-person. Unless the monk's life and lifestyle really comes naturally and it really is easy to sever links with family, friends and other attachments, I see no reason for it. One can follow just as many rules as one likes as a householder, develop satipatthana without any obstacles if one has the chance to listen and consider dhamma. Possibly, these days, the latter is even easier as a householder. > Without the right understanding the sila is less-powerful. Most of my sila > is based on Saddha which I have for what Buddha says, for the moment what I > can do is achieve what I can even though it is less-powerful rather than > waiting for a 'better' time. Gayan, i think this is the right attitude. We can make all kinds of resolutions, but like you say, it will depend on understanding and our accumulations and other conditions as to whether we follow them! > > Well the tendencies are still very much there. > Lot of booze and smoke and partying...full abuse of body and mind > Sometimes the thoughtlines go as 'wow..this is life..blah,blah' but I > internally laugh at such thoughts, I am aware of the internal mind cheating, > (vancaka etc), but for the moment I will keep on investigating for me. Gayan, at least you recognize the tendencies and the vancaka (cheating mind) and see that these are the problems rather than any external causes! (Btw, next time you have trouble trakking down your vancaka, they're saved under 'Cheating dhammas' under 'useful Posts';-)) > > I try to be careful and not to fall in to the pit where one brags about > things , take delight in telling others what one has done, promoting it , > marketing it, hiddenly boasting 'wow , what a Life I am having, hey...see my > life, dont you think that what I have done is better than what you are > doing., see how cool and advanced I am ...etc etc' We all slip up so many times a day..As Erik would say, no need to be too hard on yourself! Sometimes even when telling others these things, there can be awareness even in mid-sentence...anytime, any object, remember! Look forward to more. We'd all like to be the person with no bad habits, but doesn't this just show the clinging to self again? Have fun with sati!! Sarah 7618 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Jon, Herman & Sarah (o/a the little abhidhamma) Knowing akusala (or even kusala) will as I understand, not contribute to any kusala chetana or kamma. It may help you assess & count one's merits or update kusala a/c. Chetana will perfect with consciousness, the presence of mind thereon; its objective, intention/s etc. At the required instance the mindframe has to be constructed and executed (without any delay). If one is to be conscious about the merit or the level of merit, a chitta, chetana and/or deed would convey, then the 'quality' of kusala will deteriorate. Of conscious understanding, Sumane ---Original Message----- From: Jonothan Abbott Date: 21 August 2001 19:42 Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... >Herman > >--- Herman wrote: > Jon, >> >> To be totally honest, I wouldn't know kusala or akusala if I fell >> over them. Especially since joining this forum. This is not a >> criticism of the forum, by the way. How on earth do I know the >> difference between wrong view and kusala? Where is the yardstick that >> tells me that? Could there not be a deception lurking near every >> citta that suggests wholesomeness? > >These are all very valid and useful questions. It is easy I think to fall >into the trap of thinking one knows by direct experience when actually one >only knows by deduction from the surrounding circumstances eg. 'I am >discussing dhamma it must be kusala', or 'I am helping someone it must be >dana', or 'I am studying the moment it must be awareness' etc. This is in >truth just a form of thinking. > >Knowing by direct experience refers to panna that knows the characteristic >of the reality. Each reality has its own unique characteristic (seeing, >visible object, feeling, aversion etc). In addition, the realities that >are kusala share the characteristic of being kusala. There is no >yardstick by which we can measure these characteristics, but there is >abundant description of them in the teachings. That is why I think it is >important to have an understanding of things at that level. As we have >seen with the recent discussion on mana, there are many aspects to it that >we probably have not been aware of, even if e have heard it before, and >some of we may well have been taking for kusala. So knowing more about >this can help us to begin to understand directly the different realities. > >The good thing is, we needn't feel we have to know one kind of reality >sooner than or better than another. If the characteristic that is kusala >does not appear directly, that is not a problem. The more we know about >akusala and recognise it when it arises, the less likely we are to take it >for kusala, which is what may be happening otherwise. > >So keep up the healthy scepticism! > >> What is the basis for a monks confidence that there was a wholesome >> citta? > >I think knowing akusala well can be a good basis, because the difference >when kusala arises and appears should then be more apparent. > >Jon > > 7619 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sanna Is Okay With Imageless Nibbana: Full Message Re: Nibbana Annihilation? ! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob. E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Jon, > > When you say that the citta that experiences nibbana is 'supramundane', > > this means > > to me that it is a consciousness transcendent to worldy conditions. In > > other > > words, would supernatural be an equivalent term? > > Well I'm not aware of the term 'supernatural' being used to describe the > citta that experiences nibbana. And it is nibbana, not the citta that > experiences it, that is said to be the transcendent reality. > > The best I can do is give you following from the summarised commentary of > the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha (from the Bhikkhu Bodhi/Narada translation). > > It describes at p. 66 supramundane consciousness (lokuttaracitta) as the > consciousness that "pertains to the process of transcending (uttara) the > world (loka)". (This doesn't seem to me to be quite the same as saying > that the consciousness itself transcends the world.) > > It also explains (p. 31) that "world" in this context means not the world > of beings or the physical universe but rather "the world of formations > (sankharaloka), that is, all mundane phenomena included within the five > aggregates of clinging". It is because the consciousness directly > accomplishes the realisation of nibbana, which itself "transcends the > world of conditioned things" that it is called lokkutaracitta, > supramundane consciousness. > > > If the consciousness is beyond earthly conditions, it would certainly > > get me > > closer to understanding how it could apprehend Nibbana. > > Well it depends what you mean here by "earthly conditions". It really has > nothing to do with this world, except of course to the extent that it > arises in a being who inhabits this world. To borrow from another > context, in this world but not of it! > > Jon Thanks, Jon, for your helpful explanations. I appreciate it. Best, 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" 7620 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Abhidhamma and Cognitive Science --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > > Dear Howard And Robert > > How are you? > > At first, I thought I would just follow your discussion. But, now, > I decided to enter the fray. > > Howard wrote: > > "But what seems most important here is the question of whether the > wisdom of a current citta is able to *directly* know what goes beyond > that citta." > > > " Okay, thanks. This strikes me as implying that wisdom can > *directly* observe a past event. Surprising, but, hey - maybe!;-)" > > Howard also wrote: > > " This is all fine. My only hesitance here is with regard to wisdom > *directly* knowing what no longer exists, as opposed to a memory of > it." > > > Here is my bit of discussion. > > When wisdom reaches the stage of awakening (bodhi, magga nyana, phala > nyana), it directly knows, penetrates, realizes and sees nibbana. > > If you can accept this capability of wisdom, you are ready to drop > yor resistance to accepting wisdom's direct knowledge of a past event. > > As you might know very well, nibbana is timeless, and outside the > three timeframes of past, present and future. > > Well, as wisdom directly knows nibbana, it directly knows > timelessness. In other words, wisdom can directly knows any > timeframe. Wisdom isn't bound by the time constraints. Hi. With respect, your point above assumes that time is real, and that past events still exist somewhere to be directly perceived. It is my understanding that there is no such thing as a past or future event, and that time itself is nothing but a concept, insofar as we speak of human events. For physics, time may be a dimension of objects, but I'm not sure how that pertains to human events. My understanding is that holding onto past events as if they were real is one of the impediments to understanding, and that bringing past assumptions and associations to present perception is one of the factors that 'clouds' present awareness and prevents Vipassana. If my assumptions above are wrong, I would be happy to be corrected as to what is the proper Theravadan viewpoint in the Suttas. But if I am correct, Wisdom, although timeless, would not perceive past events directly, because there is no such thing as past events to perceive, just as there is no 'self' to perceive. Robert E. 7621 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation Dear Mike, I'm late getting back to some of these posts, since this group is so prolific! , but I really appreciate your remarks below. As someone who has his personality criticized quite regularly for its flaws by those around me, I am also happy to note that one can make forward progress without attempting to clean up the myriad influences and tendencies carried by the cumulative self. Thanks again for your comments. Best, Robert E. ============================== --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I feel like I sometimes step off a limb on this > > list, because I am admittedly > > using my own logic and my knowledge of Buddhism, > > which has been consistent, but > > not thorough in the Pali Canon. I am a little more > > familiar with works and > > concepts of Ch'an Buddhism, but my interest in > > Theravada is sincere. > > Your posts continue to impress me (for what that's > worth) by their sincerity and insightfulness. I was a > Zen student myself for ten years or so and had lost > interest in it altogether until reading Tadao's > remarkable post at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6125 > > I also admire your logic. I think students of > Dhammavinaya are meant to use logic in combination, of > course, with investigation of dhammas and study of the > teachings. > > > I know that at times people will have to tell me > > that at least as far as the Pali > > Canon and the Tripitaka are concerned, that I am way > > off, or not understanding the > > Buddha's intent. And I am prepared for that. It's > > part of my learning process. > > Same here. > > > At the same time, I can sometimes have a valid view > > and contribute something. > > Certainly. > > > I have been reading Thich Nath Hanh's translation of > > the SUTRA ON COMPLETE > > AWARENESS OF THE BREATH, and I am amazed at its > > simplicity and completeness. It > > spells out the Buddha's path in a way that anyone > > with an open mind can > > understand. The Theravadan Canon has this kind of > > clarity and structure to offer, > > and someone like myself, who has struggled with > > Ch'an and Zen methodology for a > > long time, can really appreciate the kind of > > grounding and surety of path that > > this can give me. > > I haven't read this translation but have been > impressed by his writing in the past. The clarity and > structure you mention in the Pali canon was a great > relief to me, too, after years of Ch'an/Zen practice. > > > We are all working with our tendencies and > > accumulations, in whatever form, and > > the fact that you accidentally sent your note to > > this group instead of as a > > private message should not be a cause for alarm or > > embarrassment. It was > > obviously meant to be here, and it opened up issues > > and topics that might not have > > been looked at otherwise. I consider every event in > > a group like this to be a > > good one, and I'm happy to rise to the occasion, and > > chew on what you have > > contributed. > > Tendencies and accumulations (what I think of as > sankharakhanda) are fertile ground for mindfulness > (dhammanusati(sp?)). Unfortunately they are the > continuous results of incomprehensibly vast numbers of > unimaginably complex condtions from the past--since we > can't change the past, we also can't change the > present manifestations of its conditions. > > Fortunately, on the other hand, tendencies and > accumulations CAN be understood as not-self--at that > moment, 'personality' can be seen for the > insignificant thing that it is. Having a rather > rotten personality myself, I find this reflection > quite liberating. (This isn't to say that kusala can't > or shouldn't be cultivated despite personality--it can > and should). > > In other words, I don't think personality-change is > the object of Dhammavinaya patipatti--just a > beneficial (and VERY gradual, usually) side-effect. > > I'm rambling--thanks again for the good words. > > mike > ===== 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" 7622 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:50pm Subject: Metta in Yoga Hi Erik, --- Erik wrote:> > This is very good to hear! I am happy to hear that yoga also > engenders in others calm, concentration, energy, mental pliancy, and > even the talk about generosity toward themselves (as I have been > taught is the right place to begin--at least by my lamas and at Wat > Mahatat--beginning all lovingkindness meditations with generating > lovingkindness toward ourselves, and then after this extending > lovingkindness out to others) Hmm....With regard to generosity and metta, my understanding is a little different (no surprise here;-)). I understand there can only be metta and generosity to others. When we think it's metta to oneself, it's lobha again! I know when we read in the Vism about starting with oneself, it seems like you understand it and this is a recurrent theme. What I understand (and makes sense from experience too) is that this passage is suggesting that we treat others like we, ourselves, would like to be treated. In other words, the concern in metta and dana has to be for the welfare of another being. > You sound like you're being way too hard hard on yourself here, > Sarah! :) Perhaps a little gentleness and generiostity toward your > own kusala efforts is in order here! :) :) :) Not hard at all.....just realistic! With more wisdom, it'll sound harder still, perhaps. Much better to recognize the kilesa than kid oneself that they don't exist at these times. Like Rob E. suggested for his friend, for me the yoga practice is rather like eating regular meals and getting enough sleep. It would be wrong view to think one shouldn't do these things because one knows there is a lot of lobha. Remember too, some of us don't have any idea of separate times for practice and wisdom (or even better times) so I don't expect to have more or less sati when doing yoga, swimming or teaching or any other activity, so they're not a condition for a guilt or worry. I have confidence that conditions are so complex that sati can arise at any time without wishing for it. Again, right understanding rather than the activity is the key here. > > In keeping with the teaching on first extending lovingkindness toward > ourselves, might you not be able to rejoice and simlpy be happy with > yourself in practicing a wholesome activity like yoga, even if this > practice isn't technically of the insight variety, even if there are > moments of lobha, even if there is mana? Just like when one services a car to keep it on the road, we need to service this body to keep it functioning for this life, so that we can hear dhamma and help others better in whatever ways we're able. I'm happy in particular to have the chance to keep fairly fit (without being at all obsessed as you or Rob E said) and in particular not to have any delusion that ultimately this fitness matters at all. Living in a high-rise apartment, having lots of office work to do, sitting (teaching) for a lot of time and of course all this computer sitting too means the stretching is pretty essential. I'm glad I encouraged you, Erik. > > I mean, who's perfect (besides a Buddha)? As you said to me about my > nasty smoking habit, there's no sense being too hard on ourselves > over the fact we have afflictions, right? :) We need to be aware of > them and work with this reality, but ther's no point getting overly > worried about having mana, nor about lobha, as this worry (kukucca) > is a hindrance in & of itself! (Jeez, all this Middle Way business > again!) Agreed! ...and understanding one of these realities (yes, NOW!!) is how I understand the Middle Way business! Ooops! out of time again....part 2 (on kaya lahuta and the rest) will have to be tomorrow or the next day. In the meantime, you could play the other side and read the relevant chapters on these cetasikas in Nina's book and look up the definitions in Nyantiloka's dictionary (on Binh's website I think) and report back;-))) Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well-wishing! Rob E, thanks also for your wise comments about your friend. I've also been appreciating your other recent posts. Hope you get back to your asanas too! Sarah 7623 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Dear Robert E. > > No my my sadhu x 3 goes to you. > Great!!! > Much appreciation. > > mudita > > Cybele > > > > >Thanks. I knew I was avoiding something: more practice. > > > >Robert E. Thank you, Cybele! Regards, Robert E. 7624 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Hi Robert E. > > As I am the one the one who posted Ajahn Bramavamso, I would suggest you to > read more of his texts as well. > > Love > Cybele Thanks, Cybele. I appreciate your advice! And the little I have seen of A. Bramavamso, I love. Regards, Robert 7625 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 2:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana --- Joshua wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Forgive my ignorance, but what sutras would one specifically read to get the > > instructions outlined in this talk. > > > > What is the basic collection necessary for this. > > > > Or is it the whole Canon.................... > > > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > Ok, aside from the suttas dealing only with Satipatthana, I would say (roughly) > > Anguttara II.29 > Anguttara IX.63-64 (he mentions) > Majjhima 68 (he mentions) > Majjhima 107 > > The last one outlines step by step exactly how a monk should train himself in a > sequential manner. > > Hope that helps. Sorry I'm late getting to this post. I'm working slowly, and backwards at the moment. And, oh yes, that helps. Despite being overwhelmed, I will make a serious effort to read the above, particularly Majjhima 107. It will take me awhile, but I'll get back to you eventually. I assume I can find them all online? With gratitude, Robert E. 7626 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 3:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Metta in Yoga --- Sarah wrote: > Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well-wishing! > Rob E, thanks also for your wise comments about your friend. I've also been > appreciating your other recent posts. Hope you get back to your asanas too! > > Sarah Thanks, Sarah. I have started to do some stretches again, and realize how my thighs and hips have tightened up and become aggravated. Without being unduly obsessed, I think it is helpful to help this body out from time to time! Regards, Robert 7627 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 3:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The limits of awareness Thank you for this message, Rikpa. I especially appreciate your three-point deconstruction of existent objects. Very clear. Best, Robert E. ======================= --- Erik wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in > action because of > > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the > actions surrounding > > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver > taking it in from > > a specific standpoint. > > Excellent observations, Robert. In fact, even in physics this has > been demonstrated to be the case! There no actual separation > of "observer" from "observed" ultimately (which sounds suspiciously > like the Buddha's teaching on Dependent Origination when understood > from the ultimate perspective!). > > The way the combination of these things arises has been described in > a number of ways, but in terms of what the Buddha taught, kamma is > always a co-factor present in ALL experience (there may be other > factors as well, such as consciousness, nutriment, and "heat" in some > way of describing this, for example Vis XI.111). > > However, the most helpful presentation I've found so far is to > understand that our experience of the world and its material objects > arises in dependence on three primary factors: > > 1) In dependence on their parts (i.e. a car is a collection of > wheels, axles, panels, windows, and engine) > > 2) In dependence on their conditions (i.e. the same car will have had > many conditions for its arising, such as miners who mine iron ore, > smelters, designers, assembly-line workers, and this includes the > TIME dimension as well, since these process are not concurrent but > unfold over time). > > 3) In dependence on the mind labeling this collection of parts arisen > from all aforementioned causes and conditions as "car." > > If any of these three factors is absent there is no "car" to talk > about. Absent any of these factors "car" is totally meaningless; > undefined, therefore of no use whatsoever in terms of getting out of > suffering. So in essence abesent these factors a "car" can't even be > said to exist at all! How COULD it exist without all of these factors > being present? Where would "it" be? > > > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. Science can > predict the > > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about > the 'sentient' > > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only > a beginner's > > knowledge of how experience takes place. > > Yet more excellent observations, Robert. > > > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. > > Indeed, it does not. There's no reason why the necessity of > the aforementioned three co-factors implies in any way there aren't > also other subjective-experiencers out there at the same time. While > in the ultimate analysis even these are non-truly-existent, > conventionally we can use labels to denote that other sentient beings > do exist--in dependence on the aforementioned parts (head, torso, > arms, legs) and their conditions (mom & dad, food, time, etc.). > > But if we take three-part analysis on dependent origination above to > its logical conclusion, it will serve to deconstruct all notions that > there is any fixed, singular "entity" anywhere to be found in the > triple-realm, apart from these three factors: parts, conditions, and > cognizer applying labels to these parts. > > To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that there is a fixed, > eternal, truly-existent entity--for example a "self." This self-view, > when taken to its logical conclusion, entails the absurd consequence > that there is an entity that has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be > UNCHANGING, in other words PERMANENTLY EXISTENT EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW. > To suggest such a thing exists would be to suggest that a lotus might > magically appear in midair in front of us, for no reason at all! > Could you imagine living in a world where things like this > just "happened" without any preceding cause at all? > > The Buddha challanged this "eternalistic" view in so many ways. Often > by asking a few simple questions as he did in the Anatta Lakkhana > Sutta: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > > > Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own > doubts by > > direct understanding. > > Indeed, vicikicca (doubt) is a fatal hindrance. Thankfully, Gayan has > both translated and pointed out to us here the list of "near enemies" > which can manifest in so many sutble ways. Vicikicca (doubt) is among > the very worst of these enemies: > > "ubhayapakkha santhiranamukhena vicikicchang vangchethi--This dhamma > is profound, and expands into large areas ie, merits/demerits, kamma, > rebirth, world systems, beings, jhanas etc... This is initially 'too > much' for an untrained mind, limited mind. (to see the micro- > organisms use of a microscope is needed, can't do it with the naked > eye). So there are more things to develop mentally and physically. > One feels that 'I have to know all the reasons, all the scenarios, > all the logic,...then I'll start going along the noble path' ... he > mistakes this for the kusala dhamma ubhayapakkha santhirana, but its > none other than the vicikiccha. His development stops, he starts to > worry about things that will not lead to progress. Vicikiccha (in > true appearence or in disguise) is unavoidable and a great obstacle. > Beings have to develop more and more saddha to fight with and find > out vicikiccha. (saddha indriya)" > > And one antidote to this vicikicca, for example: > > "attadhipateyyata patirupataya garunam anusasaniya appadakkhinaggahita > vangceti--attadhipateyyata - Giving the due careful consideration for > the facts spoken and taught by others., thereby taking the takable > and leaving out the non-takable." The enemy, "garunam anusasaniya > appadakkhinaggahita is not taking the advice of teachers. The 'know > all' type. Associated with atimaana and thambha (non-flexibility). In > refined form this may cheat as attadhipateyya." > > > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the > intellectual truths > > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot > transform the > > individual. > > I could not agree more wholeheartedly with you on this point, Robert! > Thank you for pointing this out! :) > ===== 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" 7628 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 5:26pm Subject: Lovingkindness --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah! > Hmm....With regard to generosity and metta, my understanding is a little > different (no surprise here;-)). I understand there can only be metta and > generosity to others. When we think it's metta to oneself, it's lobha again! I > know when we read in the Vism about starting with oneself, it seems like you > understand it and this is a recurrent theme. If it's a recurring theme, perhaps there's something to it then! :) To use these five khandas as an example. There used to be A LOT of self-hatred among them. That projection I can now see arose in dependence on a strong sense of "self" and the sense of "autonomy" and "will" that sense of "self" conditions. When this sense of "identity" (the "I"-entity ignorance sinks its teeth into :) came into contact with the conditions of a rigid and dogmatic and what some might call "abusive" upbringing, it served as a root condition for a whole lot of anger, sometimes even rage. For example, anger at feeling arbitrarily "controlled" by others' whims and unreasonable expectations and agendas and restraints and beatings. These experiences were of course all being forced on my by my past thoughs, words, and actions, and there's no one but me responsible for these experiences, and no one else responsible but me for how I responded to the feeling of being "beaten, humliated, and abused." So I accept this responsibility fully, nevertheless, I think this serves to illustrate a few points. This accumulated conditioning of self-hatred forced me to see enmity in nearly every face I saw, in addition to conditioning the nasty habit of seeing others as "inferior" and myself as "superior" (not to say that's fully eradicated because, of course, I'm neither an arahant or a Buddha, so there is still at minimum the conceit "I am" present in everything I see), this self-hatred (uh oh, there's that "self" again!) manifested itself in many extremely harmful ways. I would typically direct this self-hatred at myself, through activities like mentally beating myself ("self" again!) up over pointless concerns, such as not being handsome enough, not a good enough student, not from a wealthy-enough family, not good in this way, not good in that way, a miserable failure, an outcaste, lonely, afraid, abandoned, and so on. Since I felt it inconceivable to act in a physically harmful way toward other sentient beings (for some reason a deeply-ingrained tendency for as long as I can remember), that self-hatred found other forms of expression--for example, in the form of drinking alcohol to the point of heedlessness, primarily as a means to "shut off" this self-hatred for a brief while (which led to more addictive cycles of misery and even more self-hatred), and also as generally pervasive ill-will toward others; because I could see little, if anything positive in the world. I saw others sentient beings not as a friends, but as a potential enemies in some way--to be feared if they were stronger than I, or to be overpowered and defeated if they appeared in some way weaker. This tendency most typically manifested itself outwardly (apart action from the drinking alcohol to the point of heedlessness) through the speech-door as verbal harshness, which combind with a strong the tendency toward disputation ("self and other" and opinions and views generated thereby), led to me being forced to experience a constant succession of painful results, primarily in the form of painful encounters with other sentient beings, etc. In other words, suffering. And not only did I experience suffering, but I know that beacuse of my unskillful words I also served as a cause for others to experience suffering as well. Hopefully from this you are getting the general impression that this self-hatred didn't simply end with the collection of khandas labelled "Erik", but rather, that this tendency manifested itself in every thought I had, in every word I spoke, and in every deed I did. In other words, if one takes the teachings of dependent origination to the correct conclusion, there can be no true separation of self- and-other, therefore, any thought, word, or deed we committ will be an expression of our accumulated tendencies, and if those accumulated tendencies partake of things like ill-will, even towards ourselves, there is no other possibility than this MUST express itself in every thought, in every word, and in every deed we do, and by extension it will cause the khandas we conventionally designate ourselves to suffer, but will directly and immediately express itself in ways that serve as a condition for other sets of khandas to suffer as well! Now to pose a couple of quick intermediary questions (at your suggestion of taking up such a style): Which is more destructive of the two posions: intense grasping or intense aversion? In terms of words and deeds motivated by either of these two poisons, which endagers ourselves and others most? Which of these two poisons motivates the severest types of misdeeds, those misdeeds which lead not only to states of woe, but to the very most painful states of woe? To cite what I have heard well-spoken by the wise, Master Shantideva says in the "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" (Bodhicharyavatara): "There is no evil equal to hatred; and no virtue equal to forberance." This echoes the lines from the Visuddhimagga IX.2: "No higher rule, the Buddhas say, than patience, and no nibbana higher than forbearance". And since you and I are in comlpete agreemnet there is no other moment than now to work with our afflictions, and also that there is no other reality to work with than our present accumulated tendencies, it brings us directly to the point of "beginning where we are." Which is right here, right now, with exactly what we have; no more, no less. Which is why when the instructions in the Visuddhimagga (IX.8) say that "first of all, [lovingkindness] should be developed toward oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering', or 'may I keep myself free from enmity, affliction, and anxiety and live happily'", this is not a random instruction. It firmly addresses the fact that we must begin exactly where we are. Love, as the saying goes, begins at home. It begins with the collection of khandas comprising what we mistakenly conceive of as ourselves. Because realistically, unless we're arahants or Buddhas, that's EXACTLY what we're seeing, and to try to pretend things are other than they are is to be unrealistic, and the Buddha's instructions were, if anything, the most utilitarian and realistic set of myths I've ever come across in this lifetime. They were designed to engage us at the most realistic level possible: where we are RIGHT NOW. Because as you say, and as I agree, there is no other moment than now; and there are no other accumulations than these, and consequently we must begin where we are, which is when we're working to eradicate the most dangerous poison of all, anger, we are enjoined to begin by applying lovingkindness to ourselves, FIRST. > What I understand (and makes sense > from experience too) is that this passage is suggesting that we treat others > like we, ourselves, would like to be treated. In other words, the concern in > metta and dana has to be for the welfare of another being. To put it question form: can the designation "other" arise without the implicit designation "self"? In other words, is there really any fundamental separation between the khandas we designate "me" and the khandas we designate "other"? Does this "me" exist in total separation from all other things, in a causal vacuum, as it were? > Like Rob E. suggested for his friend, for me the yoga practice is rather like > eating regular meals and getting enough sleep. It would be wrong view to think > one shouldn't do these things because one knows there is a lot of lobha. Agreed. Lobha is a condition we are all unfortunately subject to until at least the point of non-return, so, realistically, it is important to be aware of it, and the various guises it takes. > Remember too, some of us don't have any idea of separate times for practice and > wisdom (or even better times) so I don't expect to have more or less sati when > doing yoga, swimming or teaching or any other activity, so they're not a > condition for a guilt or worry. I have confidence that conditions are so > complex that sati can arise at any time without wishing for it. Again, right > understanding rather than the activity is the key here. Again, not to get back to the nutriment conditions the Buddha clearly enumerated in the passage a quoted before, but for sati to arise we need the appropriate conditions. Without the appropriate conditions there is no chance at all sati can arise! > Agreed! ...and understanding one of these realities (yes, NOW!!) is how I > understand the Middle Way business! There is quite a bit less to it than this, Sarah :) Simply focusing on the "now" withouth realistically recognizing that we are all enmeshed in thoughts and fabrications would be a form of leaning too far to the "wisdom" extreme and not thinking eralixstically about the present condition of accumulated tendenciwes, whjich is still, like it or not, engaged in the process of fabrications about past, persent, future, self, and other. We can't ignore this fact either, in addition to recognizing that true insight can only arise in the present moment. > Thanks Erik, for your kind (and moderate!!) comments...and well- wishing! Well, pretending to play "fierce debater" doesn't seem to fit all that well when the topic is cultivating lovingkindness toward ourselves and extending that lovingkindness toward all other beings (a reminder I always need and benefit from immensely, and believe me when I say I'm getting more from this than I suspect anyone reading ever could), so I figured it was the appropriate time to put the "wrathful" mask aside for a bit and pretend to put on the "gentle voiced" mask instead, for awhile--which will probably switch yet many times until our "exeunt" at final Act of the final Scene of this Midsummer Night's Dream: "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber'd here While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, No more yielding but a dream" 7629 From: Herman Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:41pm Subject: Re: The limits of awareness Dear Robert, Some cutting and clipping and additions follow down below: --- Robert Epstein wrote:> bodies to experience their effects. > > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in action because of > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the actions surrounding > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver taking it in from > a specific standpoint. Bodies, in quantum mechanics, have an unspecified existence, they may be there, but they are feasibly also not there. The thing worth noting is that even while they are not there, they are still predictable, therefore still subject to the laws of physics and kamma. A body is simply a snapshot at a given time unit of resolution. Look at this body in 500 year time slots, and it is not there at all, or only fractionally, depending on where in the cycle of this body the observation started. Look at this body in 1 second time frames, and it is there. Look at this body in 1 trillionth of a second time slices, and it may be there, or it may not be there. The arising and falling of rupa is not haphazard, it is knowable and predictable. There is no knower, but there is knowing. And this knowing is dependant on rupa. > > The acknowledgment of subjectivity is the acknowledgment of sentience, a > precondition for both ignorance and enlightenment. Buddhism, in my opinion, does > not operate in a 'cold' environment but in the 'warm' atmosphere of subjectivity. And what do you think this sentience is? What is the difference between a corpse and a ballerina in mid flight? Surely we can discriminate further than just saying, life element. > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. The ultimate message of Buddhism (and other methods of knowing) is that there are no sentient beings. There is sentience, there is knowing, there is form, there is colour, that's about it. Science can predict the > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about the 'sentient' > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only a beginner's > knowledge of how experience takes place. The studies I have read suggest that awareness is a post-hoc and selective snapshot of underlying processes that have already finished initiating other processes by the time the initial javana becomes known. > > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. The self that may think is > being invited to arise has already arisen, otherwise we would not be having this > conversation. The question is not whether or not to invite it, but what to do > with it. Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts by > direct understanding. This is because relization is indeed a subjective project, > although the end result may be 'objective', in a sense that is beyond science. > Science does not work this way -- the average person can learn it from a book. The average person "believes" they learn science from a book, as they do with with Buddhism. Relativity is as abstruse as the Dhamma. The interesting thing about "knowing" is that it is true at any level, no matter how false it is. That is because "knowing" is a state of mind, that does not necessarily have to correlate to any rupa formation, hence wrong view. Moments of insight and direct knowing are moments of insight and direct knowing. If you cannot repeat it at will than it was "knowing", not knowing. > > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the intellectual truths > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot transform the > individual. Very soon science will be creating individuals, some of whom no doubt will believe that they require transformation. Yet they will be an aggregation of 30 odd body parts, composed of cells, composed of molecules, composed of atoms, composed of particles that are there and yet not there, neither coming, nor going, not new nor a continuation of the old. Regards Herman 7630 From: Herman Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 7:52pm Subject: Erik's typing speed Hi all, This is a frivolous but well-intentioned post :-). By my calculations, Erik, who I respect greatly (that bit is not frivolous), must type at about 210 words per minute (which includes on-the-fly spell checking and thesaurising) This feat, combined with his insights into more subjects than you can poke a stick at, makes him the Michael Schumacher of egroups. And no mana will arise because of this post! :-) Regards to all and cheers to erik (and his child bride :-)) Herman 7631 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 8:21pm Subject: A brief appearance Walking to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "The truly educated never graduate." True enough. But which dropout wouldn't be tempted to think the converse is also true: "Those who never graduate are truly educated"? Bhikkhu Bodhi has a short, poignant article on this idea in a contemporary Buddhist context at AccessToInsight: http://cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/lib/bps/news/essay5.html Dan 7632 From: m. nease Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation Hi Robert, I do think that paññaa (like all the other cittas and cetasikas) can and must arise regardless of personality when conditions allow it. The indispensible precursors for those are, as I understand it, hearing and recollection of the Dhamma (including silaa, by the way), and satipatthaana. Each of these occurs in the present moment which, as you recently pointed out, is the only moment. Thanks for the thoughtful posts. mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > As someone who has his personality criticized quite > regularly for its flaws by > those around me, I am also happy to note that one > can make forward progress > without attempting to clean up the myriad influences > and tendencies carried by the > cumulative self. > > Thanks again for your comments. > > Best, > Robert E. 7633 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: An Invitation to All Here --- Erik wrote: > --- "Anders Honore" > wrote: > I dunno, would it? Just yesterday I recall the Theravadin professor > (another teacher I was brought to by one of my Theravadin teachers > there) said the most curious thing to us--including the several > Theravadin monks in attendance: that we were all Buddhas! :) :) :) It's not really the knowledge itself that's particualrly harmful. I know a great deal about the various Zen schools, and I am also quite well-versed in the sudden/gradual debate, but the danger lies in the fact that most people, often in very subtle ways to themselves, use this knowledge to affirm or deny a particular view, and hence they are still stuck with a conceptual understanding. I remember an old Zen story (I think it was yang-shan), who was asked by his master if he had found the Tao, to which he answered "no, but at least I don't steal the words of others," To which the master replied "then you understand." > And my lamas have trained me to endeavor to see all sentient beings > as Buddhas as well. And that has really, truly helped my practice in > so many ways, to the point there have been times I have seen things > that might have otherwise appeared to be quite ordinary appear in the > most miraculous ways to these eyes. Yeah. It's funny you should mention that, because the exact same thing happened to me the other day, while I was watching a spider. That's also a Buddha-to-be. A great incentive for compassion! > Yes, and that was yet ANOTHER point emphasized by my teacher > yesterday in our little classroom at Wat Mahatat. One, I should add, > I could not agree more heartily about with both you and he. Which is > why my teacher was emphatic that we must "taste the fruit" by our > practice of the Dhamma, rather than merely intellectualize it away > with more layers of abstractions; that we must directly come to know > it in our own lives through the mindful application of Right Effort. > He particularly emphasized the uselessness of mere study for its own > sake, and that such an endeavour leads not to the fruits of the Noble > Path, but to further entanglement in views, and directly blocks the > very wisdom we are seeking, the very wisdom that arises to terminate > once and for all the sufferings of cyclic existence. Yeah. It's not that there's much wrong with concepts, as long as they are understood for what they are. Whenever you have concepts, you have concepts *about* something, you are not dealing with the real thing. You are still dependent on the formation of concepts in order to form a simple conversation though. > By "much support," where do you mean? Here in DSG? Or in the words of > the Buddha? Just here. > If it's support in terms of what the Buddha actually > taught, if you read the Pali Suttas, you will find support for this > everywhere! I have! But as with all else, the Pali Canon is subject to different interpretations, and if I don't agree, I have to respect them. > That view you will find no support for in the Buddha's > teachings: the idea that because all phenomena are empty and > ultimately beyond control, that there is no conventional possibility > of choices, such as choosing to train in sila, or "generating desire, > arousing persistence, endeavouring, upholding and exerting our > intent" for the abandoning of unskillful/unwholesome qualities and > the taking up of skillful/wholesome qualities. Yes, that's true. I would add that I don't think that the fact that all dhammas are empty and causal reactions neccesarily exclude the arousing of persistence and effort. > Not that we technically need any special places for meditation, as my > teacher there emphasized: we can be aware of all of these realities > RIGHT NOW in the midst of our daily activities--indeed we MUST! And > yet, practically speaking, for myself, I have found it of immense > benefit to follow the Buddha's advice in the Satipatthana Sutta in > terms of seeking out solitude and favorable conditions for > cultivating this all the same. Yes, that's the Samadhi aspect I also need to develop. Greater mindfulness in daily activities. It's funny how I've ntoiced that my practise has influenced my life immensely on a subconscious level though. > For a more average practitioner like me, I have found it to be an > enormous help to be freed from the distractions of daily life for a > little while, because I have found that this really, REALLY helps get > my mind unscattered and focused in just the right place, such that > when I return to daily life my mindfulness and concentration are that > much more developed and stable. But that's just this beginner on the > path. I am sure there are some great beings whose mindfulness and > concentration are so well-developed that this sort of effort and > practice in things like solitude and retreat is merely gilding on the > lotus. Yeah, I know a few people who are like that. I wonder how they manage... > Like you, I still hold Zen in great esteem, but, like you, have found > myself drawn to the Tibetan Dharma for the very reasons you mentioned > you find the Theravada appealing to you: that it emphasizes the more > mundane, foundational aspects, such as sila, which I found in my own > life were lacking to where I was unable to take any real slightest > advantage of the deep and sublime wisdom-aspect teachings I had > learned about therein (which as I noted, resulted in VERY LITTLE > progress for me on the path). Hmm, I would say that it was definitely beneficial to me. But I've reached a point where I need to develop other aspects of practise more. My own teacher, who lives in Singapore, is actually also a Dzogchen teacher (that's how I even learned of its existence) besides Zen. > To add to that, in the Tibetan teachings there are "Four Faults" to > recognizing our Buddha-nature, when we fail to recognize that the > nature of mind is: > > 1) too near > 2) too easy > 3) too subtle > 4) too excellent Kinda reminds me of the Buddhas simile of the musical instrument which must be stringed neither too tight nor too loose. > I look forward to much, much more reading of this excellent Sutra! > Many deep bows of thanks pointing this out to me, Anders! The Platform Sutra has certainly been my greatest influence in my daily practise. at one point, I read about once a week, and just reading it, while implementing its teachings in my daily life, served to deepen my understanding a great deal. I will always hold Huineng in the greatest steem. > > Haha, jeg vil hellere være ikke-positionalist! > > You appear to be in perfect agreement here with both > Nagarjuna: "emptiness is beyond taking any position," and Master > Chandrakirti: "any position breeds a counter-position, and neither is > valid in itself," both of whom are considered the key proponents of > the true Middle Way as expounded in my own Geluk school's "Madhyamika- > Prasangika" system of tenets. This has been wonderfully articulated > by the true Master Acharya Professor Richard Hayes (the "baddest of > the bad cops" for me and a true master of the Buddha's Dharma who > there mere though of causes tears of gratitude to well up in me): Yes, the Buddha mentioned it too many places. This particular sutta is my favourite on the subject (Paramatthaka Sutta): When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't think himself inferior or superlative. Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. One who isn't inclined toward either side -- becoming or not-, here or beyond -- who has no entrenchment when considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? -- this brahmin who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. A brahmin not led by precepts or practices, gone to the beyond -- Such -- doesn't fall back. Again, I must say that I find this conversation deeply beneficial. Thank you! Anders 7634 From: Anders Honore Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 9:58pm Subject: Re: Drugs and the Dharma --- Erik wrote: > > Really, just how helpful are these total speculations regarding > > hypothetical situations that have absolutely no bearing to what's > > going on right here and now, in terms of overcoming our own suffering? > > Anders lives in Denmark. It's not so "hypothetical" to him. Hey hey, now. It's not like we have ice bears roaming the streets here. That's Finland :-) 7635 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 10:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A brief appearance Hi Dan, Nice surprise;-)) --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Walking to work this morning, I saw a bumper sticker that read: "The > truly educated never graduate." True enough. But which dropout > wouldn't be tempted to think the converse is also true: "Those who > never graduate are truly educated"? ;-)) > Bhikkhu Bodhi has a short, poignant article on this idea in a > contemporary Buddhist context at AccessToInsight: > http://cambodianbuddhist.org/english/website/lib/bps/news/essay5.html A very well-written and useful article which I think most on dsg would agree with.... I've just skimmed through, but look forward to reading more carefully tomorrow. Many thanks. Hope your trip, move and new job have all gone well and that your wife and kids have been enjoying your company which we've missed;-) Good to know you're around from time to time at least. Speak soon, Sarah 7636 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lovingkindness Dear Erik, Just a line to say I understand how you feel, the views you have and the pretty tough life you've had to date. I sincerely hope that with more and more understanding of dhamma it becomes easier and easier. Many of the points will be addressed in due course I'm sure. --- Erik wrote: > --- <> > Well, pretending to play "fierce debater" doesn't seem to fit all > that well when the topic is cultivating lovingkindness toward > ourselves and extending that lovingkindness toward all other beings > (a reminder I always need and benefit from immensely, and believe me > when I say I'm getting more from this than I suspect anyone reading > ever could), so I figured it was the appropriate time to put > the "wrathful" mask aside for a bit and pretend to put on the "gentle > voiced" mask instead, for awhile--which will probably switch yet many > times until our "exeunt" at final Act of the final Scene of this > Midsummer Night's Dream: Yes, let me encourage the "gentle voiced" mask.....and hopefully it will be less and less of a mask! > > "If we shadows have offended, > Think but this, and all is mended, > That you have but slumber'd here > While these visions did appear. > And this weak and idle theme, > No more yielding but a dream" > yes it's a little like a Midsummer's dream, not knowing what visions will appear here.... You've found many good friends here Erik, so just relax and know we understand your views and feelings and hurts and angers from the past. metta, Sarah 7637 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Wed Aug 22, 2001 11:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Drugs and the Dharma dear sarah, > > That's true...but I don't see how abstaining from meat eating (except > Christine's examples given) has anything to do with sila? > well I wrote in the context of any sila. When one observes sila, he/she may be subjected to some other's aversion. > > We had some discussion on this theme with Mike ages ago..I think you were > around then. I certainly agree that if one becomes a monk, one should follow > vinaya strictly to the best of one's ability, otherwise one just contributes to > the downfall of the Buddha's Teachings. I also (from my little study of the > vinaya) have a lot of confidence that there were very good reasons for each > rule laid down by the Buddha with his far-sightedness and compassion. > > For this reason, If I am present with monks, I will do my best to observe these > rules (e.g. not being alone as a woman with a monk, not offering money or > similar etc etc.) I don't consider the rules to be old-fashioned or sexist at > all... not at all, buddha is never old fashioned. > I would not like to aid the downfall of the Sangha or the Teachings in > anyway. > > I realise some of my views expressed are controversial and am not intending to > criticize others who have different attitudes in these areas! > > Having digressed (getting into Erik's habits;-)), I don't think the right > reason to become a monk is in order to follow better sila than one is able to > do as a lay-person. Unless the monk's life and lifestyle really comes naturally > and it really is easy to sever links with family, friends and other > attachments, I see no reason for it. yes when things come naturally, one will have the opportunity to observe better and tough sila. > One can follow just as many rules as one > likes as a householder, develop satipatthana without any obstacles if one has > the chance to listen and consider dhamma. Possibly, these days, the latter is > even easier as a householder. yes , but householder life can be an obstacle when one has to earn the living...etc. For example, if one is in Marketing business, or Human Resources it is so hard to even observe the 4th precept. > > Gayan, i think this is the right attitude. We can make all kinds of > resolutions, but like you say, it will depend on understanding and our > accumulations and other conditions as to whether we follow them! > > > > Well the tendencies are still very much there. > > Lot of booze and smoke and partying...full abuse of body and mind > > Sometimes the thoughtlines go as 'wow..this is life..blah,blah' but I > > internally laugh at such thoughts, I am aware of the internal mind cheating, > > (vancaka etc), but for the moment I will keep on investigating for me. > > Gayan, at least you recognize the tendencies and the vancaka (cheating mind) > and see that these are the problems rather than any external causes! > > (Btw, next time you have trouble trakking down your vancaka, they're saved > under 'Cheating dhammas' under 'useful Posts';-)) > > > > I try to be careful and not to fall in to the pit where one brags about > > things , take delight in telling others what one has done, promoting it , > > marketing it, hiddenly boasting 'wow , what a Life I am having, hey...see my > > life, dont you think that what I have done is better than what you are > > doing., see how cool and advanced I am ...etc etc' > > We all slip up so many times a day..As Erik would say, no need to be too hard > on yourself! haha, yes, but I remember when buddha says that 'assault akusalas' like a strong man wrestles and pins a weak one. :o) >Sometimes even when telling others these things, there can be > awareness even in mid-sentence...anytime, any object, remember! > > Look forward to more. We'd all like to be the person with no bad habits, but > doesn't this just show the clinging to self again? > > Have fun with sati!! > yep, if I tell you a secret , I personally think that Buddha is a very Fun man. To me , he is like saying, " hey fools, thats not fun, what you pursue they are not fun at all, you'll be dissappointed again and again.., the real fun is This..etc " :o) rgds gayan 7638 From: Erik Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 5:11am Subject: Re: Drugs and the Dharma --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: Ho ho ho, Gayan! > When one observes sila, he/she may be subjected to some other's aversion. And one test of true sila is if one still continues to perform it even if subjected to another's aversion. > haha, yes, but I remember when buddha says that 'assault akusalas' like a > strong man wrestles and pins a weak one. Which is why I so love the wrathful dieties of the Tibetan pantheon (who are merely aspects of the benign deities, such as the Manjushri/Yamantaka dyad), whose function is to terminate these very akusala tendencies with extreme prejudice--in exactly the way a truly compassionate surgeon wields a scalpel. > yep, if I tell you a secret , I personally think that Buddha is a very Fun > man. > To me , he is like saying, " hey fools, thats not fun, what you pursue they > are not fun at all, you'll be dissappointed again and again.., > the real fun is This..etc " Perhaps this is why I so love seeing little images of Ho-tai wherever I go these days! :) Also, I came across a wonderful little essay on humor and the Dharma you may get a chuckle or two out of: http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/hyers1.htm (And for the hard-core Abhidhammists, it even discusses the distinctions between sita, hasita, vihasita, upahasita, apahasita-- which is nearly the point I'm at right now just thinking of all of this! :) :) :) 7639 From: Joshua Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:21am Subject: Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana > Sorry I'm late getting to this post. I'm working slowly, and backwards at the > moment. > > And, oh yes, that helps. > > Despite being overwhelmed, I will make a serious effort to read the above, > particularly Majjhima 107. It will take me awhile, but I'll get back to you > eventually. I assume I can find them all online? > > With gratitude, > Robert E. Hallo Rob't, Majjhima Nikaya 107 is the most important one, I think (as it pertains to what Abrahm was saying). Anguttara II.29, like the Majjhima 107, can be found at www.accesstoinsight.org The rest, I believe, cannot be found on accesstoinsight, but maybe on www.metta.lk in a few months. I also suggest you take a look at Thanissaro's essays, if you so wish. I believe he writes about just this topic (with suttic support). His books are good too, but more in line with the Thai Forest Tradition than traditional scholarship. You can read all about the Thai Forest Tradition there too. Ajahn Mun is a good starting place. He sort of woke me out of my 'dogmatic slumbers'. In Dhamma Joshua 7640 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The limits of awareness With respect, Herman, I think your view is radical empiricism, and I do not believe that the view of Buddha can be reduced to this. If all we are is kandhas, and awareness or sentience is only a by-product, then there is no need for Nirvana, no need for Realization. Why should consciousness go through all of this trouble to realize something that adds up to nothing? I cannot see in your view that suicide would not end the suffering of the being who was simply a conglomerate of elements. If he is not more than that, there would be no karmic force to cause 'him' to reincarnate and continue to suffering, and suicide would be a much more convenient path than the toil of realization. The reason why Buddha specified that sentient beings have Buddha-nature and are eligible for realization and Nirvana, is because they follow different laws than rocks and trees. Rocks and trees have no karma. They are subject to physics, not karma. Sentient beings are subject to karma. Karma and physics are not the same set of laws, although they both traffic in a form of cause and effect. Your view is deterministic. There is no moment of awakening, no possibility of Vipassana, as I read it. How can a collection of elements have insight? Only consciousness can develop insight. If it is merely mechanical, why practice mindfulness? It would be a redundancy, and Insight would come by itself as a kind of mechanical reflex when the karma had reached a certain point. This is not my understanding of the development of insight. My understanding is that karmic conditions may mitigate against the possibility of Insight, but even having reached a certain point on the path does not guarantee insight. There is an element of practicing mindfulness involved to produce this effect. It is a 'human' cause, not a mechanical one. Buddha's point was never that the individual did not exist as a unit striving towards realization. It was that there was not entity living within this individual to be served and survived. When the body and the kandhas complete their progression towards death, there is something left over, otherwise there would be nothing at all to reincarnate. Buddha refrained from saying that there was a 'self' that survived death. That would put him in with the eternalists and constitute the creation of a soul. But he also refrained from taking your view, that the self was annihilated with death, and was nothing but physical forms. That would put him in with the annihilationists [nihilists]. When we glibly assert that science is adequate to explain Buddhism, we have given up the birthright of Buddhism, that we can reach an attainment based on the sentient element to truly understand and realize our 'true nature'. Our 'true nature' is not that we are mere mechanisms in a cosmic clockwork. That is the part of our nature that Nirvana transcends. If you believe in pure mechanical nature and predestination based on pure cause and effect, you do not believe in Nirvana and Transcendence of these conditions through Realization. If that is the case, I believe you have taken the Buddhism out of Buddhism. Science is not the answer to the questions that Buddism raises. Buddhism is. Buddhism is not science. It is a metaphysical system, not a physical system. We are not the body, the personality or the concept of self. So what are we? The answer cannot be 'the body' because that is one of the things we are *not*. So it has to be something beyond the realm of science and physics, even beyond karma. I won't answer, because to imagine that I know the answer would be to form a concept of self. But to refrain from that does not mean that it is *not* a self. It means that we are neither a self nor not a self. That is the Buddha's answer, and what that is which is neither a self nor not a self is only discovered through realization, not through conceptualization, experimentation or induction. When you think you know it, you're off the path. Robert E. ============================== --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Some cutting and clipping and additions follow down below: > > --- Robert Epstein > wrote:> bodies to experience their effects. > > > > The laws of physics and kamma have no meaning without a body in > action because of > > its given tendencies. Action is furthermore relative to the > actions surrounding > > it, and thus has no quantifiable properties without a perceiver > taking it in from > > a specific standpoint. > > > Bodies, in quantum mechanics, have an unspecified existence, they may > be there, but they are feasibly also not there. The thing worth > noting is that even while they are not there, they are still > predictable, therefore still subject to the laws of physics and kamma. > > A body is simply a snapshot at a given time unit of resolution. Look > at this body in 500 year time slots, and it is not there at all, or > only fractionally, depending on where in the cycle of this body the > observation started. Look at this body in 1 second time frames, and > it is there. Look at this body in 1 trillionth of a second time > slices, and it may be there, or it may not be there. > > The arising and falling of rupa is not haphazard, it is knowable and > predictable. There is no knower, but there is knowing. And this > knowing is dependant on rupa. > > > > > The acknowledgment of subjectivity is the acknowledgment of > sentience, a > > precondition for both ignorance and enlightenment. Buddhism, in my > opinion, does > > not operate in a 'cold' environment but in the 'warm' atmosphere of > subjectivity. > > And what do you think this sentience is? What is the difference > between a corpse and a ballerina in mid flight? Surely we can > discriminate further than just saying, life element. > > > Without a sentient being Buddhism is meaningless. > > The ultimate message of Buddhism (and other methods of knowing) is > that there are no sentient beings. There is sentience, there is > knowing, there is form, there is colour, that's about it. > > Science can predict the > > movement of objects and bodies, but it knows precious little about > the 'sentient' > > aspect of sentient beings. Studies of the brain have yielded only > a beginner's > > knowledge of how experience takes place. > > The studies I have read suggest that awareness is a post-hoc and > selective snapshot of underlying processes that have already finished > initiating other processes by the time the initial javana becomes > known. > > > > > An emphasis on experience does not invite solipsism. The self that > may think is > > being invited to arise has already arisen, otherwise we would not > be having this > > conversation. The question is not whether or not to invite it, but > what to do > > with it. > Buddha did emphasize that each person has to clear up his own doubts > by > > direct understanding. This is because relization is indeed a > subjective project, > > although the end result may be 'objective', in a sense that is > beyond science. > > Science does not work this way -- the average person can learn it > from a book. > > The average person "believes" they learn science from a book, as they > do with with Buddhism. Relativity is as abstruse as the Dhamma. The > interesting thing about "knowing" is that it is true at any level, no > matter how false it is. That is because "knowing" is a state of mind, > that does not necessarily have to correlate to any rupa formation, > hence wrong view. Moments of insight and direct knowing are moments > of insight and direct knowing. If you cannot repeat it at will than > it was "knowing", not knowing. > > > > > I would not want to confuse the path of realization with the > intellectual truths > > of science. Science has transformed the world, but it cannot > transform the > > individual. > > Very soon science will be creating individuals, some of whom no doubt > will believe that they require transformation. Yet they will be an > aggregation of 30 odd body parts, composed of cells, composed of > molecules, composed of atoms, composed of particles that are there > and yet not there, neither coming, nor going, not new nor a > continuation of the old. > > Regards > > > Herman > > > > 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" 7641 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 0:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation Nice to talk to you Mike. Robert E. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I do think that paññaa (like all the other cittas and > cetasikas) can and must arise regardless of > personality when conditions allow it. The > indispensible precursors for those are, as I > understand it, hearing and recollection of the Dhamma > (including silaa, by the way), and satipatthaana. > Each of these occurs in the present moment which, as > you recently pointed out, is the only moment. > > Thanks for the thoughtful posts. > > mike > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > As someone who has his personality criticized quite > > regularly for its flaws by > > those around me, I am also happy to note that one > > can make forward progress > > without attempting to clean up the myriad influences > > and tendencies carried by the > > cumulative self. > > > > Thanks again for your comments. > > > > Best, > > 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" 7642 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 0:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Ajahn Brahms on Satipatthana Thanks, Joshua. Robert E. ============ --- Joshua wrote: > > Sorry I'm late getting to this post. I'm working slowly, and backwards at > the > > moment. > > > > And, oh yes, that helps. > > > > Despite being overwhelmed, I will make a serious effort to read the above, > > particularly Majjhima 107. It will take me awhile, but I'll get back to you > > eventually. I assume I can find them all online? > > > > With gratitude, > > Robert E. > > Hallo Rob't, > > Majjhima Nikaya 107 is the most important one, I think (as it pertains to what > Abrahm was saying). > > Anguttara II.29, like the Majjhima 107, can be found at www.accesstoinsight.org > > The rest, I believe, cannot be found on accesstoinsight, but maybe on > www.metta.lk in a few months. > > I also suggest you take a look at Thanissaro's essays, if you so wish. I believe > he writes about just this topic (with suttic support). His books are good too, > but more in line with the Thai Forest Tradition than traditional scholarship. > You can read all about the Thai Forest Tradition there too. Ajahn Mun is a good > starting place. He sort of woke me out of my 'dogmatic slumbers'. > > In Dhamma > Joshua > > > > ===== 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" 7643 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Sukin Thanks for coming in on this (and my apologies as usual, to you and others, for being so far behind with replies) --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > Acharn Sujin once said that Buddha's teachings are meant to be > descriptive > but people mistake thinking he taught paths of action. Yesterday I came across an example of just this sort of thing, in a compilation I was browsing of translations from the texts. It gives the sutta from Anguttara Nikaya (IV, 197) where the Buddha explains to Queen Mallika about the kinds of past conduct that result in people (in this case, women) experiencing different levels of wealth, beauty and social position in their lives. Each particular attribute has its cause in a different kind of conduct in the past (Queen Mallika herself was, by her own description, wealthy and of high social position but ugly). The title given in the compilation for this extract was 'How to obtain Wealth, Beauty and Social Position'. One can see the spin that has been put on the sutta: the Buddha said, 'The reason someone is like X is because of Y in the past' [this is descriptive], whereas the spin is, 'If you want to be like X, then do Y' [this is a path of action]. It may not be wholly wrong, but it is surely not the message that the Buddha was wishing to convey in the sutta. Not a big deal in this case, but important when we get to suttas dealing with aspects of 'the practice' (itself not a term that the Buddha tended to use). The suttas are subtle in their meaning, and should be read carefully, with an open mind and with an understanding of the context of the teachings as a whole. Thanks again for your comments. Jon 7644 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard I was touched by your moving description of your cancer 'scare'. It must have been a very trying time for your whole family. Your own response was such that it helped you see things in a way you had not seen them before. It is true that such crises can condition useful reflection. [Note for Erik: it is, however, not the experience itself but the reflection on it that is the key--even though anyone would say that this level of reflection would not have occurred absent this particular experience. So no need to try this one!]. Howard, in response to the example I raised of 'spontaneous' kusala (wholesomeness) you said the explanation was-- > Previous cultivation. This is undoubtedly true, I think. But even at such moments, kusala effort/energy must be present. It arises with the citta, and performs its function. Without it, no kusala whether spontaneous or not. The texts talk of 2 kinds of kusala moments--prompted and unprompted. The unprompted ones include those spontaneous moments. Kusala is prompted when it arises after a reminder of some kind, whether by oneself or another (for example, being inspired by another's good example, restraint after reflecting on the dangers of akusala, etc). However, although in conventional terms the difference may sometimes be seen in terms of effort, in dhamma terms both require wholesome effort/energy co-arising at the moment of kusala. Indeed, I believe it is true to say that the energy factor is stronger in the spontaneous kind of kusala than in the prompted kind. This I think highlights the difference between conventional effort and effort/energy as a wholesome factor. When one reads the suttas it is useful to keep in mind this kind of background knowledge. Although the suttas are given in conventional language, they are often describing terms or situations that are not conventional. > Current "efforts" towards kindness can only > affect our current *action*, not our current mental state. I was a little puzzled by this. Surely the quality of the action is determined by the accompanying mental states? If we do something that is (ie. appears to be) a 'good' deed but the mental state is not wholesome, there is no kusala of any kind. > We cannot *make* > ourselves feel warmth and kindness at the moment. But a lifetime or > lifetimes > of cultivation can transform the mind into one which typically is > loving. It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that we have accumulations of varying degrees for all kinds of kusala, including even awareness and understanding presumably (otherwise there would certainly be no hope for us). Because of this, any kind of kusala can and does arise spontaneously in our lives, when the conditions for its arising are present. If at such moments there is any level of awareness of the kusala nature of the moment, this would certainly be the further development of that kusala. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 8/14/01 11:21:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > In the meantime, I would be interested to hear an example/instance of > > 'conventional' Right Effort of the Eightfold Path, as might apply in > your > > own case. (I think that would help this discussion - and your > 'Paradox' > > post - move forward.) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'll try to answer this in a few ways. An example of conventional > > right effort during meditation is to initiate mindfulness and focus on > the > meditation subject, to further these when already present, and to return > to > these when the mind has wandered. When not meditating, a general example > is > to let go of akusala thoughts when these are present, to initiate kusala > > thoughts when not present, and to further kusala thoughts when already > present. > A somewhat dramatic application of right effort in daily life > occurred > about 5 years ago to me. I had gone through a year of extreme tiredness, > > discomfort in the lower-left abdomen, and a constant low-grade fever. My > > doctor threw every test in the book at me except the right one. Finally > I saw > a gastroenterologist who arranged for me to get a colonoscopy in the > hospital. After only five minutes into it, the procedure was stopped. > The > doctor couldn't get any further than the sigmoid colon because of an > impassable blockage! They immediately arranged for surgery for later the > same > day. When they showed my wife and me the full-color glossies taken > during the > colonoscopy, it was obvious that the situation was a bad one, and the > doctors > didn't mince any words in describing the possibilities. > That afternoon I had a colon resection done during which they > removed > several feet of colon. Afterwards, the doctors spoke to me. They said > that it > would take 6 days for the biopsy results to be returned. Meanwhile they > talked to me about the use of radioative seeding vs radiation! From the > way > the gastroenterologist and the surgeon were talking, I considered it > likely > that I had colon cancer, and that I might very well die from it. (The > doctors > had ordered a catscan to check on the status of the liver!) At that > point, in > the depths of my non-existant soul ;-)), I made a decision. The decision > was > that I *would* not hope! I *would* not desire that things be "okay". I > decided to be openly accepting of however things were and of however > events > would unfold. I *knew* that without hoping for things to be "a certain > way", > there would be no suffering. This decision of mine was deep, > thoroughgoing, > and *real*. For the next six days, while my wife was terribly distraught > and > my doctors were upset, I was truly and completely at peace. At the end > of the > six days, my gastroenterologist bounced into the room, positively > beaming! > Grinning ear to ear, he said that despite the surgeon's certainty of > cancer > when he held the huge mass of abscessed colon tissue in his hands, there > was > no malignancy at all, just a severe case of diverticulits (quite > dangerous in > itself, but now no problem). And my reaction, unspoken, was not one of > great > joy, but rather a completely calm one, which, if voiced, would be: "Oh, > so > it's that way, and not the other." Craving, I had learned first hand, > was > suffering. And lack of craving is peace. But a decision was required, an > > instance of the exercise of conventional right effort. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7645 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 2:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Dear Jon, Serious seekers are going to look at the end goal to interpret the Buddha's intentions. Those who have other interests, such as 'Buddha's tips for wealth and beauty' [!] will find excuses to interpret it that way, whether it's clearly the opposite or not. Those who want to understand the interesting analysis you described of how certain actions lead to certain results, will take the information to gain a better understanding of karmic mechanics. Those who think they can still manipulate the world of manifestation to gain happiness will always try to do so, and eventually they will realize that those hopes are always dashed. I think it is intention that causes the interpretation, rather than confusion. Ultimately people will do that which serves their real purpose at any given time. For those of us who are at least trying to sincerely follow the path to liberation, such clarifications can be very helpful though. Best, Robert E. ============================ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Sukin > > Thanks for coming in on this (and my apologies as usual, to you and > others, for being so far behind with replies) > > --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > > Dear Jonothan, > > > Acharn Sujin once said that Buddha's teachings are meant to be > > descriptive > > but people mistake thinking he taught paths of action. > > Yesterday I came across an example of just this sort of thing, in a > compilation I was browsing of translations from the texts. It gives the > sutta from Anguttara Nikaya (IV, 197) where the Buddha explains to Queen > Mallika about the kinds of past conduct that result in people (in this > case, women) experiencing different levels of wealth, beauty and social > position in their lives. Each particular attribute has its cause in a > different kind of conduct in the past (Queen Mallika herself was, by her > own description, wealthy and of high social position but ugly). > > The title given in the compilation for this extract was 'How to obtain > Wealth, Beauty and Social Position'. One can see the spin that has been > put on the sutta: the Buddha said, 'The reason someone is like X is > because of Y in the past' [this is descriptive], whereas the spin is, 'If > you want to be like X, then do Y' [this is a path of action]. It may not > be wholly wrong, but it is surely not the message that the Buddha was > wishing to convey in the sutta. Not a big deal in this case, but > important when we get to suttas dealing with aspects of 'the practice' > (itself not a term that the Buddha tended to use). > > The suttas are subtle in their meaning, and should be read carefully, with > an open mind and with an understanding of the context of the teachings as > a whole. > > Thanks again for your comments. > > Jon > > ===== 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" 7646 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 3:40am Subject: Re: Descriptive vs. path of action > wishing to convey in the sutta. Not a big deal in this case, but > important when we get to suttas dealing with aspects of 'the practice' > (itself not a term that the Buddha tended to use). 'Discipline' is the word he used very frequently. How does 'discipline' differ from 'practice'? 7647 From: Sarah Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 3:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Anders & Sarah Dear Anders, When I re-read the first paragraph (see below) of my last post to you (without students about to arrive this time, so no excuse;-)), it sounded rather terse and dismissive which wasn't intended. I sincerely apologise for this and would like to give your same comments another try;-) > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > A:> > Well, I have. As I read the Pali Canon, they are not contradictory, > > but it seems your reading differs markedly from mine ;-) > > S: > > > If you understand it to say that Nirvana/Nibbana 'is > > > always present in us' it sounds contradictory to me! > > A:> > I could give you many quotes from all sorts of canon sources on this, > > but I'm too lazy. > A: I could give you many quotes from all sorts of canon sources on this, but I'm too lazy. Instead, I will turn to my own favourite, Huineng, who writes in one of his gathas (I've inluded some non-relevant parts here too, simply because I think they're great): S: I'm very reluctant still to make any comments about Mahayana texts, but you have asked me (more than once) to do so from my understanding of Theravada/Tipitaka texts and very sincerely, so here goes: A (quoting Huineng): Erroneous views keep us in defilement While right views remove us from it, But when we are in a position to discard both of them We are then absolutely pure. S: As long as there is no idea of a 'we' to do anything and no idea of a 'we' to be pure......For the arahat, right views are not discarded, but rather not clung to at all. A: Bodhi is immanent in our Essence of Mind, An attempt to look for it elsewhere is erroneous. S: I see no support for these ideas in Theravada texts. A: Within our impure mind the pure one is to be found, And once our mind is set right, we are free from the three kinds of beclouding (hatred, lust and illusion). S: Just for a moment and then the 'impure one' again. Again, the arahat has no more of the '3 kinds', but still no lasting state or mind, pure or otherwise. A: If we are treading the Path of Enlightenment We need not be worried by stumbling-blocks. Provided we keep a constant eye on our own faults We cannot go astray from the right path. S: With respect, my mother as a Christian would say the same. 'Keeping a constant eye on our own faults' is not the same as understanding all realities now, not just the 'faults', as anatta. A: Since every species of life has its own way of salvation They will not interfere with or be antagonistic to one another. But if we leave our own path and seek some other way of salvation We shall not find it, And though we plod on till death overtakes us We shall find only penitence in the end. If you wish to find the true way Right action will lead you to it directly; But if you do not strive for Buddhahood You will grope in the dark and never find it. S: I haven't come across any reference in the Theravada Tipitaka urging us to 'strive for Buddhahood'. I also understand right understanding rather than wishing and right action (whatever is understood by this) to be the key to following 'my' path. A: He who treads the Path in earnest Sees not the mistakes of the world; If we find fault with others We ourselves are also in the wrong. When other people are in the wrong, we should ignore it, For it is wrong for us to find fault. By getting rid of the habit of fault-finding We cut off a source of defilement. S: Very wise and a good reminder. Like when Cybele and others were talking about mana, I was reflecting how it doesn't help at all to speculate about the others' mana or 'faults' when actually it's only 'one's own' mana that can ever be known directly. A: When neither hatred nor love disturb our mind Serenely we sleep. S: yes, the good night's sleep in the MN sutta quoted recently. When we do no harm to others in anyway, we sleep well. A: Those who intend to be the teachers of others Should themselves be skilled in the various expedients which lead others to enlightenment. When the disciple is free from all doubts It indicates that his Essence of Mind has been found. S: Perhaps we can say that the most helpful way for ourselves and others is to develop all kinds of wholesome states of mind and in particular to develop satipatthana which alone will bring about the understanding of anatta and the path to nibbana. A: The Kingdom of Buddha is in this world, Within which enlightenment is to be sought. To seek enlightenment by separating from this world Is as absurd as to search for a rabbit's horn. S: I like it! A: Right views are called 'transcendental'; Erroneous views are called 'worldly'. When all views, right or erroneous, are discarded Then the essence of Bodhi appears. S: OK, we'd say understanding of paramatha dhammas is understanding of absoluute truths, understanding of sammuti sacca is conventional truth which many be right or wrong conventionally or worldly. When we say 'this is a cup', 'worldly' speaking, it may be right or wrong, but it's never right absolutely or 'transcendentally' speaking. (BTW, Erik, I've been meaning to say that no one that I know of on dsg has said that there isn't a self who can direct actions in a conventional sense as you've suggested. We've all been talking about absolute realities..just for the record;-)) What I'd also add is that samma ditthi or right view/understanding is not a view in the sense of any opinion, but direct panna (wisdom) into the characteristic of a reality. As I said earlier, all (conditioned) realities, including panna are impermanent and not worthy of beng clung to. I'm not sure if this is what is meant by 'discarded'. Again no 'Bodhi' to appear in the Buddha's original Teachings as I understand them. Anders, I've gone through this Gatha for reasons I explained and I hope it's of interest to you. My comments in no way are to suggest criticism or any understanding of Huineng, but merely as I read these lines with my limited understanding of Theravada texts. As I rather tersely suggested last time, the scope of readings, teachings and texts for discussion is limitless, so I'd rather in future set a good example and stick to Theravada texts and commentaries which will keep us busy for a few lifetimes in themselves! This isn't meant to suggest that it's not helpful to read other texts or teachings or any other writings that anyone finds useful and I fully appreciate that we've all come from very different 'backgrounds' in this regard. Apologies again and look forward to hearing from you as always! Sarah ************************************************************* --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > > > Well, I have. As I read the Pali Canon, they are not contradictory, > > but it seems your reading differs markedly from mine ;-) > > > > > If you understand it to say that Nirvana/Nibbana 'is > > > always present in us' it sounds contradictory to me! > > > > I could give you many quotes from all sorts of canon sources on this, > > but I'm too lazy. > > Anders, I'm really not making any comments about Mahyana texts. My comment > above is in regard to any comment on the Theravada Tipitaka interpreted in > this > way. Originally we were discussing Tipitaka suttas mentioned by you, and I'd > prefer to stick to this, partly because I have no knowledge of Mahayana > texts, > but mainly because this is a forum for the study of dhamma according to the > Theravada texts and ancient commentaries:-)) I'm sure you have several other > forums for discussing Zen and other Mahayana teachings.... > 7648 From: Sarah Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 3:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Nina, Your comments and also Kom's are very interesting. this is a very busy week for me (end of my summer course of teaching), but next week when i have time I look forward to checking U Narada's Guide, Patthana and your other references. --- Nina van Gorkom Kom: . Do you by > > any chance have further explanation about why Domanassa would assist > > the citta to be fixed on the object (but not anger, for example)? I > > think I can understand about how the rest of the factors assist the > > citta in being fixed on the object, but I still don't see how > > domanasa does this. > > Nina: In the Guide to Conditional Relations, by U Narada, Ch II, 17 Jhana > Condition) it is explained that the jhanafactors make the associated states > fix themselves formly to pleasant and unpleasant objects. We should see > domanassa not in isolation, but associated with the other jhanafactors. He > gives examples taking his material from the commentaries, but does not > mention from which texts. It is stated that someone could not shoot birds > and animals without the jhanafactors. He has to aim and concentrate on the > animal he will shoot. Examples and analogies he gives are interesting. He > says, "For even in the case of hate which offends, it is one-pointedness of > mind that firmly fixes the mind on the unpleasant object although painful > feeling is experienced with that object. We need the jhanafactors to > pronounce one word correctly, he says. > Also when there is lobha, desire for extraordinary experiences, jhanafactors > can make the associated dhammas fix firmly on a pleasant object. Someone may > take for real jhana what is not, he can be misled. Yes, these are important points and the reason we stress the importance of knowing kusala cittas and akusala cittas.....The concentration can be very strong and very pleasant and be asisted by jhana factors, but this doesn't make it skilful and as you suggest can lead to taking unwholesome states for jhana. > You dealt again with another aspect, domanassa that can be pursued, as > explained in the Co. > This is actually similar to desire that should not be pursued and that could > be pursued, in the 'Guide", the Netti, that Robert K. brought up some time > ago. A delicate question, we studied the Pali commentary but are not > finished with it. . Yes, there are similarities with the tanha to be pursued and not be pursued in the Netti passage. When we understand that tanha and domanassa always accompany unwholesome cittas (well, as I do), then even when we read suttas which suggest they should be pursued, we have confidence that it is in this light they need to be read. I'll also discuss it more with K.Sujin in Bkk if I have a chance, but she also encouraged me to understand the Netti passage in the light of understanding the akusala tanha to be pursued. Hopefully we ( or you and the Pali experts!)' will get a little further with the Pali commentary, because to say it's my understanding or KS's understanding doesn't have much validity on dsg! Thank you again for your comments on the verse, which is another example of a verse which read literally has little bearing on its real meaning . > I must run along now, preparing for a week of vacation next week. Sounds like Num's running is catching and Num, last night I needed a change of scene, so we were prompted by your example to go next door to see Rush Hour 2. Lots of fun and it captured Hong Kong very well....even the details such as the taxi-driver and chicken lady and the Cantonese were very accurate. Thanks! Nina, have a good vacation from us all. Sarah 7649 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 5:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Path-factors with/without the asavas Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Mike and Jon, > > Mike, I don't have many comments on your response as I am still trying > to > understand the sutta meaning. Jon, I have some questions for you. Uh-oh, here’s trouble. > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Mike > > > > > The question remaining to me is, if the Buddha taught > > > 'only dukkha and the way out of dukkha', then why did > > > he teach kusala that doesn't lead to nibbana? > > > Off-hand I'm inclined to think that, kusala that > > > doesn't lead to nibbana mayabe leads to kusala that > > > DOES lead to nibbana. Maybe. > > > > Another answer, and this may sound trite but it's not, is that the > Buddha > > taught *all* realities, including even the akusala ones. Whatever the > > reality, he taught how it can be known for what it is, and he taught > how > > it conditions, or is conditioned by, other realities. > > The sutta definitely mentioned akusala realities. However, the Buddha > explicitly divided each of the right (kusala) factor into two: one > accompanying by taints, and one without. Although it is apparent (to > me) > that each kusala one without taint is mentioned to be supramundane as a > factor of the path, do you interpret satipatthana to be one with or > without > taints? Yes, the term used in the translation at Mike’s link is kusala that is “without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path”. Your question I think is this: is a moment of satipatthana, which is not supramundane, a moment of ‘with fermentations’ kusala, or is it, as a 5-fold path-moment, without fermentations even though it is not supramundane? In understanding what is meant here by “without fermentations (taints/asavas)”, we probably need to bear in mind that only the arahant is totally without asavas. So even those attaining to the earlier stages of enlightenment, when the kusala is certainly supramundane and a path-factor, are still with asavas. My guess is that “without fermentations” here probably refers to kusala that does not conduce to continuation in samsara, ie. that is path-factor kusala, so this would include a moment of satipatthana (mundane 5-fold path consciousness) as well as the supramundane path moments at the various stages of enlightenment. But this could only be confirmed by checking the commentaries (which are not available to me). > > > Another thought: The Buddha also taught, right > > > through the discourses and the discipline, the > > > (temporary) subduing of the defilements by various > > > skilful reflections. Do you think there is a link > > > between this sort of reflection and the > > > path-factors-with-aasavas? > > > > I'm sure there is a link. Unless and until the kusala qualities have > been > > developed to a high degree, they cannot perform the function of > subduing > > the defilements. Defilements cannot be subdued by 'willing' kusala, > even > > though it may sometimes seem that we can do this. > > I have also heard that the supramundane path factors will not rise > unless > one has developed the 10 perfections (parami) to the appropriate degree. > > If you look at the 10 parami, it is all (obviously!) about subduing > defilements. However, even the paramis are subtle (do you expect > othewise?). For example, I have heard that only dana for the explicit > purpose of relieving defilements (attachment, stinginess, etc.) can be > considered parami. Dana for the purpose of having a good rebirth or > the > 5-sensualities is not a parami. In the Visuddhimagga it explains the many ways of classifying virtue, one of which is virtue as being inferior, medium or superior (Vis I, 33). By this classification, virtue is-- - inferior, if it is motivated by craving, and its purpose is to enjoy continued existence [eg. a happy rebirth?] - medium, if it is practised for the purpose of one’s own deliverance [with satipatthana?] - superior, in the case of the virtue of the perfections practised for the deliverance of all beings [the parami of a bodhisatta?]. This seems to put the perfections in a class above your example of dana for the explicit purpose of relieving defilements, which would fall within the ‘medium’ category under this classification. But there are no doubt different ways of considering the perfections also, and I have no references handy. Nina may be able to help here, or you could check her writing on the paramis (Letters from Sri Lanka?) Best I can do. Please don't be too tough in your reply! Jon 7650 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 8:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive words vs. paths of action Erik --- Erik wrote: > > Acharn Sujin once said that Buddha's teachings are meant to be > descriptive > > but people mistake thinking he taught paths of action. > > I find this comment most unusual, and certainly not in accord with > anything I've heard taught by Lord Buddha (or taught to me by my > teachers, who have an uncanny knack for restating the Buddha's > teachings as they do). Sukin and I were discussing how in some cases a sutta that should be read as giving information for our consideration (eg. if a person does X, Y will be the result), is taken as a direction of how we should act or, more seriously still, 'practice' (eg. you should do X, so that you can achieve Y). This is not a matter of mere quibbles. It has very important ramifications for our understanding of the teachings. Let's take the sutta passage you quote below. > For example, how, in light of this notion that "it is a mistake to > think the Buddha taught paths of action" would you explain, for > example, the following passage? > [AN X.176 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-176.html]? > > "Now, Cunda, there are three ways in which one is made pure by bodily > action, four ways in which one is made pure by verbal action, and > three ways in which one is made pure by mental action. > > "And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily...verbal...mental > action? [...] And how is one made pure in three ways by > bodily...verbal...mental action? [...] > > ***"These, Cunda, are the ten courses of skillful action."*** [my > emphasis] > > > Sukinderpal, if you read the actual words Lord Buddha reputedly spoke > to his disciples, what he says sounds an awful lot to me like > ***paths of action***! (the word "courses" is, after all, a synonym > for the word path!--and just to reiterate Howar'd wise reminder from > another post, we're not talking about "courses of ***expectations of > results***" here, just to be clear, which is a rather nasty form of > grasping in & of itself) :) At first glance it might appear, as you seem to think Erik, that we are being told to develop these 10 courses of wholesome action by which 'one is made pure'. But a closer look shows that in the same sutta the Buddha spoke in exactly the same terms about the 10 courses of *unwholesome* action by which 'one is made impure'. So if both kusala and akusala are spoken of in exactly the same terms, it would surely be wrong to take either as being a direction/path of action to be followed. OK, so in this case it's easy to get the real picture, because both kusala and akusala are mentioned in the same sutta. But that is not always the case. > Then again, perhaps the the Buddha was just a horribly confused > individual (all those years wandering around naked, eating a single > grain of rice a day, etc., aren't exactly what many people would > associate with sanity, after all; not to mention sitting like a > catatonic schiziphrenic under a tree for days on end, unmoving...but > I digress) and couldn't properly express himself in any meaningful > way. > > Perhaps the Buddha was just goofing around and babbling things to > confuse us all, for chuckles or something. I don't know about you, > but I would consider anyone who articulated their intended meaning so > poorly, who spoke words having nothing to do with their > understanding, to be either a liar, a fool, or completely insane. Erik, the suttas are not as simple to read as you might think. Furthermore, mistaken reading of the suttas can easily lead to wrong views about the practice. Jon 7651 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 9:55pm Subject: re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Anders --- Anders Honoré wrote: > ----- > > When you talk about meditation on breath, do you mean breath as object > of > > the development of samatha or of vipassana? ('Meditation' is such a > vague > > term, don't you find?) > > Samatha. That's what I feel I need to develop right now. You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often about samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of vipassana. Jon 7652 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 24, 2001 10:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold path - Mundane and not so mundane... Anders > I think everybody here knows what constitutes the Mundane Eightfold > Path. > But I was wondering if anyone here might want to try and give a > definition > of the supramundane eightfold path for me? Thanks. My understanding (apparently in the minority on this list!) is that the Eightfold Path properly so called refers to the factors accompanying the supramundane moment of attainment to one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. In 'A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha) it explains at Ch VII, Guide to #38 [The Four Noble Truths]-- 'The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.' While there is no mundane Eightfold Path as such, there is a mundane 5-fold path. This is a moment of satipatthana, such moments being accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors. I don't know if you saw my recent post to Mike where I summarised in rather technical language my understanding of how references in the suttas to the Eightfold Path should be read. I have pasted a copy of this below in case it is of interest. Jon Just to clarify, because I may not have been clear or consistent throughout, here is a summary in purely 'technical' terms of what I have been trying to say-- 1. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as the Fourth Noble Truth means a moment of consciousness when all 8 path-factors arise together. This occurs only at a moment of magga-citta (path-consciousness), ie. at one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. It is a moment of supramundane consciousness, with Nibbana as its object. 2. There is a mundane version of the path, which is a moment when 5 (or sometimes 6) of the factors of the eightfold path (in their 'mundane version') arise. This refers to a moment of satipatthana (or 'mundane path-consciousness'). Its object will be any presently appearing reality. It may arise at any time, given the right understanding and other conditions. 3. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as one of the 37 requisites of enlightenment means, at any time before actual enlightenment, a moment of mundane (5-fold) path-consciousness and, at or subsequent to the first stage of enlightenment, the supramundane 8-fold path consciousness. 7653 From: Binh A Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 8:19am Subject: Samatha-Vipassana --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often about > samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of > vipassana. -------------------------------------------------------- BA: As I understand, in simple terms, the Buddha spoke of "samatha as a base to develop vipassana". So, the issue here (as well as in many other Buddhist forum and Buddhist circles) is not about "samatha versus vipassana" but: -Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? Some says it is, some says it is not. Metta, Binh 7654 From: Larry Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 11:40am Subject: Re: Samatha, Vipassana Binh Anson wrote: >-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? -------------------------------------------- I would say samatha is necessary for sati and sati is necessary for jhana to develop. Vipassana seems to arise at any time throughout the day and night, more so when one is studying. My guess is that the insight that arises after jhana is more profound. Larry 7655 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 11:42am Subject: Re: Path-factors with/without the asavas Dear Jon, Thank you, as always, for the reply. Obviously, I have more questions! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yes, the term used in the translation at Mike's link is kusala that is > "without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path". Your > question I think is this: is a moment of satipatthana, which is not > supramundane, a moment of `with fermentations' kusala, or is it, as a > 5-fold path-moment, without fermentations even though it is not > supramundane? Yes. > In understanding what is meant here by "without fermentations > (taints/asavas)", we probably need to bear in mind that only the arahant > is totally without asavas. So even those attaining to the earlier stages > of enlightenment, when the kusala is certainly supramundane and a > path-factor, are still with asavas. Yes. If I remember the commentaries to this sutta correctly, I think this is in in accordance with the commentary, i.e, that Satipathanna (non-arahat) is considered to be with Asava. > My guess is that "without fermentations" here probably refers to kusala > that does not conduce to continuation in samsara, ie. that is path-factor > kusala, so this would include a moment of satipatthana (mundane 5-fold > path consciousness) as well as the supramundane path moments at the > various stages of enlightenment. Although this is also my interpretation of the sutta, I think this is somewhat at odds with the commentaries (like I mentioned earlier). The reason why I am asking you this kind of question is that I am trying to understand if the 8-fold paths, as taught in the tipitakas, exclusively mean satipatthana or does it mean satipatthana *AND* other levels of kusala. My understanding of TA Sujin's interpretation of the tipitaka and the commentaries is that it doesn't include other kinds of kusalas. However, I also understand that without the appropriate other kusalas, magga citta cannot arise. Also, the suttas often talk about the 8-fold paths in a way that it sometimes seem to point to non-satipatthana, e.g., right view=belief in kamma, belief that there is brahma who knows for themselves the existence of last world, this world, etc., right concentration=jhana. If the supramundane 8-fold path means satipatthana, and the mundane 5- fold (or 6-fold) path means both satipatthana and other kind of kusalas, understanding the sutta would be less problematic for me. However, if it strictly means satipatthana (and all the vipassana nanna), then how the 8- fold paths is explained doesn't make sense to me in all the contexts. kom 7656 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana --- Binh A wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often > about > > samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of > > vipassana. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > BA: As I understand, in simple terms, the Buddha spoke of "samatha as > a base to develop vipassana". > > So, the issue here (as well as in many other Buddhist forum and > Buddhist circles) is not about "samatha versus vipassana" but: > > -Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? > > Some says it is, some says it is not. > > Metta, > Binh Dear Binh, As I often emphasize, especially around here where many posters have really done their homework extensively, I am no expert on Buddhism, and I am less of an expert in Theravadin Buddhism, despite my strong interest in the issues this group is interested in. However, if I may give my unschooled opinion, it would seem to me to be a fair statement to say that samatha is the sensible precondition of vipassana, rather than the "necessary" one. That way, if someone happens to have insight based on karmic conditions or a strong propensity for mindfulness, that we do not discard that possibility, even without prior strong development of samatha. I think it is fair to say that it has sometimes happened that Vipassana has been experienced without the strong foundation of samatha. I think is is also fair to say that a strong foundation in samatha increases the chances of Vipassana taking place, and more importantly, of the person who experiences Vipassana to be able to integrate and develop this experience, even if it is possible to have Vipassana without samatha. From my own scattered meditation experience: I have more of a propensity for contemplation and Vipassana, than for samatha. I have a creative and intellectual type of personality and I tend to regard stillness and peacefulness as somewhat boring. In other words, I crave interesting experiences, and I think it's fair to say that Vipassana is more exciting than Samatha. In my meditations, though I would always focus on the breathing, I would tend to crave insight and awakening experiences. If someone told me 'by following Buddhist practice you can become free of suffering and be calm and peaceful without cravings' I probably would never have gotten involved. What interests me is the promise of enlightenment, and the higher states of consciousness. You can see why I might be attracted to Zen, which in some ways seems to promise a straight road to Vipassana without a lot of boring preparation. In actual practice, Zen monasteries are full of monks doing an incredible amount of sitting and focussing on the breath, and not much crazy behavior. I was on vacation the last two weeks, in the woods with my family, and did a little sitting when I had the chance. During my last meditation I had what I think was a genuine experience of samatha, and it gave me a new appreciation for this quality. I started focussing on the breath, and found that, instead of my usual restlessness, I could focus on the breath without much thought and without any nervousness arising. Instead, I started to settle deeper and deeper into a very awake but relaxed appreciation of the breath. For me, the result was fantastic. Instead of being interested in the 'nature of reality and self' or whatever my mind would usually crave, my mind pretty much subsided, my body became very still and I could just enjoy the gentle focus on the breathing. It seemed that I understood the moment a lot better in this mode, because it was so much easier to *be*. In other words, I found that samatha, when experienced, really gives Vipassana in a certain kind of way. It invites mindfulness, because there discomfort, craving and distraction subside, allowing the luminous experience of awareness to shine forth. Anyway, I emerged from this session very relaxed with clear perception and was just sort of calmly 'happy' for a while afterwards. And I felt that this was a 'real' meditation in a sense, because I really wasn't 'after' anything. It just was. Anyway, please let me know if I am misunderstanding the proper use of 'samatha' and 'vipassana'. But this is how it struck me with my understanding. Regards, Robert E. 7657 From: Sarah Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 5:40pm Subject: Rt speech in the office Dear Gayan, --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote > > > One can follow just as many rules as one > > likes as a householder, develop satipatthana without any obstacles if one > has > > the chance to listen and consider dhamma. Possibly, these days, the latter > is > > even easier as a householder. > > yes , but householder life can be an obstacle when one has to earn the > living...etc. > For example, if one is in Marketing business, or Human Resources it is so > hard to even observe the 4th precept. I've heard many people say this. It's true there are many opportunities in a day to break the 4th precept of telling lies or for other forms of unwholesome speech such as exagerration, sarcasm, deceit and the rest. However, I really believe the obstacle is one's accumulated kilesa rather than the livelihood. I've been running a business for 15 years (with marketing and the rest) and Jon's been working as a lawyer, including several years as a crown prosecutor. I know there's ever been any need for either of us to ever tell a lie. The more confidence one has in the 'kusala way' the fewer dilemmas in this regard there are. I once had a Head of Dept who used to tell me to tell students he was in a meeting, when he didn't feel like seeing them. I'd simply say 'Dr X asked me to tell you that he was in a meeting'. my experience has always been that everyone prefers to deal with someone trustworthy and reliable and it's never hurt business at all. This doesn't mean (by a very long shot) that my speech is blameless at all. Far from it! > > yep, if I tell you a secret , I personally think that Buddha is a very Fun > man. > To me , he is like saying, " hey fools, thats not fun, what you pursue they > are not fun at all, you'll be dissappointed again and again.., > the real fun is This..etc " Well, I certainly think that we are encouraged to live our lives naturally rather than trying to copy others and the accumulations appearing now are what need to be known..not some idealised ones. Thanks for the chance to reflect for a few moments on useful speech at work.....I always appreciate reminders in this area as little exagerrations or misleading comments can come out very quickly when one's talking a lot as I have to do. It's easy to make excuses, but it really comes down to a lack of awareness, hiri, ottappa, vaci-duccarita virati ( abstinence from wrong speech) and other wholesome factors at that moment. Let me know what you think, Sarah 7658 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 9:31pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Thanks, Jon, yes it does clarify what you are trying to say. I tend to > think that > particularly for Theravada, that purification of the vehicle would be > part of the > path. I am interested to see that you feel strongly that it is not, and > that > rather than trying to make the vehicle more receptive, one simply sees > it as > not-self and focusses on the matter of what there is to be mindful of. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the idea of 'purification of the vehicle'. Does it refer to sila (virtue), perhaps? The Buddha did not teach that purification of any kind was necessary as a precondition to beginning the development of the path. So lack of sila/purity need not be seen as an obstacle in that sense. Better sila comes with the development of awareness and understanding. Sila and understanding are mutually supportive; the 2 can develop in tandem. > This actually makes sense to me. I assume, however, that you would try > to resist > acting on impure tendencies, such as being promiscuous, etc., which > would create > further obscurations? Since my wife is also on this list, I have no choice but to say 'of course'! Seriously though, I don't think we should regard any of our multitudinous impure tendencies as leading to further obscuration, since if we did there would be no getting on with the job of developing understanding. There is no way that we can ensure that even the severest and most 'uncharacteristic' lapse of sila does not occur in the future, so I suggest there is no point in placing store on any level of 'purification' we might, in our conceit, think we have achieved. Understanding more about the kilesa and their danger can of course be a condition for abstaining from unwholesome deeds on occasions, but no-one can say on what occasion or to what extent this will happen. Jon 7659 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 9:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The traditional teachings Herman --- Herman wrote: > > > > I agree the suttas, vinaya, abhidhamma and commentaries are there for > us to read. But the cetasikas that accompanied the writing of this > material are gone forever. > > As a simile, in the seventies/eighties there was a movement that > attempted to recreate how Baroque music must have sounded in it's > day. Instruments were made according to baroque specifications, > performance techniques of the day were researched to the hilt, the > settings in which the music was originally played were recreated etc > etc. All good and well, there was only one thing missing, the > mindstates of the composer and his/her original audience. > > Do you accept the importance of this component ie the mindstate of > the author and projected audience in determining meaning ,and it's > irretrievably lost state in the case of the Dhamma? To take your analogy of a concert, even at the premier performance of a new work the composer's mindstate (at time of completing the composition) is no longer present. But the analogy you have chosen is not without its shortcomings. Whereas music is very time- and culture-bound, realities (paramattha dhammas) are not. Seeing and visible object, attachment and aversion, these are the same now as then. Of course, some of the metaphors used in the suttas are lost to us, but this does not apply to nearly the same degree when it comes to reading the abhidhamma. Besides, when reading the teachings we are looking beyond the words themselves to the underlying message, and we have a very large body of work from which to deduce this. Having said all this, lapse of time does inevitably result in loss of meaning to some degree. With better vipaka, we would be born when the dhamma is more complete and better understood! Jon 7660 From: Larry Date: Sat Aug 25, 2001 10:37pm Subject: Re: Samatha, Vipassana Binh Anson wrote: >-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? ----------------------------------------- Aha! I just had an insight. One could say, in a slightly esoteric way, that samatha is the necessary condition for anything to develop. yours in the way, Larry 7661 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:04am Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Jon, 'The vehicle' was just my own reference to the bodymind, or physical body, personality, etc. I'm still a little unsure what role sila plays in one's development, according to Theravada doctrine, and whether one should 'work on' one's impurities or just leave them alone. Or is the idea to just treat everything with mindfulness and let things work themselves out. Another way of putting it would be: does one just follow the path and ignore karmic tendencies, or does one try to interact with them in some way? Best, Robert E. ====================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Thanks, Jon, yes it does clarify what you are trying to say. I tend to > > think that > > particularly for Theravada, that purification of the vehicle would be > > part of the > > path. I am interested to see that you feel strongly that it is not, and > > that > > rather than trying to make the vehicle more receptive, one simply sees > > it as > > not-self and focusses on the matter of what there is to be mindful of. > > I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the idea of 'purification of the > vehicle'. Does it refer to sila (virtue), perhaps? > > The Buddha did not teach that purification of any kind was necessary as a > precondition to beginning the development of the path. So lack of > sila/purity need not be seen as an obstacle in that sense. Better sila > comes with the development of awareness and understanding. Sila and > understanding are mutually supportive; the 2 can develop in tandem. > > > This actually makes sense to me. I assume, however, that you would try > > to resist > > acting on impure tendencies, such as being promiscuous, etc., which > > would create > > further obscurations? > > Since my wife is also on this list, I have no choice but to say 'of > course'! Seriously though, I don't think we should regard any of our > multitudinous impure tendencies as leading to further obscuration, since > if we did there would be no getting on with the job of developing > understanding. There is no way that we can ensure that even the severest > and most 'uncharacteristic' lapse of sila does not occur in the future, so > I suggest there is no point in placing store on any level of > 'purification' we might, in our conceit, think we have achieved. > > Understanding more about the kilesa and their danger can of course be a > condition for abstaining from unwholesome deeds on occasions, but no-one > can say on what occasion or to what extent this will happen. > > Jon > > ===== 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" 7662 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 5:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Another note: Can you imagine the Buddha being too stiff in the hips to > assume > the full lotus posture? Not really, but what about the rest of us? It > is not > unhelpful to work towards having a body that can cooperate with the best > possible > physical forms for our work. Rob E You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff hips or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;--)) ;--)) Jon 7663 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 5:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Sumane Welcome to the list from me, and thanks for coming in on this point. --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" wrote: > Jon, Herman & Sarah (o/a the little abhidhamma) (I'm not sure that Herman would be too pleased to be included in the same group as me!) > Knowing akusala (or even kusala) will as I understand, not contribute to > any > kusala chetana or kamma. It may help you assess & count one's merits or > update kusala a/c. There are different ways of knowing kusala and akusala. 'Counting one's merit' is, if I have understood you correctly, a recollection of the meritorious deeds we have performed. This is one kind of 'knowing'--knowing by recollecting previous moments, ie. something that has already happened. There is also the knowing at the moment of doing a kusala deed that 'I am doing something wholesome'. This is another kind of knowing. Then there is the knowing that knows by direct experience the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the present mental state. Finally, there is the knowing that experiences directly the true nature of the citta arising at the present moment. The first 2 kinds of knowing can themselves be either wholesome or unwholesome, and if unwholesome then, as you say, would not contribute to any kusala cetana. > Chetana will perfect with consciousness, the presence of mind thereon; > its > objective, intention/s etc. At the required instance the mindframe has > to > be constructed and executed (without any delay). I think you are saying that the cetana is of the same quality (kusala or akusala) as the moment of consciousness it accompanies. I would agree with this. > If one is to be conscious about the merit or the level of merit, a > chitta, > chetana and/or deed would convey, then the 'quality' of kusala will > deteriorate. Yes, thinking about the level of 'merit' one is accumulating in doing something kusala is no doubt unwholesome, and so detracts from the overall level of purity of the action being performed. I dare say that most of our 'wholesome actions' are, like in this example, a mixture of kusala and akusala mental states. Are we able to distinguish which moments are kusala and which akusala? > Of conscious understanding, > Sumane Thanks again for your comments. Jon 7664 From: Erik Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 7:21pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff hips > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;-- )) > ;--)) Fortunately, no, though it makes things a bit more difficult. Seriously, it is possible to meditate effectively even without getting 100% into the right position. It's just more difficult. For example, I have often and still often use a backrest when I meditate, and I have never been able to sit full lotus (Burmese is the closest I can do)--though I try to ensure that my back is properly aligned. There are physiological reasons why sitting in lotus posture (and in particular keeping your spine like a "drawn bow") exist--because the flow of prana/chi that results from this posture makes meditation quite a lot easier--once the body learns to adjust to it. It increases mental clarity end energy, for example, and enables quicker settling of the mind. But again, it is not absolutely necessary, though it is best if one can train to sit properly one does so--since concentrating & unifying the mind in jhana needs as many favorable conditions as possible (including samatha), and I may just be one of the lucky ones in figuring a way around this that only works for these khandas. :) I have also noticed (again for these khandas) that is is helpful to abstain from eating after noon if I plan on meditating in the evening- -which led me once to speculate if this wasn't one of the reasons monks abstain from eating after noon. I have found this helps get rid of mental fogginess and makes it easier to sustain concentration. Another thing I have found useful is yoga, as I believe I've mentioned, because it increases the pleasant bodily feeling that helps me sit still for the periods of time needed to concentrate & unify the mind, and it energizes the body and mind as well which also helps with this. Another thing I traditionally do is chant mantras beforehand. I find this calms the mind, much as samatha meditation does. I have found chanting few hundred "om mane pema hungs" for cultiavting lovingkindness a very effective way to remind myself what this is about as well as help settle the mind before beginning watching the breath. But again, this is only what I've found works for me. Your mileage (and others') may vary. 7665 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 7:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nature of citta (was Abhidhamma and Cognitive Science Howard Welcome back. I hope you and your wife had a happy anniversary and a pleasant holiday. In a recent post to Robert you gve this description of citta as an 'act of discernment'. --- Howard wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Thank you very much for emphasizing this! I fear I was falling > into a > substantialist way of thinking, viewing a citta as a "thing" existing > for a > period of time, with the accompanying cetasikas as features of that > thing!! > Instead, of course, a citta is merely an act of discernment, a > function/operation, and the accompanying cetasikas are different > functions > associated with the same object as that discernment. Your making this > point > is very helpful to me! > ----------------------------------------------------------- I subsequently came across this passage in Bhikkhu Bodhi's 'A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha plus summary of commentaries) in my browsing and was reminded of your description (which was very much spot on)-- "Citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object." The passage explains that there are 3 ways of defining citta: as agent (that which cognizes an object), as instrument (that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object) and as activity (ie. the definition given by you). Of the 3, the third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate. Even as agent or instrument, citta should not be thought of as an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. Citta has the characteristic of knowing an object, and the function of being a "forerunner" of the mental factors in that it presides over them and is always accompanied by them. [CMA Ch 1, Guide ot #3] I think this is helpful in reminding us of the non-substantiality of citta. Jon 7666 From: Herman Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 8:27pm Subject: Time out Dear Friends, I am going to be otherwise occupied for the next few weeks . I apologise to those who may be waiting for a reply of some sort, unfortunately it will have to wait for a few weeks. I hope the ski slopes of the South Island of New Zealand and my knees will develop a kind of synergy. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this forum, for the grace, patience, lovingkindness and wisdom extended to those who knock on the door. Groups like this reinforce in me a belief in the underlying benevolence of all that is known and unknown and all the other stuff that description misses. Ciao for now Herman 7667 From: frank kuan Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 10:41pm Subject: role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi Erik and others: --- Erik wrote: > I have also noticed (again for these khandas) that > is is helpful to > abstain from eating after noon if I plan on > meditating in the evening- > -which led me once to speculate if this wasn't one > of the reasons > monks abstain from eating after noon. I have found > this helps get rid > of mental fogginess and makes it easier to sustain > concentration. I completely agree, and in the pali suttas the buddha implies the same thing, but not so specifically. I believe he says something like "not eating after noon is of great benefit to your health and practice". Here's what I'm wondering though. I experimented some with eating just one meal a day, and did feel the benefits that the buddha and other cultivators describe, but I'm wondering if the way I eat now is better. Let me explain. I eat a mostly raw vegan food (veggies/fruit) diet, about 90%, with the remaining 10% being minimally steamed sprouted legumes/grains. I don't use salt, oil, dairy, spices, or any condiments. What I found is that the more non-processed/non-refined the food is, i.e. the closest it is to it's natural state, it's much easier for my body to assimilate the nutrients without the negative side effects of getting "food coma", i.e. drowsy or mentally foggy even after larger meals. I also don't overeat fatty raw foods like avocado, coconut, seeds/nuts, which can be a little hard to digest, and still case a little drowsiness if not eaten in the right proportion. So the question I propose is this: For the monks subsisting on lay people's offerings, which consists of greasy, rich, spicy, flavored foods, I would definitely not eat after noon, since your body has to work harder to digest all that. But with the food I eat, I find that instead of eating one super huge meal (have you ever seen the SIZE of the bowls monks use?), I eat my largest meal at noon, fruit for breakfost and small portion of fruit for dinner, I find it's better because I avoid the over-filling at lunch to compensate for having to pack all my daily caloric needs into one meal. Maybe my meditation hasn't gotten refined and subtle enough that I can feel an impact from digesting very light foods, but I have to say that eating a mostly raw vegan diet, my bowel movents are probabably twice as fast (from ingesting to elimination) as eating the healthiest vegetarian retaurant food. I've sat in meditation just 1 hour after eating a light dinner of fruit without feeling uncomfortable or drowsy at all. I'm curious to hear what the advanced cultivators have to say on this issue. I should mention that I'm still striving to one day only eat one LIGHT meal at lunch, but it will probably take me 4-8 years before I can seriously experiement with that. -fk > Another thing I have found useful is yoga, as I > believe I've > mentioned, because it increases the pleasant bodily > feeling that > helps me sit still for the periods of time needed to > concentrate & > unify the mind, and it energizes the body and mind > as well which also > helps with this. YES! this is a topic of great interest to me that I will respond to a a couple of weeks when I have more time. -fk 7668 From: Suan Lu Zaw Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 11:39pm Subject: Deep Sleep As Having Sati: Re: The limits of awareness: Dear Herman How are you? You asked: "I read from your post that any mindfulness is kusala. Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala?" What I am about to answer is very counter-intuitive. The answer is the result of my recent readings of Dhammasangani, Atthasalini and Abhidhammatthasangaha. First, the answer is No to your question "Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala?" According to sections 431, 455,469 in Dhammasangani, there are rootless kusala resultant minds (ahetuka kusala vipaka cittani). They lack sati (recollection, mindfullness), but they are kusala, nonetheless. Now, a very counter-intuitive answer follows. Deep sleep has sati (recollection, mindfullness). It is unbelievable, indeed, but true according to abhidhamma. To elaborate a little further on this answer, all normal human beings on this planet or any other planets in all the countless universes were born as the result of sensuous healthy minds. Please see section 498 in Dhammasangani and Atthasalini. Bluntly speaking, we are what abhidhamma calls one of the eight great sensuous healthy resultant minds (attha maha kusalavipaka cittani). If our minds do not interact with the stimuli, we go back to the state of the healthy resultant minds. An example of the healthy resultant minds is our familier nightly deep sleep. Now, we turn to the participation of sati. The eight great sensuous healthy minds (attha maha kusala cittani) come with sati. Please see section 1 in Dhammasangani. Similarly, the resultant minds as the results of the eight great healthy minds also come with sati. Please see section 498 in Dhammasangani. Therefore, deep sleep being a state of one of the eight great healthy resultant minds ( attha maha kusala vipaka cittani) has recollection or mindfullness. Of course, while we are in deep sleep, our sati does not deal with stimuli of the waking world, but sati in deep sleep is in readiness to interact with them. With regards Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Herman wrote: > Dear Suan, > > I read from your post that any mindfulness is kusala. Would it be > true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was > therefore akusala? > > Thank you > > herman > > --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Herman > > > > How are you? > > > > You asked: > > > > "Would that mean that if I was aware of anger, that this would be a > > kusala moment?" > > > > Yes, if you are aware of anger in the sense of sati (recollection, > > mindfulness), that would be a kusala moment. > > > > The supporting Pali in the words of the Buddha is as follows. > > > > "sadosam va cittam `sadosam cittan'ti pajanati" > > > > "Monks, how does the monk live as an observer of the mind in the > > mind? .....Monks, here, the monk knows comprehensively the mind > with > > anger as the mind with anger..." > > > > The above quotation comes from Section 114, Cittanupassana, > > Mahasatipatthana Suttam, Mulapannasa, Majjimanikaya. > > > > You also asked: > > > > "Is kusala/akusla considered absolute eg is all anger akusala, is > all > > dana kusala?" > > > > Yes,each of them should be considered as such because kusala and > > akusala gives different results. But, awareness of akusala can > bring > > about kusala as a result. Even if one's anger has transformed one > > into a kind individual later for various reasons such as regret, > (even > > if anger served as the cause of kindness) anger at the moment of > > arising is akusala. Dana at the moment of arising is kusala even if > > motivation for it was based on calculated selfishness. > > > > > > With regards, > > > > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > > > http://www.bodhiology.org/ 7669 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Aug 26, 2001 11:43pm Subject: Complete English translation of Majjhima Nikaya --- Herman wrote: > Dear Anders, > > --- "Anders Honore" > > > Haha, it looks like it! I'll buy the Samyutta once I have 150 > dollars > > to spare. Right now, those money are earmarked for a unforseen trip > > to Rome in September. > > I have a sneaking suspicion that you are about to change the course > of history. For the sake of the inhabitants of Abenraa and Halsingor, > please buy the Samyutta and leave Rome to the Romans :-) Haha, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to take that negatively or positively. :-) Actually, a Dhamma friend of mine from the states is getting rid of his copy because he feels it's not useful to him now, and he has promised to send it to me for free! Who would have thought.... Still grateful Anders 7670 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Anders & Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Anders, > > When I re-read the first paragraph (see below) of my last post to you (without > students about to arrive this time, so no excuse;-)), it sounded rather terse > and dismissive which wasn't intended. I sincerely apologise for this and would > like to give your same comments another try;-) Thanks. > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > > > > S: I'm very reluctant still to make any comments about Mahayana texts, but you > have asked me (more than once) to do so from my understanding of > Theravada/Tipitaka texts and very sincerely, so here goes: > > A (quoting Huineng): Erroneous views keep us in defilement While right views > remove us > from it, But when we are in a position to discard both of them We are > then absolutely pure. > > S: As long as there is no idea of a 'we' to do anything and no idea of a 'we' > to be pure......For the arahat, right views are not discarded, but rather not > clung to at all. Yes, I think he's saying the same thing. > A: Within our impure mind the pure one is to be found, > And once our mind is set right, we are free from the three kinds of > beclouding (hatred, lust and illusion). > > S: Just for a moment and then the 'impure one' again. Again, the arahat has no > more of the '3 kinds', but still no lasting state or mind, pure or otherwise. When he speaks of the 'pure' mind in this case, he refers to the Nirvanic Buddha-nature (Essence of Mind). > A: If we are treading the Path of Enlightenment We need not be worried > by stumbling-blocks. > Provided we keep a constant eye on our own faults We cannot go astray > from the right path. > > S: With respect, my mother as a Christian would say the same. 'Keeping a > constant eye on our own faults' is not the same as understanding all realities > now, not just the 'faults', as anatta. I think this is just a reference to plain Sila. I've seen a lot of people who think they know, and go around telling people just how wrong they are, yet they aren't really cultivating for themselves. > A: Since every species of life has its own way of salvation They will > not interfere with or be antagonistic to one another. > But if we leave our own path and seek some other way of salvation We > shall not find it, And though we plod on till death overtakes us We > shall find only penitence in the end. > If you wish to find the true way Right action will lead you to it > directly; But if you do not strive for Buddhahood You will grope in > the dark and never find it. > > S: I haven't come across any reference in the Theravada Tipitaka urging us to > 'strive for Buddhahood'. "Buddhahood" has a different meaning in this context. In this case, it just means final liberation. In other cases, it might mean initial awakening. > S: Perhaps we can say that the most helpful way for ourselves and others is to > develop all kinds of wholesome states of mind and in particular to develop > satipatthana which alone will bring about the understanding of anatta and the > path to nibbana. Yes. I think that what he is basically saying is that if you haven't been to Singapore, you are hardly qualified to give detailed explanations of the sites to see there and how to find them. ;-) > Again no 'Bodhi' to appear in the > Buddha's original Teachings as I understand them. Stream-entry? > Anders, I've gone through this Gatha for reasons I explained and I hope it's of > interest to you. My comments in no way are to suggest criticism or any > understanding of Huineng, but merely as I read these lines with my limited > understanding of Theravada texts. Understood. > As I rather tersely suggested last time, the scope of readings, teachings and > texts for discussion is limitless, so I'd rather in future set a good example > and stick to Theravada texts and commentaries which will keep us busy for a few > lifetimes in themselves! This isn't meant to suggest that it's not helpful to > read other texts or teachings or any other writings that anyone finds useful > and I fully appreciate that we've all come from very different 'backgrounds' in > this regard. Sure. It's not a trend I intend to keep up. I was just trying to show the broadness of understandings within Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana both). > Apologies again and look forward to hearing from you as always! Well, no apology needed, as I never took offense. Regards Anders 7671 From: Fen Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 0:08am Subject: role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Frank, Regarding eating light meal for breakfast and dinner, and one full meal for lunch, I'd like to know how you sustain your body need of calory. Is eating that little enough for your body? I've been wondering all this while. A monk might not need so much food, since they don't have to do rigorous work, they don't have to think hard (that's just my perception; correct me if I'm wrong), but as lay people, I still can't manage eating even twice a day. I do eat twice a day, on Sundays, because that's the day when my activities are least. But on usual day (Mondays through Saturdays), I usually eat thrice a day. I've ever tried to eat twice a day everyday; breakfast and dinner. But since I started to do so, my stomach never stopped give me problem( I got flatulence everyday). Subsequently I resorted to eating three time a day again. I'd like to practice eating less (twice a day) if possible, but don't really know the right way to do it. Since you've already applied it in your life, I'd like to know how you manage it. Gassho, Fen --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Erik and others: > > --- Erik wrote: > > > I have also noticed (again for these khandas) that > > is is helpful to > > abstain from eating after noon if I plan on > > meditating in the evening- > > -which led me once to speculate if this wasn't one > > of the reasons > > monks abstain from eating after noon. I have found > > this helps get rid > > of mental fogginess and makes it easier to sustain > > concentration. > > > I completely agree, and in the pali suttas the > buddha implies the same thing, but not so > specifically. I believe he says something like "not > eating after noon is of great benefit to your health > and practice". > Here's what I'm wondering though. I experimented > some with eating just one meal a day, and did feel the > benefits that the buddha and other cultivators > describe, but I'm wondering if the way I eat now is > better. Let me explain. > I eat a mostly raw vegan food (veggies/fruit) diet, > about 90%, with the remaining 10% being minimally > steamed sprouted legumes/grains. I don't use salt, > oil, dairy, spices, or any condiments. What I found is > that the more non-processed/non-refined the food is, > i.e. the closest it is to it's natural state, it's > much easier for my body to assimilate the nutrients > without the negative side effects of getting "food > coma", i.e. drowsy or mentally foggy even after larger > meals. I also don't overeat fatty raw foods like > avocado, coconut, seeds/nuts, which can be a little > hard to digest, and still case a little drowsiness if > not eaten in the right proportion. > So the question I propose is this: For the monks > subsisting on lay people's offerings, which consists > of greasy, rich, spicy, flavored foods, I would > definitely not eat after noon, since your body has to > work harder to digest all that. But with the food I > eat, I find that instead of eating one super huge meal > (have you ever seen the SIZE of the bowls monks use?), > I eat my largest meal at noon, fruit for breakfost and > small portion of fruit for dinner, I find it's better > because I avoid the over-filling at lunch to > compensate for having to pack all my daily caloric > needs into one meal. > Maybe my meditation hasn't gotten refined and subtle > enough that I can feel an impact from digesting very > light foods, but I have to say that eating a mostly > raw vegan diet, my bowel movents are probabably twice > as fast (from ingesting to elimination) as eating the > healthiest vegetarian retaurant food. I've sat in > meditation just 1 hour after eating a light dinner of > fruit without feeling uncomfortable or drowsy at all. > I'm curious to hear what the advanced cultivators have > to say on this issue. > I should mention that I'm still striving to one day > only eat one LIGHT meal at lunch, but it will probably > take me 4-8 years before I can seriously experiement > with that. > > > -fk > > > > > > > Another thing I have found useful is yoga, as I > > believe I've > > mentioned, because it increases the pleasant bodily > > feeling that > > helps me sit still for the periods of time needed to > > concentrate & > > unify the mind, and it energizes the body and mind > > as well which also > > helps with this. > > YES! this is a topic of great interest to me that I > will respond to a a couple of weeks when I have more > time. > > -fk > > 7672 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 0:16am Subject: Re: Regarding Parinibbana and annihilation - Anders & Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > > > ********************************************************* > > I quote people like Chah and Mun to "stretch" the boundaries of > > understanding "Theravada." These people are 100% Theravada (not > > mention some of the most acclaimed teachers of this century), yet > > they present a different view of Theravada than you (I feel tempted > > to say: "Than your abidhammic school). I'll birefly requote a small > > passage by Mun: > > I'm not sure what it means to be 100%Theravada (but that's another 'debate') Haha, true. > > All that remains is the primal mind, > > true & unchanging. > > Sorry, it doesn't make any sense to me.... There's a point to my little query here. I'm not trying to say: "This view of Nirvana is correct or incorrect" or anything like that. Rather, I'm trying instigate an investigative response: So this doesn't accord with your own understanding of Theravada. Why is that? Obviously, someone isn't really enlightened since these two views are so contradictory, but who is it? Mun & Chah (and Mahayanists too) or the Abdhidhamma (which I assume, is where what you are saying is stated) and some of the commentators? How will one know which one is correct or not? Is it really beneficial to believe either is correct, if one doesn't know for himself? Will clinging to one view obstruct eventual realisation of Nibbana? What if its the "wrong" one that one takes to be true? Will that obstruct realisation of Nibbana? Will the right one? If you read the kalama sutta in this context, I think you'll find that it opens up a world of investigation in regards to conceptual thinking and views, as this sutta really just explains how these views can arise. Where does your views of Nibbana come from? Where does mine? Are any of them beneficial to the path? > Actually I don't know. Are you saying that if the commentaries written by the > arahats who helped preserve the Tipitaka don't support your interpretation that > they should be taken with a 'pinch of salt'?? No, but it struck me that this is how it might seem :-) All the "commentaries" (including Mahayana, Chah & Mun, Abhid´hamma and the commentators) should be taken with a grain of salt, if you want my opinion, as I explained above. > May I also remind you that the way I understood the literal translation (before > having looked at the Pali or commentary notes) was a little different from > yours...... Yes. > May I be a 'tad strong' to coin a Howard expression here? I think the 'problem' > is when people like yourself have read a lot of Mahayana teachings and then try > to make it all 'fit' into the 'original' Tipitaka.....It reminds me a little > when I first came to study abhidhamma having trained as a psychologist....it > took a while before I could read and consider what was in front of me as a new > 'subject' or explanation of realities without trying to make it all fit > together with my ealrlier studies. Anders, just a 'tad strong' view for your > consideration only;-)) A good point. I'm not sure if its relevant though (could be). I don't think I am trying to make it 'fit' in any way, because I rarely ever make such comparisons (actually it's only at dsg I do it!) nor do I feel the neccesity for that. I just read them, and I think the main difference is that you read them in the light of the Abidhamma, and I read them in a different light. Wrong? > Glad to hear this....keep up your school studies.....maybe a Professor of > Religions would suit you better than being a doctor - either way, keep working > hard! Actually, I don't think I'd have any interest in becoming a Professor of Religions! I am not interested in the semantics or various doctrines. Just the Dhamma-truth that it's all pointing at. > Thanks for considering my comments so carefully and in real appreciation of > your fine interest in dhamma. This post is a little rushed as I'm expecting a > group of giggling girls at my door any moment! Well, I see you made up for it in a later post. Always a great pleasure talking with you, Sarah! Anders 7673 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 0:33am Subject: Re: Eightfold path - Mundane and not so mundane... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Anders > > > I think everybody here knows what constitutes the Mundane Eightfold > > Path. > > But I was wondering if anyone here might want to try and give a > > definition > > of the supramundane eightfold path for me? Thanks. > > My understanding (apparently in the minority on this list!) Haha, keep trying! If its worth it ;-) >is that the > Eightfold Path properly so called refers to the factors accompanying the > supramundane moment of attainment to one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. Well, that's news to me... > In 'A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha) it explains at Ch VII, Guide to #38 [The Four > Noble Truths]-- > > 'The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble > Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the > collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors > arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.' > > While there is no mundane Eightfold Path as such, there is a mundane > 5-fold path. This is a moment of satipatthana, such moments being > accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors. Hmm, my own understanding of the Eightfold Path (in its "mundane form") is a daily practise to be carried out which, as illustrated in the simile of the Raft and the sea, are the expedient means to reach enlightenment. How do you relate this understanding to the passage in the Dhammapada where the Buddha praises the eightfold path as the first and foremost of all paths and practises? > 1. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as the Fourth Noble > Truth means a moment of consciousness when all 8 path-factors arise > together. This occurs only at a moment of magga-citta > (path-consciousness), ie. at one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. It is > a moment of supramundane consciousness, with Nibbana as its object. Hmm, I gather that terms like "moments of path-consciousness" achieved only at the moment one becomes a stream-entrant, once- retunrer etc. are Abhidhammic conventions. I haven'tseeen any reference of them in the Sutta Pitaka myself. > 2. There is a mundane version of the path, which is a moment when 5 (or > sometimes 6) of the factors of the eightfold path (in their 'mundane > version') arise. This refers to a moment of satipatthana (or 'mundane > path-consciousness'). Its object will be any presently appearing reality. > It may arise at any time, given the right understanding and other > conditions. > > 3. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as one of the 37 > requisites of enlightenment means, at any time before actual > enlightenment, a moment of mundane (5-fold) path-consciousness and, at or > subsequent to the first stage of enlightenment, the supramundane 8- fold > path consciousness. Thanks Jon! Certainly an entrielt different exposition of the eightfold than what I've seen before! How does your explanation of the eightfold path as a moment of consciousness realte to the sutta definition of the eightfold path (this one from the Mahasatipathhana sutta): "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. 7674 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Another note: Can you imagine the Buddha being too stiff in the hips to > > assume > > the full lotus posture? Not really, but what about the rest of us? It > > is not > > unhelpful to work towards having a body that can cooperate with the best > > possible > > physical forms for our work. > > Rob E > > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff hips > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;--)) > ;--)) My immediate response is 'no' and then my secondary response is 'yes'. I think it's 'no' in the sense that no physical obstacle should be sufficient to bar someone from exercising mindfulness. On the other hand, I can't say that meditating lying down is going to have the same effect as meditating sitting up, or that slumping over is going to have the same effect as sitting up straight, or that sitting with tension in body and breathing is going to have the same effect as sitting with gentle uprightness. I am not aware of what the Buddha said on posture and position, but I know that if I sit cross-legged on the floor and watch the breath it is a very different experience in some ways than what happens if I lie down [which I do when falling asleep] and watch the breath. And if I sit and am uncomfortable with jangled nerves and tight muscles, this will be a different experience than sitting with body released, flexible and relaxed. For me, if I meditate after doing anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour of yoga stretches, my meditation seems much more balanced and easy and it is easier to be mindful. So I guess I would say that physical problems are an obstacle, although not an absolute obstacle. They make it harder, and it's already hard enough. Robert E. 7675 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Yes, thinking about the level of 'merit' one is accumulating in doing > something kusala is no doubt unwholesome, and so detracts from the overall > level of purity of the action being performed. I dare say that most of > our 'wholesome actions' are, like in this example, a mixture of kusala and > akusala mental states. ... I wonder if it would be wholesome to be aware that one is doing a meritorious deed, but rather than feeling good about the merit, enjoying a feeling of 'giving' or gratitude, happiness for the other person who receives the gift, etc.? 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" 7676 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Rikpa, I accord very much with all your comments. You helped me recall how useful chanting 'Om' has been for me in the past, accompanied by yoga. The state of mind and body brought about by this combination is very conducive to meditation. It occured to me that physical difficulties with sitting might represent past karma, and that dealing with these physical obstacles might be a kind of visceral contact with knots in the person's makeup. Yoga looks at the body as a roadmap of the person's actions, results and tendencies, which I think is interesting. We can imagine how someone shy might develop a rounded back and hunched shoulders from looking down and away, as one easy example. As physical obstacles are worked through, parts of the body and nervous system are released, 'freed' if you will. This is also conducive to progress in meditation. I appreciated your mention of the flow of prana/chi in the sitting position as an aid to meditation. I agree. I think the Buddha was aware of all of these factors but perhaps didn't directly identify all of them? I mentioned to Anders on another list that I thought Buddha might have been influenced by the yoga of his day, and then adapted it from the standpoint of his own realization. For instance, the Ashtanga [eightfold] path of Patanjali, who wrote the Yoga Sutras, and the Eightfold Path of Buddha might have something in common. Anders seemed to think that Buddha's methods were completely original and not influenced by Yoga. I wonder if any of the scholars here have any knowledge of this? Best, Robert E. ===================================== --- Erik wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with > stiff hips > > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;-- > )) > > ;--)) > > Fortunately, no, though it makes things a bit more difficult. > Seriously, it is possible to meditate effectively even without > getting 100% into the right position. It's just more difficult. For > example, I have often and still often use a backrest when I meditate, > and I have never been able to sit full lotus (Burmese is the closest > I can do)--though I try to ensure that my back is properly aligned. > > There are physiological reasons why sitting in lotus posture (and in > particular keeping your spine like a "drawn bow") exist--because the > flow of prana/chi that results from this posture makes meditation > quite a lot easier--once the body learns to adjust to it. > > It increases mental clarity end energy, for example, and enables > quicker settling of the mind. But again, it is not absolutely > necessary, though it is best if one can train to sit properly one > does so--since concentrating & unifying the mind in jhana needs as > many favorable conditions as possible (including samatha), and I may > just be one of the lucky ones in figuring a way around this that only > works for these khandas. :) > > I have also noticed (again for these khandas) that is is helpful to > abstain from eating after noon if I plan on meditating in the evening- > -which led me once to speculate if this wasn't one of the reasons > monks abstain from eating after noon. I have found this helps get rid > of mental fogginess and makes it easier to sustain concentration. > > Another thing I have found useful is yoga, as I believe I've > mentioned, because it increases the pleasant bodily feeling that > helps me sit still for the periods of time needed to concentrate & > unify the mind, and it energizes the body and mind as well which also > helps with this. > > Another thing I traditionally do is chant mantras beforehand. I find > this calms the mind, much as samatha meditation does. I have found > chanting few hundred "om mane pema hungs" for cultiavting > lovingkindness a very effective way to remind myself what this is > about as well as help settle the mind before beginning watching the > breath. > > But again, this is only what I've found works for me. Your mileage > (and others') may vary. > > ===== 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" 7677 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Mundane and not so mundane... Anders, Thanks for quoting the description of the eightfold path, particularly the concise description of the four jhanas, which I found very useful. Robert E. ======================== --- Anders Honore wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Anders > > > > > I think everybody here knows what constitutes the Mundane > Eightfold > > > Path. > > > But I was wondering if anyone here might want to try and give a > > > definition > > > of the supramundane eightfold path for me? Thanks. > > > > My understanding (apparently in the minority on this list!) > > Haha, keep trying! If its worth it ;-) > > >is that the > > Eightfold Path properly so called refers to the factors > accompanying the > > supramundane moment of attainment to one of the 4 stages of > enlightenment. > > Well, that's news to me... > > > In 'A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the > > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha) it explains at Ch VII, Guide to #38 [The > Four > > Noble Truths]-- > > > > 'The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the > Noble > > Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the > > collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path > factors > > arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.' > > > > While there is no mundane Eightfold Path as such, there is a mundane > > 5-fold path. This is a moment of satipatthana, such moments being > > accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors. > > Hmm, my own understanding of the Eightfold Path (in its "mundane > form") is a daily practise to be carried out which, as illustrated in > the simile of the Raft and the sea, are the expedient means to reach > enlightenment. > How do you relate this understanding to the passage in the Dhammapada > where the Buddha praises the eightfold path as the first and foremost > of all paths and practises? > > > 1. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as the Fourth > Noble > > Truth means a moment of consciousness when all 8 path-factors arise > > together. This occurs only at a moment of magga-citta > > (path-consciousness), ie. at one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. > It is > > a moment of supramundane consciousness, with Nibbana as its object. > > Hmm, I gather that terms like "moments of path-consciousness" > achieved only at the moment one becomes a stream-entrant, once- > retunrer etc. are Abhidhammic conventions. I haven'tseeen any > reference of them in the Sutta Pitaka myself. > > > 2. There is a mundane version of the path, which is a moment when > 5 (or > > sometimes 6) of the factors of the eightfold path (in their 'mundane > > version') arise. This refers to a moment of satipatthana > (or 'mundane > > path-consciousness'). Its object will be any presently appearing > reality. > > It may arise at any time, given the right understanding and other > > conditions. > > > > 3. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as one of the 37 > > requisites of enlightenment means, at any time before actual > > enlightenment, a moment of mundane (5-fold) path-consciousness and, > at or > > subsequent to the first stage of enlightenment, the supramundane 8- > fold > > path consciousness. > > Thanks Jon! Certainly an entrielt different exposition of the > eightfold than what I've seen before! > How does your explanation of the eightfold path as a moment of > consciousness realte to the sutta definition of the eightfold path > (this one from the Mahasatipathhana sutta): > > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge > with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to > the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice > leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. > > "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from > ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. > > "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive > speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called > right speech. > > "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from > stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. > > "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble > disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going > with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. > > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that > have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising > of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the > maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called > right effort. > > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the > world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind > in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, > alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to > the world. This is called right mindfulness. > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- > quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure > born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. > With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, > unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones > declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With > the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain. This is called right concentration. > ===== 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" 7678 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 2:10am Subject: Abhidhamma Dear Friends, I found what, to me, was a very useful summary of the Abhidhamma. I thought I would give the URL for those interested. http://tunglinkok.ca/passissue/9710/sources/teach42.htm Best, Robert E. 7679 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 0:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/23/01 10:36:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I was touched by your moving description of your cancer 'scare'. It must > have been a very trying time for your whole family. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: It was a terrible time for them. ---------------------------------------------------- > such that it helped you see things in a way you had > not seen them before. > It is true that such crises can condition useful reflection. [Note for > Erik: it is, however, not the experience itself but the reflection on it > that is the key--even though anyone would say that this level of > reflection would not have occurred absent this particular experience. So > no need to try this one!]. > > Howard, in response to the example I raised of 'spontaneous' kusala > (wholesomeness) you said the explanation was-- > > > Previous cultivation. > > This is undoubtedly true, I think. But even at such moments, kusala > effort/energy must be present. It arises with the citta, and performs its > function. Without it, no kusala whether spontaneous or not. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, hmm. I agree with respect to the 'energy' translation of 'viriya' in this case, but less so with the 'effort' translation if it is carrying a sense of intention/volition. --------------------------------------------------------------- > The texts talk of 2 kinds of kusala moments--prompted and unprompted. The > unprompted ones include those spontaneous moments. Kusala is prompted > when it arises after a reminder of some kind, whether by oneself or > another (for example, being inspired by another's good example, restraint > after reflecting on the dangers of akusala, etc). However, although in > conventional terms the difference may sometimes be seen in terms of > effort, in dhamma terms both require wholesome effort/energy co-arising at > the moment of kusala. Indeed, I believe it is true to say that the energy > factor is stronger in the spontaneous kind of kusala than in the prompted > kind. This I think highlights the difference between conventional effort > and effort/energy as a wholesome factor. > > When one reads the suttas it is useful to keep in mind this kind of > background knowledge. Although the suttas are given in conventional > language, they are often describing terms or situations that are not > conventional. > > > Current "efforts" towards kindness can only > > affect our current *action*, not our current mental state. > > I was a little puzzled by this. Surely the quality of the action is > determined by the accompanying mental states? If we do something that is > (ie. appears to be) a 'good' deed but the mental state is not wholesome, > there is no kusala of any kind. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I meant by this is covered by what I said next, quoted below by you. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > We cannot *make* > > ourselves feel warmth and kindness at the moment. But a lifetime or > > lifetimes > > of cultivation can transform the mind into one which typically is > > loving. > > It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that we have accumulations of varying > degrees for all kinds of kusala, including even awareness and > understanding presumably (otherwise there would certainly be no hope for > us). Because of this, any kind of kusala can and does arise spontaneously > in our lives, when the conditions for its arising are present. If at such > moments there is any level of awareness of the kusala nature of the > moment, this would certainly be the further development of that kusala. > > Jon > ================================ Thanks for writing, Jon. 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) 7680 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nature of citta (was Abhidhamma and Cognitive Scie... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/26/01 8:22:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > Welcome back. I hope you and your wife had a happy anniversary and a > pleasant holiday. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! Yes - to both! ------------------------------------------------------ > > In a recent post to Robert you gve this description of citta as an 'act of > discernment'. > > --- Howard wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Thank you very much for emphasizing this! I fear I was falling > > into a > > substantialist way of thinking, viewing a citta as a "thing" existing > > for a > > period of time, with the accompanying cetasikas as features of that > > thing!! > > Instead, of course, a citta is merely an act of discernment, a > > function/operation, and the accompanying cetasikas are different > > functions > > associated with the same object as that discernment. Your making this > > point > > is very helpful to me! > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I subsequently came across this passage in Bhikkhu Bodhi's 'A > Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha plus summary of commentaries) in my browsing and > was reminded of your description (which was very much spot on)-- > > "Citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an > object." > > The passage explains that there are 3 ways of defining citta: as agent > (that which cognizes an object), as instrument (that by means of which the > accompanying mental factors cognize the object) and as activity (ie. the > definition given by you). Of the 3, the third definition, in terms of > sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate. > > Even as agent or instrument, citta should not be thought of as an agent or > instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of > cognizing. > > Citta has the characteristic of knowing an object, and the function of > being a "forerunner" of the mental factors in that it presides over them > and is always accompanied by them. > [CMA Ch 1, Guide ot #3] > > I think this is helpful in reminding us of the non-substantiality of > citta. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you very much for this useful follow-up information! -------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ============================= 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) 7681 From: Larry Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 5:11am Subject: Re: Samatha-Vipassana Binh Anson wrote: .-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? -------------------------------------------- Insight, insight, what is insight? Taking a cue from VM Matara Sri Nanarama's "The Seven Stages of Purification and The Insight Knowledges" BPS, insight is noting. Noting a breath, noting a thought, noting a feeling etc, etc. In this very noting is clear seeing of impermanence, suffering, and not self. This raises the question does insight interfere with jhana? It seems to be present in the first jhana, but dropped in subsequent jhanas. I wonder if the use of a kasina as meditation object is more conducive to higher jhana because there isn't any movement in a kasina and therefore less reminder of impermanence. The Visuddhimagga says for meditation objects the 10 kasinas and mindfulness of breathing bring absorption in all four jhanas. Perhaps other meditation objects are too interesting. Has anyone had experience using kasinas? Larry fn: a kasina is a very simple visual object similar to a mandala, see Visuddhimagga, "The Path Of Purification" BPS. ps: please feel free to jump in with corrections. I realize this discussion somewhat farfetched. L 7682 From: m. nease Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 5:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Hello, Larry, Thanks for the interesting post. --- Larry wrote: > Binh Anson wrote: > .-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to > develop vipassana? > -------------------------------------------- > Insight, insight, what is insight? Taking a cue from > VM Matara Sri > Nanarama's "The Seven Stages of Purification and The > Insight Knowledges" > BPS, insight is noting. Noting a breath, noting a > thought, noting a > feeling etc, etc. In this very noting is clear > seeing of impermanence, > suffering, and not self. By this do you mean a kind of comprehension of 'breath', 'thought', feeling' etc.? What I mean to ask is, are the objects of 'noting' paramattha dhammas (i.e. citta, cetasika, rupa--I assume we can exclude nibbana) or are they concepts? Breath, for example, is a concept, as I understand it, analyizable into paramattha dhammas. If I understand this correctly, unless the aarammana is a paramattha dhamma, vipassanaa cannot result, even though a conceptual kind of insight can. I do personally think that conceptual insight (as opposed to sati-paññaa) is not only valuable but indispensible. Still I do think it's important to distinguish between the two. > This raises the question does insight interfere with > jhana? It seems to > be present in the first jhana, but dropped in > subsequent jhanas. I don't understand either sati or jhana very well, but I think that what's dropped after the first jhana is initial and sustained thought (vitakka vicaara). I don't think that vipassanaa (insight) is mentioned as a factor of any of the jhanas. So what I'm wondering is, could the 'noting' you refer to actually be vitakka vicaara, rather than vipassanaa? > I > wonder if the use of a kasina as meditation object > is more conducive to > higher jhana because there isn't any movement in a > kasina and therefore > less reminder of impermanence. The Visuddhimagga > says for meditation > objects the 10 kasinas and mindfulness of breathing > bring absorption in > all four jhanas. Perhaps other meditation objects > are too interesting. > Has anyone had experience using kasinas? I've often wondered about this myself. I've run across very brief, oblique references to kasina meditation in the suttas but have never seen any instructions as to their use. I had an impression a long time ago (I can't remember the source) that kasina meditation may have been commonplace among yogis before the Buddhasasana. Thanks in advance and my apologies if I've misunderstood any of your comments. mike > Larry > fn: a kasina is a very simple visual object similar > to a mandala, see > Visuddhimagga, "The Path Of Purification" BPS. > > ps: please feel free to jump in with corrections. I > realize this > discussion somewhat farfetched. > L 7683 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 6:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Hi Mike and Larry, This discussion is very interesting, and a little beyond my competence, but I wanted to make a note on one point: Mike, when you say 'breath' is a concept, I don't think this is true in terms of breath as a meditation object. Certainly the word 'breath' is a concept and to look at breath as 'breath' conceptualizes and would have to break down to more specific experiences. But when breath is used as meditation object, I was taught to use the sensation of the belly rising and falling or some other part of the body having the actual sensation of breathing, not the concept of breathing. The rising and falling of the belly or chest is the 'object' of meditation, not breath as a whole, thus it is an actual experience that is being noted, not a concept. I note 'rising/falling', not breathing out/breathing in. On another level, rising/falling may also be considered concepts if the words are taken as an object, but if noting occurs some word must be used and again, the word/concept is not the object. It is just a way of engaging the mind on the actual object, the sensation of the breath/movement in a specific area. Do I misunderstand? Robert ===================== --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hello, Larry, > > Thanks for the interesting post. > > --- Larry wrote: > > > Binh Anson wrote: > > .-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to > > develop vipassana? > > -------------------------------------------- > > > Insight, insight, what is insight? Taking a cue from > > VM Matara Sri > > Nanarama's "The Seven Stages of Purification and The > > Insight Knowledges" > > BPS, insight is noting. Noting a breath, noting a > > thought, noting a > > feeling etc, etc. In this very noting is clear > > seeing of impermanence, > > suffering, and not self. > > By this do you mean a kind of comprehension of > 'breath', 'thought', feeling' etc.? What I mean to > ask is, are the objects of 'noting' paramattha dhammas > (i.e. citta, cetasika, rupa--I assume we can exclude > nibbana) or are they concepts? Breath, for example, > is a concept, as I understand it, analyizable into > paramattha dhammas. If I understand this correctly, > unless the aarammana is a paramattha dhamma, > vipassanaa cannot result, even though a conceptual > kind of insight can. I do personally think that > conceptual insight (as opposed to sati-paññaa) is not > only valuable but indispensible. Still I do think > it's important to distinguish between the two. > > > This raises the question does insight interfere with > > jhana? It seems to > > be present in the first jhana, but dropped in > > subsequent jhanas. > > I don't understand either sati or jhana very well, but > I think that what's dropped after the first jhana is > initial and sustained thought (vitakka vicaara). I > don't think that vipassanaa (insight) is mentioned as > a factor of any of the jhanas. So what I'm wondering > is, could the 'noting' you refer to actually be > vitakka vicaara, rather than vipassanaa? > > > I > > wonder if the use of a kasina as meditation object > > is more conducive to > > higher jhana because there isn't any movement in a > > kasina and therefore > > less reminder of impermanence. The Visuddhimagga > > says for meditation > > objects the 10 kasinas and mindfulness of breathing > > bring absorption in > > all four jhanas. Perhaps other meditation objects > > are too interesting. > > Has anyone had experience using kasinas? > > I've often wondered about this myself. I've run > across very brief, oblique references to kasina > meditation in the suttas but have never seen any > instructions as to their use. I had an impression a > long time ago (I can't remember the source) that > kasina meditation may have been commonplace among > yogis before the Buddhasasana. > > Thanks in advance and my apologies if I've > misunderstood any of your comments. > > mike > > > Larry > > fn: a kasina is a very simple visual object similar > > to a mandala, see > > Visuddhimagga, "The Path Of Purification" BPS. > > > > ps: please feel free to jump in with corrections. I > > realize this > > discussion somewhat farfetched. > > L > ===== 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" 7684 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 7:32am Subject: How vipassana sees -Howard Dear Howard, I have this unpublished extract of a conversation between But Sawong, a Cambodian vipassana teacher and A. Sujin that might have some bearing on your questions about how panna knows the characteristic of dhammas. Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple But Sawong: For people who develop satipatthåna it is natural that sometimes the sense-door process is hidden by the mind-door process and that one therefore cannot see realities as they are. How does that happen? I ask this to help people not to go the wrong way. Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. In reality dhammas appear for an extremely short moment, they arise and then fall away immediately. Thus, the thinking in a mind-door process is hiding the sense-door processes. At this moment it is not evident that what appears through the eyes falls away. It seems that one sees all the time, but in reality there are cittas of a mind-door process arising and falling away in succession in between the citta that sees and the citta that hears, and these cittas arise each in a different sense-door process. When we speak about the eye-door, people understand, because they are seeing. When we speak about the ear-door, people understand because they are hearing. When we smell the fragrant odour of a flower, there is an experience through the nose-door. A delicious or an unsavoury flavour is a rúpa that appears through the tongue-door. At this moment heat, cold, softness or hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising and falling away one after the other, and this can be known because there is a mind-door process in between. However, that does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door process does not arise and there are only cittas which are thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door process. But Sawong: Can satipatthåna arise in a sense-door process? Sujin: Let us speak about the different processes. At this moment there are an eye-door process and an ear-door process. Can sati arise? When sati of satipaììhåna arises, of what characteristic of reality is it aware? But Sawong: I would like to ask whether satipatthåna can occur during the kusala javana-cittas of the eye-door process or the ear-door process? 2 Sujin: I would like to explain that if there is paññå that understands the dhammas appearing at this moment, it can realize that, when there is seeing, there is visible object that appears, and that the citta which sees at this moment is a reality that experiences. Can satipatthåna arise? At this moment I do not speak about the theory, I speak about the characteristics that really appear and that can be understood. If someone would ask whether satipatthåna could arise in a sense-door process, he should understand, while seeing now, that seeing arises in a sense-door process. It is the same in the case of hearing, or the experience of softness, hardness, cold or heat through the bodysense at this moment. These experiences arise in sense-door processes. Can satipatthåna arise? We should carefully consider and investigate the Dhamma we have heard. It is not sufficient to just listen and to agree with what one has heard. We must investigate whether it is the truth we have heard or not. If satipaììhåna arises now of what is it aware? If satipatthåna does not arise, the nåma and rúpa of just a moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of those dhammas. If satipatthåna does arise, it is not aware of anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. When satipatthåna arising with mahå-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process as that reality. When satipaììhåna arising in a mind-door process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthåna is aware of a nåma dhamma, it knows a nåma that arose and fell away. That nåma arose and fell away, but that characteristic still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly understood as a characteristic of nåma dhamma, different from rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is extremely rapid. Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which doorway that characteristic appears? The paññå that can distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanå ñåna 3. If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of processes mahå-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be known when mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå arises in a sense-door process, because at that moment paññå knows a characteristic of rúpa. When satipaììhåna arises in a mind-door process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . Paññå that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. Footnotes 1. Seeing , hearing and the other sense-cognitions arise in a series or process of cittas that each perform their own function. There are sense-door processes and mind-door processes. When a sense-door process has fallen away it is followed by a mind-door process of cittas that experience the sense object which was experienced by cittas arising in that sense-door process and which has just fallen away. Visible object, for example, that is experienced by cittas arising in the eye-door process, is also experienced by cittas arising in the following process, which is the mind-door process. These cittas just experience the visible object, they do not think about it. Thinking of shape and form, of concepts of people and things can arise later on, in other mind-door processes. 2. In the sense-door processes and in the mind-door process there are, in the case of non-arahats, seven javana-cittas, kusala cittas or akusala cittas that experience the object in a wholesome way or in an unwholesome way. The term mahå-kusala citta is used for kusala citta of the sense sphere. Mahå-kusala citta can be accompanied by paññå or unaccompanied by paññå. When there are conditions, mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå can arise also in a sense-door process. 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is understood what the mind-door is. Acharn Sujin explains in ³A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas², Part V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: ³The rúpas which are sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects experienced in the sense-door processes. At the moments of vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when there is no vipassanå ñåùa.² 4. The different processes arise one after the other extremely rapidly. 5. A reality does not come from anywhere when it arises, it does not exist before its arising. Therefore one can say: it is not. . 7685 From: m. nease Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Dear Robert, Thanks very much for this response. I'm not at all sure of my ground here and really welcome the opportunity to investigate it a little more. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Mike, when you say 'breath' is a concept, I don't > think this is true in terms of > breath as a meditation object. Certainly the word > 'breath' is a concept and to > look at breath as 'breath' conceptualizes and would > have to break down to more > specific experiences. This is exactly to the point (please see below). > But when breath is used as meditation object, I was > taught to use the sensation of > the belly rising and falling or some other part of > the body having the actual > sensation of breathing, not the concept of > breathing. The rising and falling of > the belly or chest is the 'object' of meditation, > not breath as a whole, thus it > is an actual experience that is being noted, not a > concept. This is just as I was taught and practiced for many years. So the question to my mind is, were we taught correctly? I believe this distinction between paramattha dhammas and other dhammas (that is that only the former can be the foundations of satipatthaana) is the crux of the difference between the Buddhadhamma with and without abhidhamma. As well as I understand it, this has to do with the very specific meaning of anicca according to the abhidhamma--that is that it's easy to understand conceptually that everything is impermanent--but that the extreme brevity of all dhammas as elucidated by the abhidhamma has very different implications from those of the ordinary idea of impermanence. > I note 'rising/falling', not breathing out/breathing > in. On another level, > rising/falling may also be considered concepts if > the words are taken as an > object, but if noting occurs some word must be used > and again, the word/concept is > not the object. It is just a way of engaging the > mind on the actual object, the > sensation of the breath/movement in a specific area. Unless I'm mistaken (as is usually the case), the practically countless numbers of cittas (arising and subsiding at the body-sense-door and the mind-door) that constitute the experience of a single in-breath or out-breath have arisen and subsided long before the conditions for the arising of the word 'rising' or 'falling' can occur. If this is true, then 'notings' of in-breath, out-breath, feeling etc. occur retropectively and with concepts (recollections) as the aarammanas rather than the paramattha dhammas, the recollection of which (in part) condition the arising of the concepts. If this also is true, then insights arising from these retrospections can only be conceptual and can surely contribute to conceptual understanding of the Dhamma but not (directly) to liberation. So, as a way of engaging the mind (citta) on the object (aarammana) how can 'noting' be accomplished before the instant of experience has vanished forever? > Do I misunderstand? I don't know if I understand, myself. I don't know the answers, but I do thank you for your patience and for the opportunity to discuss these crucial questions. mike > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Hello, Larry, > > > > Thanks for the interesting post. > > > > --- Larry wrote: > > > > > Binh Anson wrote: > > > .-Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition > to > > > develop vipassana? > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > > Insight, insight, what is insight? Taking a cue > from > > > VM Matara Sri > > > Nanarama's "The Seven Stages of Purification and > The > > > Insight Knowledges" > > > BPS, insight is noting. Noting a breath, noting > a > > > thought, noting a > > > feeling etc, etc. In this very noting is clear > > > seeing of impermanence, > > > suffering, and not self. > > > > By this do you mean a kind of comprehension of > > 'breath', 'thought', feeling' etc.? What I mean > to > > ask is, are the objects of 'noting' paramattha > dhammas > > (i.e. citta, cetasika, rupa--I assume we can > exclude > > nibbana) or are they concepts? Breath, for > example, > > is a concept, as I understand it, analyizable into > > paramattha dhammas. If I understand this > correctly, > > unless the aarammana is a paramattha dhamma, > > vipassanaa cannot result, even though a conceptual > > kind of insight can. I do personally think that > > conceptual insight (as opposed to sati-paññaa) is > not > > only valuable but indispensible. Still I do think > > it's important to distinguish between the two. > > > > > This raises the question does insight interfere > with > > > jhana? It seems to > > > be present in the first jhana, but dropped in > > > subsequent jhanas. > > > > I don't understand either sati or jhana very well, > but > > I think that what's dropped after the first jhana > is > > initial and sustained thought (vitakka vicaara). > I > > don't think that vipassanaa (insight) is mentioned > as > > a factor of any of the jhanas. So what I'm > wondering > > is, could the 'noting' you refer to actually be > > vitakka vicaara, rather than vipassanaa? > > > > > I > > > wonder if the use of a kasina as meditation > object > > > is more conducive to > > > higher jhana because there isn't any movement in > a > > > kasina and therefore > > > less reminder of impermanence. The Visuddhimagga > > > says for meditation > > > objects the 10 kasinas and mindfulness of > breathing > > > bring absorption in > > > all four jhanas. Perhaps other meditation > objects > > > are too interesting. > > > Has anyone had experience using kasinas? > > > > I've often wondered about this myself. I've run > > across very brief, oblique references to kasina > > meditation in the suttas but have never seen any > > instructions as to their use. I had an impression > a > > long time ago (I can't remember the source) that > > kasina meditation may have been commonplace among > > yogis before the Buddhasasana. > > > > Thanks in advance and my apologies if I've > > misunderstood any of your comments. > > > > mike > > > > > Larry > > > fn: a kasina is a very simple visual object > similar > > > to a mandala, see > > > Visuddhimagga, "The Path Of Purification" BPS. > > > > > > ps: please feel free to jump in with > corrections. I > > > realize this > > > discussion somewhat farfetched. > > > L 7686 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 10:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Dear Mike, I also love these sorts of detailed investigations. We may not know exactly what we're doing, but hopefully through making sensible distinctions, we can progress in understanding. One of the instructions I had from my one and only Vipassana meditation teacher [who studied extensively at the Barre, Mass. Vipassana Center and whose view I trust very strongly in any case] was to 'rub the object', and my recollection was that this meant to 'touch' the rising and falling with the breath and also with the noting so that it was not a noting at a different moment than the breath, but went through the experience of the rising/falling. The noting would get more and more gentle and integrated with the experience of the breathing, so that the mind would become more and more attentive to the experience. In this way the noting was not only meant to occupy the mind and give basic concentration of the mind onto the breathing, but also to engage the mind more and more specifically with the experience of the breathing. I believe that as this concentration increased, the breathing experience *would* break down into smaller and smaller units and gradually approach more refined levels of mindfulness. \ I think a mistake we can make is to put undo attention on the verbal aspect of 'noting', which I believe is meant to eventually disappear into the experience of mindfulness as the attention gets fully fixed on the infinitely minute experience of the breathing. Then the verbal noting might continue, but it is the pointer rather than the object and doesn't have to be attended when it is in good working order. I could go on, but I would risk confusing myself! Best, Robert ============================= --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thanks very much for this response. I'm not at all > sure of my ground here and really welcome the > opportunity to investigate it a little more. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Mike, when you say 'breath' is a concept, I don't > > think this is true in terms of > > breath as a meditation object. Certainly the word > > 'breath' is a concept and to > > look at breath as 'breath' conceptualizes and would > > have to break down to more > > specific experiences. > > This is exactly to the point (please see below). > > > But when breath is used as meditation object, I was > > taught to use the sensation of > > the belly rising and falling or some other part of > > the body having the actual > > sensation of breathing, not the concept of > > breathing. The rising and falling of > > the belly or chest is the 'object' of meditation, > > not breath as a whole, thus it > > is an actual experience that is being noted, not a > > concept. > > This is just as I was taught and practiced for many > years. So the question to my mind is, were we taught > correctly? > > I believe this distinction between paramattha dhammas > and other dhammas (that is that only the former can be > the foundations of satipatthaana) is the crux of the > difference between the Buddhadhamma with and without > abhidhamma. As well as I understand it, this has to > do with the very specific meaning of anicca according > to the abhidhamma--that is that it's easy to > understand conceptually that everything is > impermanent--but that the extreme brevity of all > dhammas as elucidated by the abhidhamma has very > different implications from those of the ordinary idea > of impermanence. > > > I note 'rising/falling', not breathing out/breathing > > in. On another level, > > rising/falling may also be considered concepts if > > the words are taken as an > > object, but if noting occurs some word must be used > > and again, the word/concept is > > not the object. It is just a way of engaging the > > mind on the actual object, the > > sensation of the breath/movement in a specific area. > > Unless I'm mistaken (as is usually the case), the > practically countless numbers of cittas (arising and > subsiding at the body-sense-door and the mind-door) > that constitute the experience of a single in-breath > or out-breath have arisen and subsided long before the > conditions for the arising of the word 'rising' or > 'falling' can occur. If this is true, then 'notings' > of in-breath, out-breath, feeling etc. occur > retropectively and with concepts (recollections) as > the aarammanas rather than the paramattha dhammas, the > recollection of which (in part) condition the arising > of the concepts. If this also is true, then insights > arising from these retrospections can only be > conceptual and can surely contribute to conceptual > understanding of the Dhamma but not (directly) to > liberation. > > So, as a way of engaging the mind (citta) on the > object (aarammana) how can 'noting' be accomplished > before the instant of experience has vanished forever? > > > Do I misunderstand? > > I don't know if I understand, myself. I don't know > the answers, but I do thank you for your patience and > for the opportunity to discuss these crucial > questions. > > mike > ===== 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" 7687 From: Erik Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:13am Subject: Re: Samatha-Vipassana --- "m. nease" wrote: > > But when breath is used as meditation object, I was > > taught to use the sensation of > > the belly rising and falling or some other part of > > the body having the actual > > sensation of breathing, not the concept of > > breathing. The rising and falling of > > the belly or chest is the 'object' of meditation, > > not breath as a whole, thus it > > is an actual experience that is being noted, not a > > concept. > > This is just as I was taught and practiced for many > years. So the question to my mind is, were we taught > correctly? You may wish to check the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta for references. If by the word "correct" you mean according to the Buddha's actual teachings, it would appear so. What did you notice with this practice? Did knowledge & remembrance increase or decrease? > I believe this distinction between paramattha dhammas > and other dhammas (that is that only the former can be > the foundations of satipatthaana) is the crux of the > difference between the Buddhadhamma with and without > abhidhamma. At the conceptual level, yes. At the level of Satipatthana, I am not familiar with where the Buddha spoke about it in these terms. The Buddha pointed out objects one can usefully concentrate on as a way of establishing mindfulness, which is, after all, "knowledge & remembrance." For example, "mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance." The body is not, as far as I can tell, a paramattha dhamma. > As well as I understand it, this has to > do with the very specific meaning of anicca according > to the abhidhamma--that is that it's easy to > understand conceptually that everything is > impermanent--but that the extreme brevity of all > dhammas as elucidated by the abhidhamma has very > different implications from those of the ordinary idea > of impermanence. Indeed, and the problem is that by merely thinking about anicca, or merely thinking about paramattha dhammas, doesn't seem to be a very conducive way to realize them directly. At least not to me. There seems to be a need to work with more realistic objects, such as the breath, before mindfulness is established to where one has the concentration where one can directly see these very subtle things. The Buddha speaks of the five hindrances, the five aggregates, the ayatanas, etc. For example "how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned." Here the Buddha speaks of the "fetters" dependent on these forms arising from the eyesense. There is no mention of "paramattha dhammas" here, as far as I can tell. What I see being pointed at is to observe what is being provoked in the mind by whatever comes in through the sense-doors. For example, if a beatiful woman appears to you (or whatever you prefer), to note: "'there is sensual desire present within me.' Or, there being no sensual desire present within, [you] discern that 'There is no sensual desire present within me.' [You] discern how there is the arising of unarisen sensual desire. And [you] discern how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And [you] discern how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that has been abandoned." Likewise, if there is a nice smell, to note the arising and passing away of the fetter that arises in dependence on that, etc. The Buddha continues: "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it is actually present, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.'" This seems pretty conceptual to me. In fact, I am not sure how it is possible to perform mindfulness meditation without concepts being present at least initially. There has to be some object of focus to sink your teewth into at first. Otherwise, how could sati possibly arise? Where would the focus be without an object you're directing the mind to? Where would you get "traction" without at least initially focusing on a coarser object until the mind settles into a state of non-distractedness? For example, if one were to simply attempt to observe arising and passing away of sensory stimuli, without any focus at all, that sounds suspiciously to me like it is suggesting "remaing UNfocused," which would appear to me to be the opposite of the instructions in the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta where the Buddha begins each of the Four Frames of Reference with "remaining focused." And the "remaining focused" part is the key to establishing mindfulness. It is the act of focusing on an object that enables one to establish Right Mindfulness. This serves then as the basis for Right Concentration to arise. If there is no object of focus then it seems rather improbable that either Right Mindfulness could have cause to arise, not to mention Right Concentration! "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. > Unless I'm mistaken (as is usually the case), the > practically countless numbers of cittas (arising and > subsiding at the body-sense-door and the mind-door) > that constitute the experience of a single in-breath > or out-breath have arisen and subsided long before the > conditions for the arising of the word 'rising' or > 'falling' can occur. If this is true, then 'notings' > of in-breath, out-breath, feeling etc. occur > retropectively and with concepts (recollections) as > the aarammanas rather than the paramattha dhammas, the > recollection of which (in part) condition the arising > of the concepts. If this also is true, then insights > arising from these retrospections can only be > conceptual and can surely contribute to conceptual > understanding of the Dhamma but not (directly) to > liberation. It is helpful to remember that the purpose of mindfulness is a form of training the mind to remain focused, without wandering, on an object. Until this sort of focus is established, there is no mindfulness. To think mindfulness can arise without this sort of focus seems rather unrealistic. How can there be "knowledge & remembrance" without an object of focus? What is known & remembered? For example, it would seem rather difficult to remain focused on a barrage of sensory stimuli appearing through the sense-doors and have any degree of mindfulness at all. How can there be "remembrance" in such a case? What is there to be mindful of, when there are millions of cittas arising and passing away? If it is impossible to directly know a single moment of citta, then it seems equally impossible that one could remember that single moment of citta. Remembrance cannot occur without knowing something in the first place! But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, as it were. It is truly fortunate that it is possible to put into practice the teachings the Buddha taught on "remaining focused" on these objects of meditation as the Buddha instructed in the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta, and thus test these instructions out directly, and see if they do in fact lead to establishing "knowledge & remembrance"--to a noticeable degree. One can likewise compare this to what happens when remaining "unfocused" and compare the results of that in terms of knowledge & remembrance (sati). If knowledge & remembrance noticeably increase with a given practice, then there is the development of sati, and the more one's focus is esatblished (non-distractedness), the subtler the things that become visible, because the mind is undistracted--"tied to the post of mindfulness"--which is necessary for Right Concentration to arise. If knowledge & remembrance (sati) are not observed to increase with a given practice, then that would appear not to be a practice conducive to Rigtht Mindfulness. 7688 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 10:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] How vipassana sees -Howard Robert, This material is absolutely fantastic. Thank you for sharing it. How the sensory experience of rupa is succeeded and carried forward by a mind-door process and the intervening mental factors, is getting down to the real nuts and bolts of both experience and vipassana. Anyone who has insight into how to track the transitions from one process to the next, as outlined in the talk below, it would be greatly appreciated and a great topic for further explication. This is practical and concrete advice which can give the practitioner hope of eventually seeing the mechanism by which realities are constructed by the mind. Best, Robert E. ================================ --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Howard, > I have this unpublished extract of a conversation between But > Sawong, a Cambodian vipassana teacher and A. Sujin that might > have some bearing on your questions about how panna knows the > characteristic of dhammas. > Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple > > But Sawong: For people who develop satipatthåna it is natural > that sometimes the sense-door process is hidden by the > mind-door process and that one therefore cannot see realities as > they are. How does that happen? I ask this to help people not to > go the wrong way. > > Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing > arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the > true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people > and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, > thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. In > reality dhammas appear for an extremely short moment, they arise > and then fall away immediately. Thus, the thinking in a > mind-door process is hiding the sense-door processes. At this > moment it is not evident that what appears through the eyes > falls away. It seems that one sees all the time, but in reality > there are cittas of a mind-door process arising and falling away > in succession in between the citta that sees and the citta that > hears, and these cittas arise each in a different sense-door > process. > > When we speak about the eye-door, people understand, because > they are seeing. When we speak about the ear-door, people > understand because they are hearing. When we smell the fragrant > odour of a flower, there is an experience through the nose-door. > A delicious or an unsavoury flavour is a rúpa that appears > through the tongue-door. At this moment heat, cold, softness or > hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not > know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen > away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process > immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 > . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then > immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door > process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising > and falling away one after the other, and this can be known > because there is a mind-door process in between. However, that > does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the > mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door > process does not arise and there are only cittas which are > thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door > process. > > But Sawong: Can satipatthåna arise in a sense-door process? > > Sujin: Let us speak about the different processes. At this > moment there are an eye-door process and an ear-door process. > Can sati arise? When sati of satipaììhåna arises, of what > characteristic of reality is it aware? > > But Sawong: I would like to ask whether satipatthåna can occur > during the kusala javana-cittas of the eye-door process or the > ear-door process? 2 > > Sujin: I would like to explain that if there is paññå that > understands the dhammas appearing at this moment, it can realize > that, when there is seeing, there is visible object that > appears, and that the citta which sees at this moment is a > reality that experiences. Can satipatthåna arise? At this moment > I do not speak about the theory, I speak about the > characteristics that really appear and that can be understood. > If someone would ask whether satipatthåna could arise in a > sense-door process, he should understand, while seeing now, that > seeing arises in a sense-door process. It is the same in the > case of hearing, or the experience of softness, hardness, cold > or heat through the bodysense at this moment. These experiences > arise in sense-door processes. Can satipatthåna arise? We should > carefully consider and investigate the Dhamma we have heard. It > is not sufficient to just listen and to agree with what one has > heard. We must investigate whether it is the truth we have heard > or not. If satipaììhåna arises now of what is it aware? > > If satipatthåna does not arise, the nåma and rúpa of just a > moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any > benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of > those dhammas. If satipatthåna does arise, it is not aware of > anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is > appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. When > satipatthåna arising with mahå-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door > process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through > one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process > as that reality. When satipaììhåna arising in a mind-door > process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa > that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthåna is > aware of a nåma dhamma, it knows a nåma that arose and fell > away. That nåma arose and fell away, but that characteristic > still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly > understood as a characteristic of nåma dhamma, different from > rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is > extremely rapid. > > Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the > eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that > arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and > the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared > through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish > between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When > softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the > characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which > doorway that characteristic appears? The paññå that can > distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the > sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanå ñåna 3. > > If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of > processes mahå-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the > sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be > known when mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå arises in a > sense-door process, because at that moment paññå knows a > characteristic of rúpa. When satipaììhåna arises in a mind-door > process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . > Paññå that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door > process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and > it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. > > > > > > > > > Footnotes > > 1. Seeing , hearing and the other sense-cognitions arise in a > series or process of cittas that each perform their own > function. There are sense-door processes and mind-door > processes. When a sense-door process has fallen away it is > followed by a mind-door process of cittas that experience the > sense object which was experienced by cittas arising in that > sense-door process and which has just fallen away. Visible > object, for example, that is experienced by cittas arising in > the eye-door process, is also experienced by cittas arising in > the following process, which is the mind-door process. These > cittas just experience the visible object, they do not think > about it. Thinking of shape and form, of concepts of people and > things can arise later on, in other mind-door processes. > 2. In the sense-door processes and in the mind-door process > there are, in the case of non-arahats, seven javana-cittas, > kusala cittas or akusala cittas that experience the object in a > wholesome way or in an unwholesome way. The term mahå-kusala > citta is used for kusala citta of the sense sphere. Mahå-kusala > citta can be accompanied by paññå or unaccompanied by paññå. > When there are conditions, mahå-kusala citta accompanied by > paññå can arise also in a sense-door process. > 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå > ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between > nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can > be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and > nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the > difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. > Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the > sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is > understood what the mind-door is. > Acharn Sujin explains in 3A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas2, Part > V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: 3The rúpas which are > sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding > sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is > experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no > vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does > not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects > experienced in the sense-door processes. At the moments of > vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, > and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the > sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when > there is no vipassanå ñåùa.2 > 4. The different processes arise one after the other extremely > rapidly. > 5. A reality does not come from anywhere when it arises, it does > not exist before its arising. Therefore one can say: it is not. > . > ===== 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" 7689 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 9:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] How vipassana sees -Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/26/01 7:33:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > Dear Howard, > I have this unpublished extract of a conversation between But > Sawong, a Cambodian vipassana teacher and A. Sujin that might > have some bearing on your questions about how panna knows the > characteristic of dhammas. > ====================== Thank you for this. It is interesting, but I don't see how it answers the question of how sati/pa~n~na, or, for that matter, a mind-gate process subsequent to a sense-gate process followed by bhavanga cittas, examines an object which has already fallen away other than as a (fresh) memory. Also, the constant mentioning of how quickly one process follows another doesn't seem to add much from my perspective. (There is also the question: "Quickly as compared to what?") 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) 7690 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 1:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Time out Dear Herman & Tori, --- Herman wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am going to be otherwise occupied for the next few weeks . I > apologise to those who may be waiting for a reply of some sort, > unfortunately it will have to wait for a few weeks. I hope the ski > slopes of the South Island of New Zealand and my knees will develop a > kind of synergy. Very best wishes from us all for the special occasion and please have a really good holiday/honeymoon on the slopes! > > I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this forum, > for the grace, patience, lovingkindness and wisdom extended to those > who knock on the door. It takes many members to make a forum....thank you for your lively questions and comments, healthy scepticism and Down Under wit! Just walk straight in anytime you have the chance to look in on us...no need to knock (and we're not fussy about the condition of the knees either)! > > Groups like this reinforce in me a belief in the underlying > benevolence of all that is known and unknown and all the other stuff > that description misses. Herman, thanks from us all.....see ya soon! Sarah p.s Just how many boys do you have? When you come back will do! Also interested in the ex-Christian pastor bit....no wonder you don't just swallow what you're given here;-))) 7691 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 2:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Thanks for the further discussion. Best, Robert E. --- Erik wrote: > But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, as it were. It is > truly fortunate that it is possible to put into practice the > teachings the Buddha taught on "remaining focused" on these objects > of meditation as the Buddha instructed in the Maha-Satipatthana > Sutta, and thus test these instructions out directly, and see if they > do in fact lead to establishing "knowledge & remembrance"--to a > noticeable degree. > > One can likewise compare this to what happens when > remaining "unfocused" and compare the results of that in terms of > knowledge & remembrance (sati). If knowledge & remembrance noticeably > increase with a given practice, then there is the development of > sati, and the more one's focus is esatblished (non-distractedness), > the subtler the things that become visible, because the mind is > undistracted--"tied to the post of mindfulness"--which is necessary > for Right Concentration to arise. If knowledge & remembrance (sati) > are not observed to increase with a given practice, then that would > appear not to be a practice conducive to Rigtht Mindfulness. ===== 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" 7692 From: Sarah Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 2:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Lovingkindness Dear Erik, As always, there are so many aspects to your post which I'd enjoy responding to, but I'll try to limit this to 'Lovingkindness' (metta). To prevent a really long post, I've just extracted small portions of your post;-) Erik wrote: > > This accumulated conditioning of self-hatred forced me to see enmity > in nearly every face I saw, in addition to conditioning the nasty > habit of seeing others as "inferior" and myself as "superior" (not to > say that's fully eradicated because, of course, I'm neither an > arahant or a Buddha, so there is still at minimum the conceit "I am" > present in everything I see), this self-hatred (uh oh, there's > that "self" again!) manifested itself in many extremely harmful ways. Yes, this is interesting, especially as we've been discussing conceit (mana). Mana prevents metta from arising. As we know, when there is mana, we find ourselves important. At these times there is 'Flaunting a Flag' and we are not concerned about the well-being of others. There is no friendship for others or gentleness. In the Atthasalani (11, bk111, 395) it descibes humbleness of heart: 'by the absence of conceit this person's heart is humble; the state of such a person is humbleness of heart'. Sariputta is usually spoken of as the example of humility, comparing himself with a dustrag, uaffected by others' harsh words or deeds. > Since I felt it inconceivable to act in a physically harmful way > toward other sentient beings (for some reason a deeply-ingrained > tendency for as long as I can remember), that self-hatred found other > forms of expression--for example, in the form of drinking alcohol to > the point of heedlessness, primarily as a means to "shut off" this > self-hatred for a brief while (which led to more addictive cycles of > misery and even more self-hatred), and also as generally pervasive > ill-will toward others; because I could see little, if anything > positive in the world. I saw others sentient beings not as a friends, > but as a potential enemies in some way--to be feared if they were > stronger than I, or to be overpowered and defeated if they appeared > in some way weaker. Yes, when there is dosa (aversion) there is no kindness and no patience with others or any objects appearing through the sense doors either. I'd like to quote from 'Cetasikas' to be found on: http://www.dhammastudy.com/ 'Adosa can be translated as non-aversion or non-hate, but there are many forms and degrees of it, loving kindness, metta, is a form of adosa which is directed towards living beings. Adosa can also be non-aversion with regard to an object which is not a being and then it can be described as patience. There can be non-aversion or patience with regard to heat, cold, bodily pain or other unpleasant objects. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 127) defines non-aversion, adosa, as follows: '... Absence of hate has the characteristic of freedom from churlishness or resentment, like an agreeable friend; the function of destroying vexation, or dispelling distress, like sandalwood: the manifestation of being pleasing, like the full moon...' The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 143) gives a similar definition (1 See also Dhammasangani 33). Non-aversion has the characteristic of freedom from savagery or violence, it is gentle like a good friend, ..' (end quote) Adosa (like alobha -non,attachment) acompanies each kusala citta (wholesome consciousness), but of course this doesn't mean that whenever there isn't dosa (aversion) there is adosa. Kusala cittas still don't arise often! > Now to pose a couple of quick intermediary questions (at your > suggestion of taking up such a style): > > Which is more destructive of the two posions: intense grasping or > intense aversion? In terms of words and deeds motivated by either of > these two poisons, which endagers ourselves and others most? Which of > these two poisons motivates the severest types of misdeeds, those > misdeeds which lead not only to states of woe, but to the very most > painful states of woe? I suspect these are rhetorical questions, Erik! Of course we dislike aversion much more and see its danger more because it is always accompanied by unpleasant feeling. It's not hard to see the khandhas on fire when there is intense aversion. My question to you is this: If there weren't intense grasping, would there be intense aversion? > > To cite what I have heard well-spoken by the wise, Master Shantideva > says in the "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life" > (Bodhicharyavatara): "There is no evil equal to hatred; and no virtue > equal to forberance." This echoes the lines from the Visuddhimagga > IX.2: "No higher rule, the Buddhas say, than patience, and no nibbana > higher than forbearance". Yes, good quotes. Let me add another one from 'Cetasikas' too: 'The function of non-aversion is the removing of annoyance or vexation and non-aversion is compared to sandalwood which has a very agreeable odour and is said to cure fever. When there is aversion we are vexed and annoyed; we burn with the fever of hate and we may become uncontrolled, we may not know what we are doing. Aversion is like a fire, it is hard to extinguish. However, when non-aversion arises we are cured of the fever of aversion, all annoyance has gone. Both aversion and non-aversion influence our bodily disposition. We read in the Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 129) : ... Absence of hate is the cause of youthfulness, for the man of no hate, not being burnt by the fire of hate, which brings wrinkles and grey hairs, remains young for a long time... The Atthasalini states that the manifestation of non-aversion is agreeableness like the full moon.' (end quote) Well, I have a lot of wrinkles and grey hair....so we can see what a beginner I am in this regard! By the way, i like to remember that while ill-will is the far enemy of metta 'like a foe ensconced in a rock wilderness', greed is the near enemy 'since both share in seeing virtues. Greed behaves like a foe who keeps close by a man, and it easily finds an opportunity. So lovingkindness should be well protected from it' (Vis 1X, 980 > And since you and I are in comlpete agreemnet there is no other > moment than now to work with our afflictions, and also that there is > no other reality to work with than our present accumulated > tendencies, it brings us directly to the point of "beginning where we > are." Which is right here, right now, with exactly what we have; no > more, no less. Erik, I'm pleased to read this;-)) (I'd just add to 'present accumulated tendencies' and other realities appearing now) > Which is why when the instructions in the Visuddhimagga (IX.8) say > that "first of all, [lovingkindness] should be developed toward > oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from > suffering', or 'may I keep myself free from enmity, affliction, and > anxiety and live happily'", this is not a random instruction. It > firmly addresses the fact that we must begin exactly where we are. > S: > > What I understand (and makes sense > > from experience too) is that this passage is suggesting that we > treat others > > like we, ourselves, would like to be treated. In other words, the > concern in > > metta and dana has to be for the welfare of another being. Following the passage you quote in the Vism. above, it explains that by using oneself as an example, ''I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too'. Later (1X, 92) it explains that metta 'comes about with respect to a friend (mitta), or it is behaviour towards a friend, thus it is lovingkindness (metta). When there is suffering in OTHERS (my caps) it causes (karoti) good people's hearts to be moved (kampana), thus it is compassion (karuna).......' I know this causes confusion, but all the 4 brahmaviharas should be understood as directed to other beings. As I mentioned, there can be other kinds of adosa (non-aversion) which are not to other beings and it's common for metta and adosa to be mixed up, but i find it helpful to consider these details and realities a little more precisely, even though it's not the label that is our concern! > To put it question form: can the designation "other" arise without > the implicit designation "self"? In other words, is there really any > fundamental separation between the khandas we designate "me" and the > khandas we designate "other"? Does this "me" exist in total > separation from all other things, in a causal vacuum, as it were? There can be metta with or without right understanding of realities. Those who have reached stages of enlightenment have no wrong view of self and yet are more likely to have metta. When there is awareness of realities, there can still be thinking of beings. Thinking can be with metta or dosa still. Actually, if there is no idea of it being 'my metta' it will be purer and more likely to arise I think. Btw, having said there isn't metta (or unlikely to be) when doing one's yoga practice, I was reflecting on how many opportunities there were during a yoga class I went to last week such as when I helped someone else with an asana (posture), let someone have my place or spoke kindly to the teacher. In my own practice in the gym, there was a good chance today whenever another member of attendant came near. Sometimes I felt disturbed with dosa and sometimes there was metta. Thanks for the reminders! > > There is quite a bit less to it than this, Sarah :) Simply focusing > on the "now" withouth realistically recognizing that we are all > enmeshed in thoughts and fabrications would be a form of leaning too > far to the "wisdom" extreme and not thinking eralixstically about the > present condition of accumulated tendenciwes, whjich is still, like > it or not, engaged in the process of fabrications about past, > persent, future, self, and other. We can't ignore this fact either, > in addition to recognizing that true insight can only arise in the > present moment. To give an example, with more direct understanding now of defilements such as conceit, craving and hatred and by realising that what we take for self and others are only namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena) , true insight will occur. We'll also learn to be 'an understanding person' and show genuine friendship. Metta will develop more and we'll be less likely to judge others, knowing these defilements (in others) are conditioned anyway. Finally, Rob wrote a very nice post on metta which you may not have seen, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5913 Erik, I hope some point here is a condition for metta for you as it has been for me! With metta, Sarah 7695 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 9:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Rob E Thanks for your comments on this point. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Serious seekers are going to look at the end goal to interpret the > Buddha's > intentions. Those who have other interests, such as 'Buddha's tips for > wealth and > beauty' [!] will find excuses to interpret it that way, whether it's > clearly the > opposite or not. Those who want to understand the interesting analysis > you > described of how certain actions lead to certain results, will take the > information to gain a better understanding of karmic mechanics. Those > who think > they can still manipulate the world of manifestation to gain happiness > will always > try to do so, and eventually they will realize that those hopes are > always dashed. > > I think it is intention that causes the interpretation, rather than > confusion. > Ultimately people will do that which serves their real purpose at any > given time. I pretty much agree with what you say about the diverse interpretations that will be given to the teachings. However, what you describe as 'intention' I would see as 'views' or 'understanding'. This to me is particularly apparent in the last instance you give ('Those who think they can still manipulate the world of manifestation to gain happiness'), but applies also to the other examples also--people will read the teachings in a way consistent with what they find important in their lives. Jon 7696 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 9:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Descriptive vs. path of action Dan Welcome back after what seems like a long absence! --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > wishing to convey in the sutta. Not a big deal in this case, but > > important when we get to suttas dealing with aspects of 'the > practice' > > (itself not a term that the Buddha tended to use). > > 'Discipline' is the word he used very frequently. How does > 'discipline' differ from 'practice'? 'Discipline' is I believe a translation of the Pali term 'vinaya'. I am familiar with this term in the following contexts-- - 'Vinaya pitaka', one of the 3 baskets of the teachings, dealing with the life of monks - 'Dhamma-vinaya', a term used by the Buddha to refer to his dispensation generally (I seem to recall reference to a person 'living under this dhamma-vinaya') Neither of these uses would carry a meaning similar to that of 'practice' as that term is commonly used. Sorry, but I don't think this really touches on your question Dan. Good to hear from you again. Jon 7697 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 9:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Hi, Binh --- Binh A wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often > about > > samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of > > vipassana. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > BA: As I understand, in simple terms, the Buddha spoke of "samatha as > a base to develop vipassana". > > So, the issue here (as well as in many other Buddhist forum and > Buddhist circles) is not about "samatha versus vipassana" but: > > -Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? > > Some says it is, some says it is not. I agree there is this question ("is samatha/jhana necessary?"), which has been the subject of much discussion on this list. Actually, I did not mean to raise that issue directly here. I was trying to make the point that, whatever one's view about the need for the development of samatha, nowhere is it suggested that the development of samatha should take precedence over that of vipassana. But since you raise the question, let me mention one or two points for consideration. Yes, there are a number of suttas which describe the attainment of enlightenment following the attainment of the jhanas, but equally it is clear that not all those who attained enlightenment did so in that way. In 'Ways to Arahantship' (AN IV, 165), the Buddha states that enlightenment is attained in one of only 4 ways-- 1. After developing samatha 2. Before developing samatha 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha 4. By overcoming the corruptions (ie without any part being played by samatha) Notice that only in ways (1) and (3) is there any attainment of the higher levels of samatha before enlightenment. In the second of the 4 ways, samatha is developed *after* enlightenment is attained, and in the fourth way there is no mention of any development of samatha at all. I think I'm right in saying that only in the 3rd way is samatha regarded as a 'base' for the attainment of enlightenment. This is only a superficial look a this sutta, but I think its implications are quite clear. I have copied an extract from the Nyanaponika Thera/Bhikkhu Bodhi translation of the sutta below. Jon AN IV, 165 Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' 83. Ways to Arahantship "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. What four? "Here friends, a monk develops insight preceded by tranquillity. While he thus develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated. "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity preceded by insight. While he thus develops … "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity and insight joined in pairs. While he thus develops … "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated." 7698 From: Howard Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 5:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Hi, Jon (and Binh) - This is an interesting sutta you quote below, particularly the last paragraph, apparently indicating a jhana-less approach to arahantship: ******************************************************** AN IV, 165 Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' 83. Ways to Arahantship "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated." ************************************************* The questions that occur to me are the following: 1) What is meant by "higher states of mind"? 2) What sort of agitation would arise as a result of them? 3) Exactly what is the state wherein one's "mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified and concentrated"? It sounds like it *could* be access concentration or khanika samadhi (moment-to-moment concentration). That would be interesting. This would, indeed, suggest an approach to complete enlightenment, one out of four, that does not have jhanic attainment as a requirement at all, though it still requires a strong and rather stable one-pointedness of mind. With metta, Howard In a message dated 8/27/01 9:34:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Hi, Binh > > --- Binh A wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often > > about > > > samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of > > > vipassana. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > BA: As I understand, in simple terms, the Buddha spoke of "samatha as > > a base to develop vipassana". > > > > So, the issue here (as well as in many other Buddhist forum and > > Buddhist circles) is not about "samatha versus vipassana" but: > > > > -Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? > > > > Some says it is, some says it is not. > > I agree there is this question ("is samatha/jhana necessary?"), which has > been the subject of much discussion on this list. Actually, I did not > mean to raise that issue directly here. I was trying to make the point > that, whatever one's view about the need for the development of samatha, > nowhere is it suggested that the development of samatha should take > precedence over that of vipassana. > > But since you raise the question, let me mention one or two points for > consideration. > > Yes, there are a number of suttas which describe the attainment of > enlightenment following the attainment of the jhanas, but equally it is > clear that not all those who attained enlightenment did so in that way. > > In 'Ways to Arahantship' (AN IV, 165), the Buddha states that > enlightenment is attained in one of only 4 ways-- > > 1. After developing samatha > 2. Before developing samatha > 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha > 4. By overcoming the corruptions (ie without any part being played by > samatha) > > Notice that only in ways (1) and (3) is there any attainment of the higher > levels of samatha before enlightenment. In the second of the 4 ways, > samatha is developed *after* enlightenment is attained, and in the fourth > way there is no mention of any development of samatha at all. > > I think I'm right in saying that only in the 3rd way is samatha regarded > as a 'base' for the attainment of enlightenment. > > This is only a superficial look a this sutta, but I think its implications > are quite clear. > > I have copied an extract from the Nyanaponika Thera/Bhikkhu Bodhi > translation of the sutta below. > > Jon > > AN IV, 165 > Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' > 83. Ways to Arahantship > > "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained > the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. > What four? > > "Here friends, a monk develops insight preceded by tranquillity. While he > thus develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path arises in him. > He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing > so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated. > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity preceded by insight. > While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity and insight joined in > pairs. While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher > states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in > him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is > doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies > eliminated." > /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) 7699 From: Suan Lu Zaw Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:25pm Subject: Deep Sleep As Having Sati: Updated Version Re: The limits of awareness: Dear Dhammastudy Friends How are you? I would like to post the following updated version of my message 7668. I am not satisfied with the last statement of that message. So I have modified that last statement in this message. Also, I included an additional textual reference in this updated message. Apology for any inconvenience! Suan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Herman How are you? You asked: "I read from your post that any mindfulness is kusala. Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala?" What I am about to answer is very counter-intuitive. The answer is the result of my recent readings of Dhammasangani, Atthasalini, Abhidhammatthasangaha and Parajikatthakatha. First, the answer is No to your question "Would it be true to say that any state where mindfulness was absent eg sleep, was therefore akusala?" According to sections 431, 455,469 in Dhammasangani, there are rootless kusala resultant minds (ahetuka kusala vipaka cittani). They lack sati (recollection, mindfullness), but they are kusala, nonetheless. Now, a very counter-intuitive answer follows. Deep sleep has sati (recollection, mindfullness). It is unbelievable, indeed, but true according to abhidhamma. To elaborate a little further on this answer, all normal human beings on this planet or any other planets in all the countless universes were born as the result of sensuous healthy minds. Please see section 498 in Dhammasangani and Atthasalini. Bluntly speaking, we are what abhidhamma calls one of the eight great sensuous healthy resultant minds (attha maha kusalavipaka cittani). If our minds do not interact with the stimuli, we go back to the state of the healthy resultant minds. An example of the healthy resultant minds is our familier nightly deep sleep. Reference for this is Section 236-237 in Parajikatthakatha Vol 2. Now, we turn to the participation of sati. The eight great sensuous healthy minds (attha maha kusala cittani) come with sati. Please see section 1 in Dhammasangani. Similarly, the resultant minds as the results of the eight great healthy minds also come with sati. Please see section 498 in Dhammasangani. Therefore, deep sleep being a state of one of the eight great healthy resultant minds ( attha maha kusala vipaka cittani) has recollection or mindfullness. Of course, while we are in deep sleep, our sati does not deal with stimuli of the waking world, but sati in deep sleep serves as a blueprint for sati in healthy minds (kusala cittani) to remember, or to be mindful of, stimuli in waking moments. With regards Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org/ 7700 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:23pm Subject: Re: Samatha-Vipassana Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > In 'Ways to Arahantship' (AN IV, 165), the Buddha states that > enlightenment is attained in one of only 4 ways-- This is from AN IV.170; it is V. Ananda addressing the Bikkhus. The numerical discourses as translated by Nyonaponika Thera and B. Bodhi lists the reference number after the sutta, and not before. The translation on access to insights is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-170.html kom 7701 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:36pm Subject: Re: Samatha-Vipassana Hi Howard, Let's see if I recall correctly the commentary on these questions correctly... > ************************************************* > The questions that occur to me are the following: > > 1) What is meant by "higher states of mind"? The various vipassana-ñana discussed in Vism. XX, i.e. the direct insights into various realities. > 2) What sort of agitation would arise as a result of them? The agitation these insights engender are things like: "Cool! I just experienced this great insight! Wow! I'm getting pretty wise now..." The insights may hit like a lightning flash and immediately follows a reaction. Then, comes papañca. Someone who's studied Dhamma may think that they are not supposed to have this "Wow, cool" reaction, so after the insight, they may convince themselves that they really didn't. It takes a very high degree of internal steadiness with composed, unified, and concentrated mind not to be afflicted with such corruption of insight. But fully developed jhana? No. Access concentration? Yes. > 3) Exactly what is the state wherein one's "mind becomes internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated"? It sounds like it *could* be > access concentration or khanika samadhi (moment-to-moment concentration). > That would be interesting. This would, indeed, suggest an approach to > complete enlightenment, one out of four, that does not have jhanic attainment > as a requirement at all, though it still requires a strong and rather stable > one-pointedness of mind. Yup. Dan 7702 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:41pm Subject: Re: Descriptive vs. path of action Hi Jon, > Welcome back after what seems like a long absence! Thanks for the welcome. I really do not intend to be 'back', though, for a few months. > > 'Discipline' is the word he used very frequently. How does > > 'discipline' differ from 'practice'? > > - 'Dhamma-vinaya', a term used by the Buddha to refer to his dispensation > generally (I seem to recall reference to a person 'living under this > dhamma-vinaya') > > Neither of these uses would carry a meaning similar to that of 'practice' > as that term is commonly used. I would think that dhamma-vinaya would include the notion of a 'practice'. If we are not careful, we might fall into the trap that the practice is viewed as something external, i.e. a formula of "Do this practice. Get that result." Buddha mentions such formulas often, but not so much in the context of a particular Thing-to-Do. Dan 7703 From: frank kuan Date: Mon Aug 27, 2001 11:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi Fen, --- Fen wrote: > Dear Frank, > Regarding eating light meal for breakfast and > dinner, and one full > meal for lunch, I'd like to know how you sustain > your body need of > calory. Is eating that little enough for your body? How do you know I eat too little if I didn't say what I eat and how much? :-) My typical breakfast consists of a banana smoothie: 2-4 bananas, depending on size of banana, handful of walnuts (about 1oz weight), water, all blended together. Depending on season, if strawberries are good, or kiwi, I might throw in a couple for variety. It's light, easy to digest, doesn't make me drowsy, yet filling enough to keep me from going hungry for at least 3 hours. I list what I eat as an example, not as a definitive guide as to what the proper amount is. Obviously Shaquile Oneal (7ft, 320lb man) is probably going to need a larger portion. The key is to figure how how much to eat that will sustain your body for spiritual practice without being too full. > I've been wondering all this while. A monk might > not need so much > food, since they don't have to do rigorous work, > they don't have to > think hard (that's just my perception; correct me if > I'm wrong), This is an interesting aspect that I could spend pages talking about. The bottom line is all kinds of activity that we normally don't think of as rigorous can have large energy expenditures and need to replenish. For example, if I do deep thinking when I program at work, I will need to eat a larger portion of food for dinner. > but > as lay people, I still can't manage eating even > twice a day. I do eat > twice a day, on Sundays, because that's the day when > my activities > are least. The important goal to keep in mind is to figure out the optimal way to get adequate nutrition to sustain your body for spiritual practice and not focus so much on how many meals and snacks are required to fulfill that. I started out eating 3 large meals, snacking 2 or 3 times a day. But as I did more yoga, more meditation, I found that I needed to eat less. So just let it happen naturally, work on it little by little. > But on usual day (Mondays through > Saturdays), I usually > eat thrice a day. I've ever tried to eat twice a day > everyday; > breakfast and dinner. But since I started to do so, > my stomach never > stopped give me problem( I got flatulence everyday). > Subsequently I > resorted to eating three time a day again. I'd like > to practice > eating less (twice a day) if possible, but don't > really know the > right way to do it. Since you've already applied it > in your life, I'd > like to know how you manage it. > I tried forcing myself to follow a strict regimen a few times, and that always ended in failure. Now the way I eat is natural, relaxed, enjoyable. Others look at what I eat and think I am practicing some strict austerity and using some amazing self-control. But it really isn't the case. My diet slowly evolved into a more healthy meal that it is today. When I first became vegetarian 13 years ago, it was the unhealthiest phase of my life. I gained 20 lbs within a few months from eating lots of italian food loaded with dairy (cheese pizza, lasagna, etc). The food I eat now, I couldn't gain weight if I want to. If you overeat very healthy food, you'll just take a bigger dump :-) I found that the only way I can gain weight is if I do resistive weight training, lifting weights and fatiguing muscles so they rebuild and gain mass. The weight I gain from this is muscle, but I don't really want to overdo it. People who do too much weight lifting expend too much energy in a completely useless way. It requires eating more, sleeping more, to build more mass. How pointless. It's like having a huge army that you have to pay a large salary, clothe and feed in a time of peace. My fitness goal is all spiritually oriented. I want the flexibility to sit in full lotus for hours at a time, I want to be able to sleep only 3-4 hours a day, I want to get healthy enough to eat only 1 meal a day, I want my body to have a strong guardian qi where I don't sweat when it's too hot, and I can meditate in the snow naked and still be warm. These goals are achievable, I've seen people who can do it, so it inspires me to move in that direction. Metta, -fk 7704 From: Suan Lu Zaw Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 0:21am Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach: To Robert E Dear Robert How are you? You wrote: "I am not aware of what the Buddha said on posture and position, but I know that if I sit cross-legged on the floor and watch the breath it is a very different experience in some ways than what happens if I lie down [which I do when falling asleep] and watch the breath." The Buddha did instruct how to sit when we do recollection practice of inhalation and exhalation. The Buddha instructed as follows in Section 107 in Mahasatipatthana Suttam, Mulapannasa, Majjimanikayo, " nisidati, pallankam abhujitva, ujum kayam patidhaya" "(the monk) sits by crossing his legs fully and by keeping the (upper) body straight." "Pallankam abhujitva" depicts the images of Buddha's cross-legged sitting posture. However, sections 108 and 109 have instructions for those who use any body postures as the objects for their recollection. That is to say, if one cannot sit in lotus posture, there are alternative postures for practising vipassana. It is entirely up to individual practitioners which posture they choose. If they chose recollection of inhalation and exhalation, the Buddha instructed them to sit in lotus posture as he himself has adopted it. With regards Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org/ --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Another note: Can you imagine the Buddha being too stiff in the hips to > > > assume > > > the full lotus posture? Not really, but what about the rest of us? It > > > is not > > > unhelpful to work towards having a body that can cooperate with the best > > > possible > > > physical forms for our work. > > > > Rob E > > > > You raise an interesting point. If samatha/jhana 'practice' is a > > necessary part of the development of the path, is a person with stiff hips > > or jogger's knees handicapped in the quest for enlightenment?! ;- -)) > > ;--)) > > My immediate response is 'no' and then my secondary response is 'yes'. I think > it's 'no' in the sense that no physical obstacle should be sufficient to bar > someone from exercising mindfulness. On the other hand, I can't say that > meditating lying down is going to have the same effect as meditating sitting up, > or that slumping over is going to have the same effect as sitting up straight, or > that sitting with tension in body and breathing is going to have the same effect > as sitting with gentle uprightness. > > I am not aware of what the Buddha said on posture and position, but I know that if > I sit cross-legged on the floor and watch the breath it is a very different > experience in some ways than what happens if I lie down [which I do when falling > asleep] and watch the breath. > > And if I sit and am uncomfortable with jangled nerves and tight muscles, this will > be a different experience than sitting with body released, flexible and relaxed. > > For me, if I meditate after doing anywhere from a few minutes to a half hour of > yoga stretches, my meditation seems much more balanced and easy and it is easier > to be mindful. > > So I guess I would say that physical problems are an obstacle, although not an > absolute obstacle. They make it harder, and it's already hard enough. > > Robert E. > 7705 From: Fen Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 9:04am Subject: role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear FK, You said," . I want the flexibility to sit in full lotus for hours at a time, I want to be able to sleep only 3-4 hours a day, I want to get healthy enough to eat only 1 meal a day, I want my body to have a strong guardian qi where I don't sweat when it's too hot, and I can meditate in the snow naked and still be warm. These goals are achievable, I've seen people who can do it, so it inspires me to move in that direction." Very interesting. Could you please elaborate more on how those are achievable? Have you managed to achieve it? How long does it take you? Who do you consult with? Who is your guidance? Really curious, Fen --- frank kuan wrote: > Hi Fen, > > --- <> wrote: > > Dear Frank, > > Regarding eating light meal for breakfast and > > dinner, and one full > > meal for lunch, I'd like to know how you sustain > > your body need of > > calory. Is eating that little enough for your body? > > How do you know I eat too little if I didn't say > what I eat and how much? :-) My typical breakfast > consists of a banana smoothie: 2-4 bananas, depending > on size of banana, handful of walnuts (about 1oz > weight), water, all blended together. Depending on > season, if strawberries are good, or kiwi, I might > throw in a couple for variety. It's light, easy to > digest, doesn't make me drowsy, yet filling enough to > keep me from going hungry for at least 3 hours. I list > what I eat as an example, not as a definitive guide as > to what the proper amount is. Obviously Shaquile Oneal > (7ft, 320lb man) is probably going to need a larger > portion. The key is to figure how how much to eat that > will sustain your body for spiritual practice without > being too full. > > > I've been wondering all this while. A monk might > > not need so much > > food, since they don't have to do rigorous work, > > they don't have to > > think hard (that's just my perception; correct me if > > I'm wrong), > > This is an interesting aspect that I could spend > pages talking about. The bottom line is all kinds of > activity that we normally don't think of as rigorous > can have large energy expenditures and need to > replenish. For example, if I do deep thinking when I > program at work, I will need to eat a larger portion > of food for dinner. > > > but > > as lay people, I still can't manage eating even > > twice a day. I do eat > > twice a day, on Sundays, because that's the day when > > my activities > > are least. > > The important goal to keep in mind is to figure out > the optimal way to get adequate nutrition to sustain > your body for spiritual practice and not focus so much > on how many meals and snacks are required to fulfill > that. I started out eating 3 large meals, snacking 2 > or 3 times a day. But as I did more yoga, more > meditation, I found that I needed to eat less. So just > let it happen naturally, work on it little by little. > > > > > But on usual day (Mondays through > > Saturdays), I usually > > eat thrice a day. I've ever tried to eat twice a day > > everyday; > > breakfast and dinner. But since I started to do so, > > my stomach never > > stopped give me problem( I got flatulence everyday). > > Subsequently I > > resorted to eating three time a day again. I'd like > > to practice > > eating less (twice a day) if possible, but don't > > really know the > > right way to do it. Since you've already applied it > > in your life, I'd > > like to know how you manage it. > > > > I tried forcing myself to follow a strict regimen a > few times, and that always ended in failure. Now the > way I eat is natural, relaxed, enjoyable. Others look > at what I eat and think I am practicing some strict > austerity and using some amazing self-control. But it > really isn't the case. My diet slowly evolved into a > more healthy meal that it is today. When I first > became vegetarian 13 years ago, it was the > unhealthiest phase of my life. I gained 20 lbs within > a few months from eating lots of italian food loaded > with dairy (cheese pizza, lasagna, etc). The food I > eat now, I couldn't gain weight if I want to. If you > overeat very healthy food, you'll just take a bigger > dump :-) I found that the only way I can gain weight > is if I do resistive weight training, lifting weights > and fatiguing muscles so they rebuild and gain mass. > The weight I gain from this is muscle, but I don't > really want to overdo it. People who do too much > weight lifting expend too much energy in a completely > useless way. It requires eating more, sleeping more, > to build more mass. How pointless. It's like having a > huge army that you have to pay a large salary, clothe > and feed in a time of peace. My fitness goal is all > spiritually oriented. I want the flexibility to sit in > full lotus for hours at a time, I want to be able to > sleep only 3-4 hours a day, I want to get healthy > enough to eat only 1 meal a day, I want my body to > have a strong guardian qi where I don't sweat when > it's too hot, and I can meditate in the snow naked and > still be warm. These goals are achievable, I've seen > people who can do it, so it inspires me to move in > that direction. > > > Metta, > -fk > 7706 From: Howard Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 5:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Hi, Dan - In a message dated 8/27/01 11:55:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Hi Howard, > > Let's see if I recall correctly the commentary on these questions > correctly... > ===================== Thanks. The answer is helpful. 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) 7707 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > Thanks for your comments on this point. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Serious seekers are going to look at the end goal to interpret the > > Buddha's > > intentions. Those who have other interests, such as 'Buddha's tips for > > wealth and > > beauty' [!] will find excuses to interpret it that way, whether it's > > clearly the > > opposite or not. Those who want to understand the interesting analysis > > you > > described of how certain actions lead to certain results, will take the > > information to gain a better understanding of karmic mechanics. Those > > who think > > they can still manipulate the world of manifestation to gain happiness > > will always > > try to do so, and eventually they will realize that those hopes are > > always dashed. > > > > I think it is intention that causes the interpretation, rather than > > confusion. > > Ultimately people will do that which serves their real purpose at any > > given time. > > I pretty much agree with what you say about the diverse interpretations > that will be given to the teachings. However, what you describe as > 'intention' I would see as 'views' or 'understanding'. This to me is > particularly apparent in the last instance you give ('Those who think they > can still manipulate the world of manifestation to gain happiness'), but > applies also to the other examples also--people will read the teachings in > a way consistent with what they find important in their lives. > > Jon I think that what I am calling 'intention' would be the 'active' form of a 'view'. If I think the world is all about money and power, my intention will be to get money and power, etc. I understand the desire to use 'view' in terms of Right View and the other views that are stuck in one or another concept of reality. I think 'intention' is probably just another aspect of the same thing. Robert E. 7708 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samatha-Vipassana Jon, I appreciate the quote below, not only for its clarification of the role of samatha in attainment of enlightenment, but for its clear description of samatha itself. Very helpful. Robert E. ======== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Binh > > --- Binh A wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > You may like to keep in mind that although the Buddha spoke often > > about > > > samatha, but he never advised its development to the exclusion of > > > vipassana. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > BA: As I understand, in simple terms, the Buddha spoke of "samatha as > > a base to develop vipassana". > > > > So, the issue here (as well as in many other Buddhist forum and > > Buddhist circles) is not about "samatha versus vipassana" but: > > > > -Is samatha (jhana) the "necessary" condition to develop vipassana? > > > > Some says it is, some says it is not. > > I agree there is this question ("is samatha/jhana necessary?"), which has > been the subject of much discussion on this list. Actually, I did not > mean to raise that issue directly here. I was trying to make the point > that, whatever one's view about the need for the development of samatha, > nowhere is it suggested that the development of samatha should take > precedence over that of vipassana. > > But since you raise the question, let me mention one or two points for > consideration. > > Yes, there are a number of suttas which describe the attainment of > enlightenment following the attainment of the jhanas, but equally it is > clear that not all those who attained enlightenment did so in that way. > > In 'Ways to Arahantship' (AN IV, 165), the Buddha states that > enlightenment is attained in one of only 4 ways-- > > 1. After developing samatha > 2. Before developing samatha > 3. In conjunction with the development of samatha > 4. By overcoming the corruptions (ie without any part being played by > samatha) > > Notice that only in ways (1) and (3) is there any attainment of the higher > levels of samatha before enlightenment. In the second of the 4 ways, > samatha is developed *after* enlightenment is attained, and in the fourth > way there is no mention of any development of samatha at all. > > I think I'm right in saying that only in the 3rd way is samatha regarded > as a 'base' for the attainment of enlightenment. > > This is only a superficial look a this sutta, but I think its implications > are quite clear. > > I have copied an extract from the Nyanaponika Thera/Bhikkhu Bodhi > translation of the sutta below. > > Jon > > AN IV, 165 > Translation 'Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' > 83. Ways to Arahantship > > "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained > the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. > What four? > > "Here friends, a monk develops insight preceded by tranquillity. While he > thus develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path arises in him. > He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is doing > so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated. > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity preceded by insight. > While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk develops tranquillity and insight joined in > pairs. While he thus develops … > > "Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation caused by higher > states of mind. But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated; then the path arises in > him. . He now pursues, develops and cultivates that path, and while he is > doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies > eliminated." > ===== 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" 7709 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Great post, Dan. thanks for your insight and clarity. Very helpful and interesting. Robert E. ================= --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Let's see if I recall correctly the commentary on these questions > correctly... > > ************************************************* > > The questions that occur to me are the following: > > > > 1) What is meant by "higher states of mind"? > > The various vipassana-ñana discussed in Vism. XX, i.e. the direct > insights into various realities. > > > 2) What sort of agitation would arise as a result of them? > > The agitation these insights engender are things like: "Cool! I just > experienced this great insight! Wow! I'm getting pretty wise now..." > The insights may hit like a lightning flash and immediately follows > a reaction. Then, comes papañca. Someone who's studied Dhamma may > think that they are not supposed to have this "Wow, cool" reaction, so > after the insight, they may convince themselves that they really > didn't. It takes a very high degree of internal steadiness with > composed, unified, and concentrated mind not to be afflicted with such > corruption of insight. But fully developed jhana? No. Access > concentration? Yes. > > > 3) Exactly what is the state wherein one's "mind becomes > internally > > steadied, composed, unified and concentrated"? It sounds like it > *could* be > > access concentration or khanika samadhi (moment-to-moment > concentration). > > That would be interesting. This would, indeed, suggest an approach > to > > complete enlightenment, one out of four, that does not have jhanic > attainment > > as a requirement at all, though it still requires a strong and > rather stable > > one-pointedness of mind. > > Yup. > > Dan > > ===== 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" 7710 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Wow. Robert E. ============= --- frank kuan wrote: My fitness goal is all > spiritually oriented. I want the flexibility to sit in > full lotus for hours at a time, I want to be able to > sleep only 3-4 hours a day, I want to get healthy > enough to eat only 1 meal a day, I want my body to > have a strong guardian qi where I don't sweat when > it's too hot, and I can meditate in the snow naked and > still be warm. These goals are achievable, I've seen > people who can do it, so it inspires me to move in > that direction. 7711 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach: To Robert E Thanks, Suan. Regards, Robert E. ================= --- Suan Lu Zaw wrote: ...if one cannot sit in lotus posture, there are > alternative postures for practising vipassana. > > It is entirely up to individual practitioners which posture they > choose. > > If they chose recollection of inhalation and exhalation, the Buddha > instructed them to sit in lotus posture as he himself has adopted it. ===== 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" 7712 From: Larry Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 11:50am Subject: Re: Samatha-Vipassana LBIDD wrote: Insight, insight, what is insight? Taking a cue from VM Matara Sri Nanarama's "The Seven Stages of Purification and The Insight Knowledges" BPS, insight is noting. Noting a breath, noting a thought, noting a feeling etc, etc. In this very noting is clear seeing of impermanence, suffering, and not self. mnease replied: By this do you mean a kind of comprehension of 'breath', 'thought', feeling' etc.? -------------------------------------- Hi Mike, thanks for your response. There's been so much discussion on this topic I thought I would just elaborate on this one point. Basically what I was getting at is what is the insight in insight meditation? I'm assuming there's a difference between insight and the random bright idea. The technique I was given is "follow the out breath and label the thinking as thinking." Labelling seems to amount to the same thing as Venerable Nanarama's "noting." Unfortunately, virtually every thought I think, I cling to and identify with. But when I recognize a thought as a thought, then in that same instant it is seen as impermanent, dukkha (unworthy), and not me. Not a big deal at all, but nevertheless a definite break in the seemingly continuous fabric of clinging. The same thing occurs with feeling, particularly emotional feeling. Admittedly this doesn't occur with the noting of a breath, but I'm wondering if maybe we do identify with the breath, only on a deeper, unconscious level. It's conceivable that we identify with everything in our experience without realizing it. This would certainly add another dimension to anatta. If nothing else, maybe it's a little more encouragement to practice and contemplate. enjoyed the discussion, Larry 7713 From: frank kuan Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 1:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] role of diet, eating times in meditation Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi Fen, I wrote: > [snip]I want the flexibility to sit in > full lotus for hours at a time, I want to be able to > sleep only 3-4 hours a day, I want to get healthy > enough to eat only 1 meal a day, I want my body to > have a strong guardian qi where I don't sweat when > it's too hot, and I can meditate in the snow naked > and > still be warm. These goals are achievable, I've seen > people who can do it, so it inspires me to move in > that direction." [fen]: > Very interesting. Could you please elaborate > more on how those are > achievable? Have you managed to achieve it? How long > does it take > you? Who > do you consult with? Who is your guidance? Unfortunately, these qualities I strive for are not conveniently all bundled up into one super-teacher who I follow. They are spread out over many people. My primary nutritional guide is Jeff Novick, who has posted numerous articles on the web. I've met many lamas, taoists, chinese mahayanists who exhibit the kind of qualities that I talked about above. For right view, I rely on the Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and the Visuddhimagga as my primary guides. I've talked to and personally observed cultivators from different spiritual traditions who can eat very little, sleep very little, have strong muscular bodies, impervious to extreme weather, great immune system, never get sick, etc. For virtue, my father is a great role model. I also have some other role models that you might not expect. I look up to the fictional Reverend Beebe from the movie "Room with a view" for a shining example on how to transcend social stratification and warmly communicate with people with any background. As far as what I have personally attained, it's an ongoing adventure, who knows how it will end? After a good yoga session, my body is pliable and relaxed, and I can sit between 1 and two hours in full lotus without my legs going numb or tingly. On days when I work 8-10 hours and have to think deeply, I usually need 6-7 hours of sleep. If I spend the whole day just doing yoga, walking meditation, sitting meditation, then I need only about 4 hours sleep, maybe a 30-45 minute nap in the middle of the day. I usually wake up by 5am, sometimes 3 or 4am and I'll do some extra meditation. I usually eat 1 big meal, two light meals, and one or two small snacks in between as needed. I usually like to have at least 12-16 hours per day though where I don't eat. Immune system wise, and my physical vitality is in my opinion pathetic, but it is relative and I'm comparing it to VERY healthy people, not the average worlding. Increasing my dosage of buddhist meditation will address some of these problems gradually, but I can give it a big boost if I practice some taoist internal kung fu exercises targeting specific needs. There are many competent masters out there, and if you are dedicated and are putting forth a genuine effort to achieve your goals, it seems to work out that you run into opportunites to learn from them. If I were to rate the importance of diet, exercise, meditation and assign their weight in contributing to optimal health: 50%: Proper/Right view in the buddhist sense - leads to happy, calm, relaxed, joyful mind and body 30%: meditation and proper breathing (relaxed, slow, deep) - smooth out the flow of blood, lymph, bioelectric energy fields/chi channels, build a large reserve energy in the 8 chi vessels to facilitate spiritual growth, jhanic absorptions 15%: proper exercise: yoga, external/internal qi-gong, tai-chi. Most western excercises are fun but expend more energy than they build. Don't overdo non-optimal forms of exercise 5%: proper diet. Caveat: an improper or severely unhealthy diet could change the weighting of this optimal health equation. For example, if you eat at mcdonalds 3 times a day, it doesn't matter how much qi-gong and meditation and right view you have, you're going to die prematurely. -fk 7714 From: Sarah Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 3:36pm Subject: 6 Pairs -calm, lightness, pliancy, wieldiness, proficiency, uprightness Dear Erik, I’ve been pulling out lots of texts to supplement my poor recollection about the 6 Pairs (Yugalakaani). As you said earlier, the term yugala (as in Sk) means acouple or pair and the Latin & Greek forms suggest yoking. Ven. Nyanaponika discusses the Pairs in ‘Abhidhamma Studies’ (which is probably the book you had in New York).: ‘The twelve factors, beginninning with ‘tranquillity of mental concomitants’(kaya-passaddhi’ always arise together. They occur only in good consciousness and are common to all types of it (sobhana -sadharana). In the Athasalani they are sometimes called ‘the six pairs’ (cha yugalakani) for short.’ Now let me list them and quote from ‘Cetasikas’ by Nina Van Gorkom: ‘ Summarizing the six pairs of sobhana cetasikas, they are: calm of cetasikas, kaya-passaddhi . calm of citta, citta-passaddhi lightness of cetasikas, kaya-lahuta lightness of citta, citta-lahuta pliancy of cetasikas, kaya-muduta pliancy of citta, citta-muduta wieldiness of cetasikas, kaya-kammannata wieldiness of citta, dtra-kammannata proficiency of cetasikas, kaya-pagunnata proficiency of citta, citya-pagunnata uprightness of cetasikas, kaya-ujukata uprightness of citta, citta-ujukata These six pairs accompany all sobhana cittas. They are necessairy for each kind of kusala, be it generosity (dana), morality (sila), the development of calm (samatha) or insight (vipassana). They assist the kusala citta and its accompanying cetasikas, so that wholesomeness can be performed in an efficient way. They are counteractive to the hindrances of sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and regret, and doubt. when the six pairs are present the hindrances do not arise; citta and cetasikas are healthy and skilful in performing their functions. Right understanding is the factor which conditions most of all the development of all the wholesome qualities represented by the six pairs. In the arahat they have reached perfection. ‘ Sarah:>>For example, when we read about kaya-lahuta (lightness > of mental > > factors) and citta-lahuta (lightness of citta), people have an idea > that these > > refer to feeling light and energetic in a conventional sense. In > fact they > > have to refer to wholesome states of mind (even if one is on one's > death-bed, > > they can arise). They're opposed to thina and middha (sloth and > torpor) which > > we discussed sometime back as having nothing to do with conventional > > slugishness.Thina and middha refer to sluggishness with regard to > skilful > > states of mind. > > > Kaya-muduta (pliancy of cetasikas) and citta muduta (pliancy of > citta) are also > > interesting. They are the opponents of wrong view and conceit. As > the mana > > discussions have shown recently, when there is mana, there is > mental rigidity > > or intolerance and comparing. So kaya muduta has nothing to do with > the body or > > flexibility! > Erik: > I would question this interpretation using only "cetasikas" (how do > mental factorsrelate to the body, other than the mind & body being > they are mutuality conditions for one another?), given it is > specifically called as KAYA muduta. Erik, you sent me back to the 'drawing board' to double check these details. KAYA means body, as you say, but it can also stand for ‘mental body’. There are 3 kinds of muduta (rupa, kaya and citta muduta) referring to plaincy of corporeality, mental factors and consciousness respectively. Rupassa lahuta (physical agility) and upassa muduta (physical elasticity) are both rupas as suggested. They are of course connected with the pliancy and suppleness of the body you mention below. These (along with all other rupas) are quite different from the 'lightness and pliancy' referred to as mental factors in samatha and vipassana development. To quote from the Vism (X1V, 144): ‘the tranquillizing of the body is tranquillity of the body. The tranquillizing of consciousness is tranquillity of consciousness. And here body means the three (mental) aggregates, feeling, (perception and formations) (see Dhs.40).’ This is an important point to understand, otherwise one may read all the other references to kaya or body when talking about these cetasikas to refer to physical body. So in this next extract from Vism (XX, 116), again it is referring to these same 6 pairs with regard to their influence on the cittas and cetasikas; ‘Tranquillity is tranquillity due to insight. As he is sitting at that time in his night or day quarters perhaps there is no fatigue or heaviness or rigidity or unwieldines or sickness or crookedness in his body and his mind, but rather his body and mind are tranquillized, light, malleable, wieldy, quite sharp and straight. ‘ To give just one more example of how easily they can be confused, I’ll just digress a little to refer to the last pair (translated in the Vism quote as ‘straight’) which I found it useful to consider. I’ll use Nina’s quotes here from ‘Cetasikas’: uprightness of cerasika, kaya-ujukata uprightness of citta, citta-ujukata ‘According to the Dhammasangani (50, 51) this pair of cetasikas consists in straightness and rectitude, being without deflection, twist or crookedness. The Atrhasalini (I, Book I, Parr IV, Chapter I, 131) explains that uprightness of cetasikas and of citta crush crookedness and that they are the opponents of the corruptions, such as deception and craftiness, which cause crookedness in mental factors and consciousness (1 See also the Visuddhimagga , XIV , 149) . Uprightness is the opponent of deception and craftiness. There may be moments that one's behaviour is insincere. We read in the Visudahimagga (I, 60-84) about the behaviour of the monk who tries to obtain the requisites by hypocrisy, by hinting, flattery, indirect talk, grimaces and. gestures. He pretends to be better than he in reality is in order to be admired. We read (I, 70) : Here someone of evil wishes, a prey to wishes, eager to be admired, (thinking) "Thus people will admire me", composes his way of walking, composes his way of lying down; he walks studied, stands studiedly, sits studiedly, lies down studiedly; he walks as though concentrated, stands, sits, lies down as though concentrated: and he is one who meditates in public...’ We all want to be admred and therefore we may pretend to be better than we really are. Even when it seems that we are generous there tend to be selfish motives for our actions. We may expect something in return, we want to be praised, to be popular. Speech which seems pleasing may be directed towards selfish gain. Uprightness crushes such insincerity. It assists each kusala citta. There are many degrees of uprightness. To the extent that right understanding develops also uprightness develops. The ariyan is called the person who is on the straight, true and proper way (ujupatipanno, Vis. VII, 90-92) .’ (end quote). Ven Nyanaponika refers to the Sutta-Nipata (v250) which mentions‘delighted in straightness linked to gentleness’ (ajjava-maddave rato) and to the Metta Sutta (v.143): ‘Let him be capable and upright, truly upright Easily admonished, gentle ande not haughty.’ These aren’t references to a straight back or strong knee! > I am not suggesting this in the sense we can stretch into various > contortions performing yoga asanas, but am referring to a sort of > pliancy and suppleness to the body that can be experienced, for > example, in seated meditation, when there is the development of > samatha & absorption. There is a special "lightness & pliancy" which > is one of the characteristics of effective samatha and jhana > meditation, that carries out throughout the day even outsidfe of > formal meditation practice one can experience. These factors are > experienced directly by meditators once one's meditation begins to > get traction. Erik, I think you’ll find all these references refer to the cetasikas mentioned. Ven Nyanaponika mentions several more suttas in this regard. This one is short: ‘With consciousness thus purified and cleansed, without blemish and stain, pliant and workable, steady and unshakable, he turns his mind to the extinction of the taints (MN1 182,347) Erik, I’ve found it very helpful to consider these ‘Pairs’ in more detail and to re-read the chapter in Nina’s book. As you know, none of this is to suggest that I don’t highly recommend yoga practices, healthy diets and the rest. I am also not suggesting that for high levels of samatha and jhana practice that there aren’t specific conditions mentioned. However for the development of vipassana and samatha in daily life, it helps to know that stiff knees and crooked backs should not be seen as an impediment! Best wishes and see you soon! Sarah p.s (I'll leave my 'Cradle Raider' comments til then!!) 7715 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 28, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Time out Herman Many thanks for your kind words, and please know that we have all benefited from your challenging questions, astute observations and well-chosen comments. We look forward to seeing you back again before not too long. My very best wishes for everything coming up over the next period. Jon --- Herman wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am going to be otherwise occupied for the next few weeks . I > apologise to those who may be waiting for a reply of some sort, > unfortunately it will have to wait for a few weeks. I hope the ski > slopes of the South Island of New Zealand and my knees will develop a > kind of synergy. > > I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the members of this forum, > for the grace, patience, lovingkindness and wisdom extended to those > who knock on the door. > > Groups like this reinforce in me a belief in the underlying > benevolence of all that is known and unknown and all the other stuff > that description misses. > > Ciao for now > > Herman > > 7716 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 11:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Samatha-Vipassana Thanks for this correction, Kom, and my apologies to all for the careless mistakes. This sutta is in fact the same as one previously posted by one or two members under the title 'Yuganaddha Sutta - In Tandem'. Thanks also for the link. I post that translation below for ease of reference. Jon Anguttara Nikaya IV.170 Yuganaddha Sutta In Tandem Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!" "Yes, friend," the monks responded. Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four? "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his latent tendencies abolished. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his latent tendencies abolished. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his latent tendencies abolished. "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his latent tendencies abolished. "Whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths." --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > In 'Ways to Arahantship' (AN IV, 165), the Buddha states that > > enlightenment is attained in one of only 4 ways-- > > This is from AN IV.170; it is V. Ananda addressing the Bikkhus. The > numerical discourses as translated by Nyonaponika Thera and B. Bodhi > lists the reference number after the sutta, and not before. > > The translation on access to insights is: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-170.html > > kom 7717 From: Sarah Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 4:41pm Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Dear Frank, --- frank kuan wrote: Frank: The six sets of six is my favorite sutta of all time (mn 148? one forty something anyways). Sometimes when talking about 5 aggregates it can seem abstract and disconnected from our normal moment to moment experience, but when the Buddha goes through the six sense organs, the sense objects, contact, craving associated through each of the six doors, etc, and show that they are impermanent, that if a abiding soul were to exist they would also arise and pass away continuously, which would be an untenable position, it really seems so clear when explained this way. It's just such a practical and clear way that outlines the whole buddhist path. ................................................................... Sarah: I’m returning to your posts as promised. I couldn’t agree more with your comments here. I also find that this sutta (Chachakka Sutta (The Six Sets of Six), MN 148, contains the essence of the Buddha’s teachings and it is a good example of the abhidhamma and suttana in perfect accord. It also contains the heart of satipatthana; what else is to be known other than seeing, visible object, contact, feeling, attachment and the other realities discussed, all as anatta: ‘Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted witheye-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving.........Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion (his mind) is liberated....’ ................................................................... Frank: People have to want to learn on their own initiative. But I digress. Many other suttas in the MN I am very fond of, but I am short an time and will have to talk about them another time. ................................................................ Sarah: Frank, I look forward to it;-) ................................................................. Frank: Already I have wasted too much of my precious life doing meaningless things. I've resolved to retire from the rat race next year, about 5 years short of my original timetable to devote full time to dhamma practice. ....................................................................... Sarah: As I understand the sutta, these same realities appearing through the 6 doorways are just as real in the rat race as out of it! I wonder, having seen the value in this sutta, why you separate your dhamma practice from daily life as it is? Even when we do ‘meaningless things’, awareness and understanding can surely develop? (These comments don’t mean I don’t also often wish to have more time for dhamma study and less work, but it is only wishing;-) ............................................................................. Frank: I may ordain in the future, I may not. I may live in a dhamma community somwehre in the world with other serious cultivators, or maybe I'll live secluded in a forest for 20 years with only animals as my company walking around naked subsisting on nuts, seeds, mangos, young coconuts. ........................................................................... Sarah: Yes, we can dream and plan what would be best for dhamma purposes and other less noble aims, but they are just dreams and plans, mostly following lobha. Still, even at these times there can be awareness of thinking, another conditioned reality and any of those experiences through the sense doors. Seeing is just as real in the computerized office as in the forest! ............................................................................. Frank: now I just want to drop it all and return to nature. I'm heavily into yoga (taoist, indian, tibetan), health, nutrition. .................................................................................. Sarah: I share many of your preferences and lifestyle choices (even in a busy city!), but I recognize them as preferences and objects of lobha or at least common-sense mechanisms for keeping these khandhas ‘on the road’! .................................................................................... Frank: About a year and a half ago, I had a major insight, one of those "a-ha", lightbulbs turn on, devas are singing kind of moments where a simple truth that has been intellectually obvious for my whole lifetime suddenly crystalizes and becomes part of my moment to moment awareness. If I were to ask anyone, if you had a choice, would you abide in a pleasant state or unpleasant state? Without question, everyone would answer "a pleasant state." It doesn't matter what kind of twist I throw in, I could stipulate, what if you're asleep, what if you're in a different country, what if I wave my hands in front of your face and try to distract you, everyone would pick (a) and never (b) (unpleasant state). So if that's the case, why would anyone ever choose to be angry? That was my light bulb moment, and anger really loosened and became easy to let go of after that. ......................................................................... We may think there’s no more anger for now, but what about all the little uneasy feelings, minor irritations, petty resentments and all. Maybe now we’re not really being tested, but what about when life doesn’t go our way such as when we’re sick and in pain. The tests are when it’s hard. I’m thinking of the Dhammapada story when the maidservant turned up later and later to test her mistress’ good humour (perhaps someone can supply the details or reference?).Don’t we all have our limits? ...................................................................... Frank: What else about me? Let's see. I like to rock climb, surf, hike, bike, I spend lots of time walking/jogging on the beach. ...................................................................... Sarah: These all, along with the dhamma study and writing, are Jon’s idea of a dream retirement and the reason he ‘fought’ to keep his leg a couple of years ago when he went through the tumour experience. .................................................................... Frank: I hardly ever socialize. I'm voluntarily celibate (strict - to the point where I don't tolerate lustful thoughts for more than a few seconds). My idea of a good time is spending friday or saturday night reading the MN or SN or visudhimagga, and discussing insights in dhamma with other serious cultivators. That's me in a nutshell, probably more than most of you wanted to know :-) ................................................................... Our Friday and Saturday nights are pretty similar to yours - a walk in the nearby hills followed by similar texts, early bed and early rise, not much socializing..;-)) .................................................................. Frank: I'll probably be lurking on this list most of the time, but occasionally I'll pop in with some left field comment that just makes everyone wonder what planet I'm from. .................................................................. Sarah: I think we’ve had a few of these already;-) I don’t get the impression you’re a lurker, Frank! Frank, from your later posts, I fully understand what you’re saying about diet and kinds of exercise, moving chi and the rest...and follow many similar principles in mild doses myself. In fact. I was just reminded as i was writing about the story when King Pasenadi Kosala visited the Buddha having over-indulged in food. The Buddha admonished him on the evils of over-eating in a couple of stanzas (in the Dhammapada) which the King couldn't remember. So the King's nephew had to memorize them and repeat them to the king at meal times! However, where we differ is that for you, the purpose of the diet and exercise is so that you can sit in a lotus pose for several hours a day to ‘practice’, I think. With such confidence as you have in ‘nitty-gritty dhamma’ as exemplified in the Six Sets of Six, I wonder why you wish to sit for several hours like this or why you feel that this is the way to understand the Teachings? Look forward to many more interesting posts from you, Sarah 7718 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 6:07pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation --- Sarah wrote: > However, where we differ is that for you, the purpose of the diet and exercise > is so that you can sit in a lotus pose for several hours a day to `practice', I > think. With such confidence as you have in `nitty-gritty dhamma' as exemplified > in the Six Sets of Six, I wonder why you wish to sit for several hours like > this or why you feel that this is the way to understand the Teachings? Given the Buddha enjoined those practicing Satipatthana to seek out seclusion, sit cross-legged, spine erect, I think the question should go the other way: why do you think we can glibly ignore the Buddha's advice on such practices? If this practice were not conducive to coming to a realization of the Dhamma, do you believe the Buddha would have taught this practice in the first place? In my experience it is far more helpful to begin with mindfulness in a more controlled setting, such as sitting, than it is to think it's possible to have mindfulness in daily activities withouth having had this sort fo training. Without mindfulness cultivated in more controlled setting there is in all likelihood no mindfulness to speak of in daily activities. There may be the belief there is mindfulness, but true mindfulness is remaining focused undistractedly, and if the mind scatters or becomes distracted for even a few moments, then you cannot reasonably call it Right Mindfulness. If you can maintain awareness on a single object of focus going about your daily activities for longer than ten seconds without having cultivated mindfulness in sitting or another controlled setting, more power to you. But how many can honestly say they have this ability? If there isn't the degree of unbroken mindfulness to be able to remain focused on an object for more than ten seconds (at least), then there is no sati to speak of. The most basic mindfulness instructions begin with maintaining mindfulness on the breath unbroken for at least ten outbreaths, without a lapse--ten breaths without the monkey-mind seizing control and wandering to and fro. When true sati is established, the mind can remain focused on a single object undistractedly for a long enough time until absorption arises. Hopefully you're not also imlpying cultivating the jhanas (Right Concentration) in this fashion is unnecessary or unhelpful. I do not know of a single Sutta where Right Concentration is mentioned apart from the discussion of the four (or five) jhanas. 7719 From: Dan Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 7:20pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Erik: > but true mindfulness is remaining focused undistractedly, and if the > mind scatters or becomes distracted for even a few moments, then you > cannot reasonably call it Right Mindfulness. Dan: This sounds more like 'concentration' to me. How does concentration (ekaggata or samadhi, take your pick) differ from mindfulness (sati)? And sati from samma-sati? And samma-sati from pañña? 7720 From: cybele chiodi Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:51pm Subject: Buddha's teachings - Dhamma Theory I thought of sharing... Enjoy! Cybele The Dhamma Theory >"(...) >The system that the Abhidhamma Pitaka articulates is >simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology, and an >ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program >for liberation. The Abhidhamma may be described as a >philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a >perspective on the nature of the real. This >perspective has been designated the "dhamma theory" >(dhammavada). Briefly, the dhamma theory maintains >that ultimate reality consists of a multiplicity of >elementary constituents called dhammas. The dhammas >are not noumena hidden behind phenomena, not "things >in themselves" as opposed to "mere appearances," but >the fundamental components of actuality. The dhammas >fall into two broad classes: the unconditioned >dhamma, which is solely Nibbana, and the conditioned >dhammas, which are the momentary mental and material >phenomena that constitute the process of experience. >The familiar world of substantial objects and enduring >persons is, according to the dhamma theory, a >conceptual construct fashioned by the mind out of the >raw data provided by the dhammas. The entities of our >everyday frame of reference possess merely a >consensual reality derivative upon the foundational >stratum of the dhammas. It is the dhammas alone that >possess ultimate reality: determinate existence "from >their own side" (sarupato) independent of the mind's >conceptual processing of the data. Such a >conception of the nature of the real seems to be >already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in >the Buddha's disquisitions on the aggregates, sense >bases, elements, dependent arising, etc., but it >remains there tacitly in the background as the >underpinning to the more pragmatically formulated >teachings of the Suttas. Even in the Abhidhamma >Pitaka itself the dhamma theory is not yet expressed >as an explicit philosophical tenet; this comes only >later, in the Commentaries. Nevertheless, though as >yet implicit, the theory still comes into focus in its >role as the regulating principle behind the >Abhidhamma's more evident task, the project of >systemization. > >This project starts from the premise that to attain >the wisdom that knows things "as they really are," a >sharp wedge must be driven between those types of >entities that possess ontological ultimacy, that is, >the dhammas, and those types of entities that exist >only as conceptual constructs but are mistakenly >grasped as ultimately real. Proceeding from this >distinction, the Abhidhamma posits a fixed number of >dhammas as the building blocks of actuality, most of >which are drawn from the Suttas. It then sets out to >define all the doctrinal terms used in the Suttas in >ways that reveal their identity with the ontological >ultimates recognized by the system. On the basis of >these definitions, it exhaustively classifies the >dhammas into a net of pre-determined categories and >modes of relatedness which highlight their place >within the system's structure. And since the system >is held to be a true reflection of actuality, this >means that the classification pinpoints the place of >each dhamma within the overall structure of actuality. > The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of >reality, contrary to that of classical science in the >West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a >neutral observer looking outwards towards the external >world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to >understand the nature of experience, and thus the >reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the >world as given in experience, comprising both >knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this >reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma >shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To >facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, >the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of >the mind as it presents itself to intospective >meditation. It classifies consciousness into a >variety of types, specifies the factors and function >of each type, correlates them with their objects and >physiological bases, and shows how the different types >of consciousness link up with each other and with >material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process >of experience. > >This analysis of mind is not motivated by theoretical >curiosity but by the overriding practical aim of the >Buddha's teaching, the attainment of deliverance from >suffering. Since the Buddha traces suffering to our >tainted attitudes- a mental orientation rooted in >greed, hatred, and delusion- the Abhidhamma's >phenomenological psychology also takes on the >character of a psychological ethics, understanding the >term "ethics" not in the narrow sense of a code of >morality but as a complete guide to noble living and >mental purification. Accordingly we find that the >Abhidhamma distinguishes states of mind principally on >the basis of ethical criteria: the wholesome and the >unwholesome, the beautiful factors and the >defilements. Its schematization of consciousness >follows a hierarchical plan that corresponds to the >successive stages of purity to which the Buddhist >disciple attains by practice of the Buddha's path. >This plan traces the refinement of the mind through >the progression of meditative absorptions, the >fine-material-sphere and immaterial-sphere jhanas, >then through the stages of insight and the wisdom of >the supramundane paths and fruits. Finally, it shows >the whole scale of ethical development to culminate in >the perfection of purity attained with the mind's >irreversible emancipation from all defilements. > >All three dimensions of the Abhidhamma - the >philosophical, the psychological, and the ethical- >derive their final justification from the cornerstone >of the Buddha's teaching, the program of liberation >announced by the Four Noble Truths. The ontological >survey of dhammas stems from the Buddha's injunction >that the noble truth of suffering, identified with the >world of conditioned phenomena as a whole, must be >fully understood (parinneyya). The prominence of >mental defilements and requisites of enlightenment in >its schemes of categories, indicative of it's >psychological and ethical concerns, connects the >Abhidhamma to the second and forth noble truths, the >origin of suffering and the way leading to its end. >And the entire taxonomy of dhammas elaborated by the >system reaches its consummation in the "unconditioned >element" (asankhata dhatu), which is Nibbana, the >third noble truth, that of the cessation of >suffering. (...)" > >From Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to Mahathera >Narada's translation of Acariya Anuruddha's >'Abhidhammattha Sangaha - A Comprehensive Manual of >Abhidhamma- the Philosophical Psychology of Buddhism' 7721 From: Erik Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation > Erik: > > but true mindfulness is remaining focused undistractedly, and if > the > > mind scatters or becomes distracted for even a few moments, then > you > > cannot reasonably call it Right Mindfulness. > > Dan: > This sounds more like 'concentration' to me. How does concentration > (ekaggata or samadhi, take your pick) differ from mindfulness (sati)? > And sati from samma-sati? And samma-sati from pañña? Hi Dan, Right Concentration to me means: "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration." This differs from Right Mindfulness in that Right Mindfulness is: "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness." (cf. the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta) Right mindfulness by itself doesn't have the characteristic of absorption in the jhanas (rapture, etc.), nor of "unification" of the mind, which is a characteristic of Right Concentration. Nevertheless these two work together (with other factors) to bring about the discernment that frees: "And how are the seven factors of awakening developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release to their culmination? There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor of awakening dependent on seclusion ... dispassion ... cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening ... persistence as a factor of awakening ... rapture as a factor of awakening ... serenity as a factor of awakening... concentration as a factor of awakening ... equanimity as a factor of awakening dependent on seclusion ... dispassion ... cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how the seven factors of awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." Wisdom and discernment knows the difference between the skillful and the unskillful; it knows that all phenomena are devoid of self- nature, and that all composed phenomena are impermanent and painful; it also knows the arising and passing away of things with reference to the Four Noble Truths, for example formations: "And what are formations, what is the origin of formations, what is the cessation of formations, what is the way leading to the cessation of formations? There are these three kinds of formations: the bodily formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations. The way leading to the cessation of formations is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view...right concentration." At least as far as I've heard. ;) 7722 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:50pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Description of path factors Anders > Thanks Jon! Certainly an entirely different exposition of the > eightfold than what I've seen before! > How does your explanation of the eightfold path as a moment of > consciousness relate to the sutta definition of the eightfold path > (this one from the Mahasatipathhana sutta): Thanks for this question, Anders (a question that I believe others would like to see answered too). I will try to explain. The Noble Eightfold Path is given to us as the Fourth Noble Truth. The Four Noble Truths are, as we all know, truths that were realised by the Buddha at his enlightenment. They were subsequently passed on by the Buddha in his discourses, in passages that go something like this: 'There are these truths, (i) the truth of suffering, [and so on for truths (ii) - (iv)]. (i) And what is the truth of suffering? Birth is suffering etc [and so on for truths (ii) - (iv)]. This context is important. A truth (eg. 'Birth is suffering') is something to be understood, to be realized. It cannot be a path of action (or to use a neat Howard term, a thing-to-do). The truths are, for want of a better term, descriptive in nature. Coming to the 4th Noble Truth, this is the truth of the *path leading to complete cessation*. 'Complete cessation' here means arahatship, the last of the 4 stages of enlightenment. In the suttas this path, the path that leads to arahatship, is taken as beginning with the first stage of enlightenment. Only then has one entered the path, or stream, that leads inevitably to full enlightenment (hence, 'stream-enterer'). One has become, in the words of the suttas, a 'trainer'. Anyone who has not attained to the first stage of enlightenment is an 'uninstructed worldling'. So the Noble Eightfold Path is the path that begins at stream-entry and ends at arahatship. It is supramundane. It has eight factors, and these factors are quite inseparable; if any one factor were not present it would no longer be the eightfold path. Now just as the Fourth Noble Truth itself is 'descriptive' in nature, rather than a 'thing-to-do', so also is the description of the factors of that path. This description tells us exactly what happens at a path moment (ie. a moment of enlightenment). More specifically, the descriptions of the various individual factors spell out the function or manifestation of each of the 8 mental factors that arise together at the moment of path consciousness. For example: - the factor of mindfulness (sati cetasika) performs the function of calling to mind the object (nibbana) and being established on it (a function that is elsewhere described as the 4 foundations, or establishments, of mindfulness) - the factor of energy (viriya cetasika) performs the 4-fold function of preventing unarisen unwholesome states from arising, etc. (elsewhere described as the 4 right endeavours) - the factor of concentration (samadhi cetasika) performs its function of being absorbed in the object with an intensity equivalent to that of one of the levels of mundane jhana. and so on for the other factors. This is how I understand the sutta description of the factors of the Eightfold Path. So if the Eightfold Path is purely supramundane, what then is the development that leads to that Path? Well to my understanding, this is what the Satipatthana Sutta is all about -- mundane insight (ie. the mundane 5-fold path). So to summarise, my understanding from the Tipitaka and commentaries is as follows: Noble Eightfold Path = supramundane moment of consciousness (enlightenment). Mundane insight/path = 5-fold path consciousness = satipatthana. Anders, I hope you find this interesting. You might like to consider this interpretation when you are next looking at a sutta. Jon > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge > with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to > the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice > leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. > > "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from > ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. > > "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive > speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called > right speech. > > "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from > stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. > > "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble > disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going > with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. > > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that > have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising > of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the > maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called > right effort. > > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the > world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind > in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, > alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to > the world. This is called right mindfulness. > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- > quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure > born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. > With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, > unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones > declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With > the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain. This is called right concentration. > 7723 From: frank kuan Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:51pm Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Dear Sarah, (and hello Erik) It is my turn to have to take a raincheck on answering your email :-) I have a deadline coming up in a week, a pretty major one. I take little breaks to scan my mail and lists, do my yoga, eat and sleep, and that's about it. But I promise to get back to you later. Really, I am trying to be a lurker :-) Even with my closest friends, I sometimes have to clarify what I mean, how much more so talking to people on lists who don't know me? It's such an enormous amount of resources required for communication in any medium. Talk to you in about a week. Metta, -fk 7724 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:58pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Mundane and not so mundane... Anders --- Anders Honore wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > In 'A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' (translation of the > > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha) it explains at Ch VII, Guide to #38 [The > Four > > Noble Truths]-- > > > > 'The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the > Noble > > Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the > > collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path > factors > > arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.' > > > > While there is no mundane Eightfold Path as such, there is a mundane > > 5-fold path. This is a moment of satipatthana, such moments being > > accompanied by 5 of the 8 path factors. .... > How do you relate this understanding to the passage in the Dhammapada > where the Buddha praises the eightfold path as the first and foremost > of all paths and practises? I'm not familiar with that one off-hand. If you give me a reference I'll have a look at it. > > 1. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as the Fourth > Noble > > Truth means a moment of consciousness when all 8 path-factors arise > > together. This occurs only at a moment of magga-citta > > (path-consciousness), ie. at one of the 4 stages of enlightenment. > It is > > a moment of supramundane consciousness, with Nibbana as its object. > > Hmm, I gather that terms like "moments of path-consciousness" > achieved only at the moment one becomes a stream-entrant, once- > retunrer etc. are Abhidhammic conventions. I haven'tseeen any > reference of them in the Sutta Pitaka myself. As to whether the term 'magga citta' appears in the suttas, i'd have to check it out. However, the 'clues' are there throughout the suttas, and are fleshed out in the commentaries. I'll keep my eyes open and see if I notice anything (others may be able to come in on this). Jon > > 2. There is a mundane version of the path, which is a moment when > 5 (or > > sometimes 6) of the factors of the eightfold path (in their 'mundane > > version') arise. This refers to a moment of satipatthana > (or 'mundane > > path-consciousness'). Its object will be any presently appearing > reality. > > It may arise at any time, given the right understanding and other > > conditions. > > > > 3. A reference in the suttas to the Eightfold Path as one of the 37 > > requisites of enlightenment means, at any time before actual > > enlightenment, a moment of mundane (5-fold) path-consciousness and, > at or > > subsequent to the first stage of enlightenment, the supramundane 8- > fold > > path consciousness. 7725 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 11:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Path-factors with/without the asavas Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon, > The reason why I am asking you this kind of question is that I am trying > to > understand if the 8-fold paths, as taught in the tipitakas, exclusively > mean > satipatthana or does it mean satipatthana *AND* other levels of kusala. > > My understanding of TA Sujin's interpretation of the tipitaka and the > commentaries is that it doesn't include other kinds of kusalas. > However, I > also understand that without the appropriate other kusalas, magga citta > cannot arise. Also, the suttas often talk about the 8-fold paths in a > way > that it sometimes seem to point to non-satipatthana, e.g., right > view=belief in kamma, belief that there is brahma who knows for > themselves the existence of last world, this world, etc., right > concentration=jhana. I hope that what I have just written in reply to Anders' post has pretty well covered this aspect too. By the way, the Visuddhimagga (XXII, 39-40) has some interesting observations about the differences between moments of mundane insight (ie satipatthana, or 5-fold path moment) and a moment of supramundane (8-fold) path consciousness, which I think may throw some light on your question too. It explains that at moments of mundane insight, only 1 of the 4 foundations of mindfulness is said to occur, depending on whether the object of that moment is body, feeling, mind, or mental object, and likewise only 1 one or other of the 4 efforts/endeavours, depending on the nature of the effort. However, at any of the moments of 8-fold path consciousness, "it is the one kind of mindfulness whose object is nibbana that is called the 'four foundations of mindfulness' because it accomplishes the function of abandoning the four perceptions of beauty, etc., in the four things beginning with the body. And also the one kind of energy is called 'four right endeavours' because it accomplishes the four functions beginning with preventing the arising of the unarisen unprofitable." A difficult area, this one. I hope this makes some sense for you. Jon 7726 From: Howard Date: Wed Aug 29, 2001 7:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Description of path factors Hi, Jon - In a message dated 8/29/01 10:55:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > For example: > - the factor of mindfulness (sati cetasika) performs the function of > calling to mind the object (nibbana) and being established on it (a > function that is elsewhere described as the 4 foundations, or > establishments, of mindfulness) > - the factor of energy (viriya cetasika) performs the 4-fold function of > preventing unarisen unwholesome states from arising, etc. (elsewhere > described as the 4 right endeavours) > - the factor of concentration (samadhi cetasika) performs its function of > being absorbed in the object with an intensity equivalent to that of one > of the levels of mundane jhana. > and so on for the other factors. > > This is how I understand the sutta description of the factors of the > Eightfold Path. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What you wrote in this post is very interesting to me, and I certainly do accept that there is a "supermundane" path. But I also have some serious reservations about your interpretation of the Noble Eightfold Path. The examples you choose above, plus right view and possibly right intention are ones I would have chosen as well to make your point. However, other choices such as right speech, action, and livelihood are far more problematical. Also, if one looks over the 8 limbs of the path as described below, for the most part they do not read like facets of a transcendent mind state, but rather as conventional descriptions of patterns of behavior over time (even including right effort, and including that part of right view which is " knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress"). ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge > > with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to > > the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice > > leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. > > > > "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from > > ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. > > > > "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive > > speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called > > right speech. > > > > "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from > > stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. > > > > "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble > > disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going > > with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. > > > > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > > desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent > > for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that > > have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, > > unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising > > of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the > > maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & > > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called > > right effort. > > > > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk > > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & > > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the > > world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind > > in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, > > alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to > > the world. This is called right mindfulness. > > > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- > > quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > > qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure > > born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. > > With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > > remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, > > unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > > internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in > > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He > > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones > > declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With > > the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier > > disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the > > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > > nor pain. This is called right concentration. > > > ================================ 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) 7727 From: wynn Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 0:10am Subject: No feeling? Hi, Can you explain this to me? Does it means that Arahants do not have feeling/sensation? === Regarding the experience of the arahant, the Suttanipata states that by the destruction of all feelings/sensations a monk lives desireless and at peace. [1] Once Sariputta was asked what happiness there can be when there is no feeling/sensation.[2] He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness. [3] 1. Vedananam khaya bhikkhu nicchato parinibbuto: Sn 739 2. Kim pan'ettha n'atthi vedayitan ti: A IV 415 3. Etad eva khv'ettha sukham yad ettha n'atthi vedayitam === Thank you, Wynn 7728 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 0:26am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Nice quotes, Erik. But I was hoping you'd tackle my questions--the ones I asked. Direct answers. From your understanding. > > Erik: > > > but true mindfulness is remaining focused undistractedly, and if > > the > > > mind scatters or becomes distracted for even a few moments, then > > you > > > cannot reasonably call it Right Mindfulness. > > > > Dan: > > This sounds more like 'concentration' to me. How does concentration > > (ekaggata or samadhi, take your pick) differ from mindfulness > (sati)? > > And sati from samma-sati? And samma-sati from pañña? > > Hi Dan, > > Right Concentration to me means: > > "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- > quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) > qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure > born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. > With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & > remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, > unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- > internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He > enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones > declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With > the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain. This is called right concentration." > > This differs from Right Mindfulness in that Right Mindfulness is: > > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk > remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & > mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the > world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind > in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, > alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to > the world. This is called right mindfulness." > (cf. the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta) > > Right mindfulness by itself doesn't have the characteristic of > absorption in the jhanas (rapture, etc.), nor of "unification" of the > mind, which is a characteristic of Right Concentration. > > Nevertheless these two work together (with other factors) to bring > about the discernment that frees: "And how are the seven factors of > awakening developed & pursued so as to bring clear knowing & release > to their culmination? There is the case where a monk develops > mindfulness as a factor of awakening dependent on seclusion ... > dispassion ... cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops > analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening ... persistence as a > factor of awakening ... rapture as a factor of awakening ... serenity > as a factor of awakening... concentration as a factor of > awakening ... equanimity as a factor of awakening dependent on > seclusion ... dispassion ... cessation, resulting in relinquishment. > This is how the seven factors of awakening, when developed & pursued, > bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." > > Wisdom and discernment knows the difference between the skillful and > the unskillful; it knows that all phenomena are devoid of self- > nature, and that all composed phenomena are impermanent and painful; > it also knows the arising and passing away of things with reference > to the Four Noble Truths, for example formations: > > "And what are formations, what is the origin of formations, what is > the cessation of formations, what is the way leading to the cessation > of formations? There are these three kinds of formations: the bodily > formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation. With the > arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the > cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations. The way > leading to the cessation of formations is just this Noble Eightfold > Path; that is, right view...right concentration." > > At least as far as I've heard. ;) 7729 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 0:43am Subject: Re: Eightfold path - Description of path factors Hi Howard and Jon et al., Do you see a distinction between "eightfold path" and "Noble eightfold path"? "Noble" is often used in the sense of "supramundane". Of course, there is the "mundane" eightfold path, or satipatthana with mundane object--development of wisdom. The moments of mundane path may be few and far between, but these are precious moments because they are a basis for panya. Then, there is the conventional path--strictly the everyday, run-of-the mill meanings of the words. This conventional meaning is there and makes sense (I think Jon disagrees with me here . Whatever are we going to do with him!), but this meaning is superficial and not liberating. One of the beauties of the Dhamma and Buddha's exposition is that it so often has many levels of meaning. Jon's role is to keep prompting us to think about things one step deeper than we are accustomed. (Is this a role that you aspiring to, O Jon? Or does it just work out that way sometimes?) Dan 7730 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 0:50am Subject: Re: No feeling? > Can you explain this to me? > Does it means that Arahants do not have feeling/sensation? No. But arahant after death (parinibbana) has no feeling/sensation. > Regarding the experience of the arahant, the Suttanipata states that by the > destruction of all feelings/sensations a monk lives desireless and at peace. An analogy: by destruction of the heart, a monk dies. Also: by destruction of the brain, a monk dies. The extinction of vedana is not necessary for living desireless and at peace. All that is necessary is the destruction of craving. 7731 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:43am Subject: Re: Buddha's teachings - Dhamma Theory Dear Cybele, Thanks! kom --- "cybele chiodi" wrote: > > I thought of sharing... > Enjoy! > > Cybele > > > The Dhamma Theory > > >"(...) > >The system that the Abhidhamma Pitaka articulates is > >simultaneously a philosophy, a psychology, and an > >ethics, all integrated into the framework of a program > >for liberation. The Abhidhamma may be described as a > >philosophy because it proposes an ontology, a 7732 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 1:52am Subject: Re: Path-factors with/without the asavas Dear Jon, Yes, your answer to Ander's does clarify what the commentaries say about the 8-fold path, even though it doesn't answer this nagging questions about why certain suttas are presented in a certain way. Thank you for the answer in Vissuddhimagga; it is very interesting information. I have started reading that recently, although I am still on the Sila section... kom --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Kom > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > I hope that what I have just written in reply to Anders' post has pretty > well covered this aspect too. > 7733 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:01am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Dear Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Frank, > ......................................................................... > We may think there's no more anger for now, but what about all the little > uneasy feelings, minor irritations, petty resentments and all. Maybe now we're > not really being tested, but what about when life doesn't go our way such as > when we're sick and in pain. The tests are when it's hard. I'm thinking of the > Dhammapada story when the maidservant turned up later and later to test her > mistress' good humour (perhaps someone can supply the details or > reference?).Don't we all have our limits? In Majjhima Nikaya 21 Kakacupama Sutta The Simile of the Saw http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html#vedehika It is a good reminder that anger doesn't arise now only because there is no condition for it. As long as we are not an anagami, there is sure to be anger. kom 7734 From: Ken Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:56am Subject: Re: toeing the party line....;-) --- Sarah Procter Abbott wrote: > Dear Ken, > > We followed up this point with Bruce in Bkk and this reminded me of your post > here: > > > Sarah > > p.s Cybele and friends, there's no party-line to toe here....;-))) What would there be to discuss if we all agreed on every point? > > Hello Sarah After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, one side wrong etc. Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times I've seen the explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which proved only that I didn't. Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions . . ." This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are to be seen in terms of absolute realities. Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) Kind regards Ken "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) 7735 From: Erik Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 8:59am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Nice quotes, Erik. But I was hoping you'd tackle my questions--the > ones I asked. Direct answers. From your understanding. I answered your questions directly. What's your motivation for importuning so rudely, I'd like to know. 7736 From: Howard Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:24am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: toeing the party line....;-) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/29/01 9:01:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ken writes: > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have > taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all > things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been > treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) > > ========================= I don't blame you. This *is* a great quote! 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) 7737 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 9:40am Subject: Re: toeing the party line....;-) Thanks for this Ken. The fact that you clearly realise the profundity of what the Buddha taught - and the consequent difficulty of comprehending it-is itself a indication of development. robert--- > --- Sarah Procter Abbott > wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > > We followed up this point with Bruce in Bkk and this reminded me of > your post > > here: > > > > > > > > > Sarah > > > > p.s Cybele and friends, there's no party-line to toe here....;- ))) > What would there be to discuss if we all agreed on every point? > > > > > > Hello Sarah > > After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my > lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to > the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am > still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, > one side wrong etc. > > Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the > `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times > I've seen the > explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who > is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for > their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed > to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which > proved only that I didn't. > > Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of > satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing > speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. > > I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. > Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a > wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly > attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; > > "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the > doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained > consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising > of consciousness without conditions . . ." > > This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only > fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but > also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this > conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a > mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are > to be seen in terms of absolute realities. > > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have > taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all > things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been > treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) > > Kind regards > Ken > > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere > in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) > 7738 From: m. nease Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 0:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: toeing the party line....;-) Ken, Great post. These rebukes of the Buddha are always bracingly instructive. I've read this one before, (though I think the translation was 'you foolish man'), but forget the source--can you cite it? Thanks, mn --- Ken wrote: "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions . . ." 7739 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 2:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: toeing the party line....;-) Thanks, Ken. Your honesty about your own patterns of thought can help us all to look at our own tendencies. It's a very familiar pattern which we probably all share: thinking we understand, finding out that our thinking is conventional and that we don't really get it, having a kind of despair at not understanding, and then refocussing on the truth. To me, that sounds like a positive learning process for humans, and probably the only way we grow and develop. It's when we hold onto wrong views and defend them with hard heads and hard hearts, that we don't grow, and fail to set an example for others, as you have here. I found your discussion interesting and encouraging. Robert E. =============================== --- Ken wrote: > Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the > `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times > I've seen the > explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who > is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for > their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed > to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which > proved only that I didn't. > > Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of > satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing > speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. > > I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. > Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a > wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly > attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; > > "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the > doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained > consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising > of consciousness without conditions . . ." > > This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only > fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but > also get it wrong at the intellectual level. ... ===== 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" 7740 From: Sarah Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 4:30pm Subject: Catching Up - Robert E Dear Robert E, I've been appreciating all your well-considered posts to this list very much. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Thank you, Sarah, for both your acknowledgment and encouragement. I will > read the > Sutta you recommend as well. I think your comment about 'sadness' and > 'loneliness' being in the mode of aversion to actually be very helpful. It > means > that while the realization of the non-existence of self may initially be > stunning > to the conditioned mind, it is a transitional response, and of course, > ultimately, > this realization is liberating and a cause for joy. There are many snares > along > the way. On the other hand, there may also be a 'legitimate' grieving for > the > loss of that which was a familiar sense of self or way of life, and perhaps > in > completing the grieving process, as one might do for someone else who had > died, > one may be able to go to the next phase with a clear path. > > Not to say that I'm ready to do that, but it's something to look forward to. These are very valid comments too. Of course, there's no sadness or grieving at actual moments of awareness or wisdom, but they so easily slip in at other times and as you suggest there can be grieving for the loss of anything or anyone 'we' are attached to, including the good 'self' or a wrong view. Still, isn't it better to recognize and understand these moments? This can be a condition straight away to 'cut' the story! Robert, I also really appreciated your comments about science and Buddhism to Herman which I thought were very well put. this was just one of many examples: "Perhaps this is because I believe that science can never prove anything other than what it already establishes as a given..." Thank you also for posting the link to the magazine 'Buddhist Door' and its abhidhamma section. I was really interested to see their useful summary and reference to Abhidammattha Sangaha. It seems this was the last issue which is a shame. I was also glad to read that you appreciated the complex conversation with Khun Sujin that Rob posted yesterday (I think). I'm very impressed that you're reading all the details so carefully. Btw, I'm a little familiar with Patanjali from yoga circles, but can't help you with any of the historical information. Of course there were many cultural and religious influences and literary contexts which the Buddha's Teachings should be understood in, but no understanding of anatta at all in Patanjali or any ofther Teachings at the time. In this sense, the Buddha's Teachings and 8fold path are completely original (as Anders suggested), even thought there may be some superficial or cultural resemblance, I'd think. Anyway, i'll have to leave it here..Just to say I enjoy your pleasant posts and style (even when I don't agree with all the points;-). Look forward to more, Sarah 7741 From: Dan Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 7:38pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Oh Erik, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you are full of surprises! I thought you were one who liked direct, no-nonsense, challenging questions and comments. I still think you are, but I am surprised you were offended. That being said, my imputations were indeed rude, and I apologize. It was a misunderstanding on my part.I will try to be more diplomatic in the future. My questions were: How does concentration ... differ from mindfulness (sati)? And sati from samma-sati? And samma-sati from pañña? I think you answered "What is Right Concentration? What is Right Mindfulness? What is wisdom?" Dan > > Nice quotes, Erik. But I was hoping you'd tackle my questions-- the > > ones I asked. Direct answers. From your understanding. > > I answered your questions directly. What's your motivation for > importuning so rudely, I'd like to know. 7742 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 9:15pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Jon, > I'm still a little unsure what role sila plays in one's development, > according to > Theravada doctrine, and whether one should 'work on' one's impurities or > just > leave them alone. Or is the idea to just treat everything with > mindfulness and > let things work themselves out. > > Another way of putting it would be: does one just follow the path and > ignore > karmic tendencies, or does one try to interact with them in some way? Kusala can be classified as dana, sila and bhavana (the last comprising samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana). The kusala that is sila refers to restraint through body, speech and mind. All kinds of kusala were encouraged by the Buddha, and are to be developed. However, we should not confuse the value of developing kusala with an idea of a need to 'work on' one's impurities. This is likely to be just 'us' wanting to have less akusala, or to be a more 'pure' person. It is apparent from the Satipatthana Sutta that akusala per se is not an obstacle to the development of awareness/insight. In the section on Contemplation on Mental Objects (the Five Hindrances), it states that one's impurities can themselves be the object of awareness. The text says-- "Here, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances. "How does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' or when sensuality is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality.'" Note that the text here dealing with akusala is in exactly the same terms as the text dealing with kusala, for example in the section on the factors of enlightenment-- "Here, when the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have the enlightenment factor of mindfulness'; or when the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is absent, he knows with understanding: 'I have not the enlightenment factor of mindfulness'". So it is not a matter of 'doing anything special' when it comes to akusala tendencies. As the commentary to this part of the sutta points out, the hindrances are 'knocked out' by right reflection on an object. 'Right reflection' (yoniso manasikara) here refers I believe to momentary awareness. However, this should not be taken as meaning that one can use awareness to 'deal with' akusala--that would be the 'us' thing again. So the short answer, I think, is to just develop kusala! Jon 7743 From: Erik Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 9:24pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation > Oh Erik, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you are full of > surprises! Expect the unexpected! :) > I still think you are, but I am surprised you were offended. Indeed you should be surprised if I were to be offended by something so trivial. In truth I was a tad impatient (I know, I still have to work on the paramita of patience) at what seemed a rather strong demand to repeat myself when I thought I replied clearly already--and I apologize if I directed that impatience at you. I was (and still am) though curious of your motivation for pressing for my take in particular and not doing the investigation yourself. Parato ghoso is only one of the factors in this equation. What is even more important is direct investigation of the Suttas as compared to meditative experience--true dhamma-vicaya. No one can give you those answers but yourself. > That being said, my imputations were indeed rude, and I apologize. Accepted. > My questions were: How does concentration ... differ from mindfulness > (sati)? See the original post. > And sati from samma-sati? Samma sati vs. sati to me would be clear knowledge & remembrance on anything that leads to discernment into the true nature of things. Samma Sati should eventually lead to this type of discernment (wisdom). It also overlaps with dhamma-vicaya. Samma sati can begin at a coarse level ("when breathing in long noting 'breathing in long'") and evolve to a more subtle & refined level as it develops, until it eventually becomes the wisdom that sees things as they are-- which is free from all elaborations and non-conceptual. Other than that see the original post. :) 7744 From: m. nease Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:19pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Hello, Jon, Thanks for a clear, concise, balanced and well-cited answer to the deceptively simple question. In this context I think satipatthaana could be called the middle path between 'dealing with akusala' and ignoring it. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Jon, > > > I'm still a little unsure what role sila plays in > one's development, > > according to > > Theravada doctrine, and whether one should 'work > on' one's impurities or > > just > > leave them alone. Or is the idea to just treat > everything with > > mindfulness and > > let things work themselves out. > > > > Another way of putting it would be: does one just > follow the path and > > ignore > > karmic tendencies, or does one try to interact > with them in some way? > > Kusala can be classified as dana, sila and bhavana > (the last comprising > samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana). The kusala > that is sila refers to > restraint through body, speech and mind. > > All kinds of kusala were encouraged by the Buddha, > and are to be > developed. > > However, we should not confuse the value of > developing kusala with an idea > of a need to 'work on' one's impurities. This is > likely to be just 'us' > wanting to have less akusala, or to be a more 'pure' > person. > > It is apparent from the Satipatthana Sutta that > akusala per se is not an > obstacle to the development of awareness/insight. > In the section on > Contemplation on Mental Objects (the Five > Hindrances), it states that > one's impurities can themselves be the object of > awareness. The text > says-- > > "Here, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental > objects in the mental > objects of the five hindrances. > "How does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental > objects in the mental > objects of the five hindrances? > "Here, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows > with understanding: 'I > have sensuality,' or when sensuality is not present, > he knows with > understanding: 'I have no sensuality.'" > > Note that the text here dealing with akusala is in > exactly the same terms > as the text dealing with kusala, for example in the > section on the factors > of enlightenment-- > > "Here, when the enlightenment factor of mindfulness > is present, a bhikkhu > knows with understanding: 'I have the enlightenment > factor of > mindfulness'; or when the enlightenment factor of > mindfulness is absent, > he knows with understanding: 'I have not the > enlightenment factor of > mindfulness'". > > So it is not a matter of 'doing anything special' > when it comes to akusala > tendencies. > > As the commentary to this part of the sutta points > out, the hindrances are > 'knocked out' by right reflection on an object. > 'Right reflection' > (yoniso manasikara) here refers I believe to > momentary awareness. > However, this should not be taken as meaning that > one can use awareness to > 'deal with' akusala--that would be the 'us' thing > again. > > So the short answer, I think, is to just develop > kusala! > > Jon 7745 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:45pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation > I apologize if I directed that impatience at you. I was (and still > am) though curious of your motivation for pressing for my take in > particular and not doing the investigation yourself. I always find these questions interesting and helpful to think about and investigate. I thought you might too. In addition, I was looking forward to some sharp insights that you might share with us. I find that the same set of about 20 questions keep popping up and popping up, and just when I think I'm beginning to understand them, they reveal themselves in a new and unexpected context. In practice, it is very easy to confuse sati and samadhi, and to confuse sati with samma-sati, and to confuse samma-sati with panya, so I find it helpful to reflect on the differences. > > My questions were: How does concentration ... differ from > mindfulness > > (sati)? I do see the original post, but I still don't see these questions addressed. Never mind! > > > And sati from samma-sati? > > Samma sati vs. sati to me would be clear knowledge & remembrance > on anything that leads to discernment into the true nature of > things. Samma Sati should eventually lead to this type of discernment > (wisdom). It also overlaps with dhamma-vicaya. Samma sati can begin > at a coarse level ("when breathing in long noting 'breathing in > long'") and evolve to a more subtle & refined level as it develops, > until it eventually becomes the wisdom that sees things as they are-- > which is free from all elaborations and non-conceptual. Fine. Dan 7746 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Jon: > > It is apparent from the Satipatthana Sutta that > > akusala per se is not an > > obstacle to the development of awareness/insight. > > In the section on > > Contemplation on Mental Objects (the Five > > Hindrances), it states that > > one's impurities can themselves be the object of > > awareness. Dan: I like your post, and it is clear that the idea "I need to deal with akusala" is rooted in moha and can lead to generation of even more akusala. (However, when there is a good degree of moha, then one of the two ideas "I need to deal with akusala because it's akusala" or "I don't need to deal with akusala because it isn't harmful" is often likely to arise. While not pure, I find the first far less unwholesome than the second. But that's another story.) I'm concerned about your logic that simply because impurities can be the object of awareness that they are not obstacles to the development of insight. must run. The text > > says-- > > > > "Here, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental > > objects in the mental > > objects of the five hindrances. > > "How does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental > > objects in the mental > > objects of the five hindrances? > > "Here, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows > > with understanding: 'I > > have sensuality,' or when sensuality is not present, > > he knows with > > understanding: 'I have no sensuality.'" > > > > Note that the text here dealing with akusala is in > > exactly the same terms > > as the text dealing with kusala, for example in the > > section on the factors > > of enlightenment-- > > > > "Here, when the enlightenment factor of mindfulness > > is present, a bhikkhu > > knows with understanding: 'I have the enlightenment > > factor of > > mindfulness'; or when the enlightenment factor of > > mindfulness is absent, > > he knows with understanding: 'I have not the > > enlightenment factor of > > mindfulness'". > > > > So it is not a matter of 'doing anything special' > > when it comes to akusala > > tendencies. > > > > As the commentary to this part of the sutta points > > out, the hindrances are > > 'knocked out' by right reflection on an object. > > 'Right reflection' > > (yoniso manasikara) here refers I believe to > > momentary awareness. > > However, this should not be taken as meaning that > > one can use awareness to > > 'deal with' akusala--that would be the 'us' thing > > again. > > > > So the short answer, I think, is to just develop > > kusala! > > > > Jon > 7747 From: Erik Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > > My questions were: How does concentration ... differ from > > mindfulness > > > (sati)? > > I do see the original post, but I still don't see these questions > addressed. Never mind! Try jhana meditation! Seriously, there's a point where words stop being helpful and start getting in the way. Again the difference-- from the original post--is that samma sati doesn't have absorption and unification of the mind as characteristics. But words alone aren't helpful here at all, other than if you're coming from the perspective of already knowing the experience jhana to begin with and use these terms to differentiate with that as a basis. Then they make a lot of sense. Otherwise, they're not all that helpful, as I see it. 7748 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 0:01am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory concentration with insight, calm with insight, access concentration with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry with stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration with fruits of insight, etc. I find that being "sure" of the differences is no real assurance at all. I've been so sure of so many things about Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an Arahant several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness always seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual structures I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. The surety itself becomes a hindrance because what I thought was confidence in Buddha-dhamma (saddha) was really confidence in Self (moha and mana)! It is indeed useful to think about the differences between sammasamadhi and sammasati, but it is also useful to think about the difference between ekaggata and sati. It is so easy to underestimate the power of special experiences to confuse and lead astray; it can take years or decades to even get an inkling that a practice is generating more mana and lobha than panya. > Try jhana meditation! Seriously, there's a point where words stop > being helpful and start getting in the way. Again the difference-- > from the original post--is that samma sati doesn't have absorption > and unification of the mind as characteristics. But words alone > aren't helpful here at all, other than if you're coming from the > perspective of already knowing the experience jhana to begin with and > use these terms to differentiate with that as a basis. Then they make > a lot of sense. Otherwise, they're not all that helpful, as I see it. 7749 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 0:32am Subject: Insights: real or imaginary? Hi Dan, Fascinating post. Can you give an example or two or more that illustrate how you thought a particular type of insight turned out to not be, or of a different type? -fk --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with > jhana, > preparatory concentration with access concentration, > preparatory > concentration with insight, calm with insight, > access concentration > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, > jhana with > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of > jhana-entry with > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of > concentration with > fruits of insight, etc. I find that being "sure" of > the differences is > no real assurance at all. I've been so sure of so > many things about > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to > have been an Arahant > several times over by now. The only problem is that > my sureness always > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these > conceptual structures > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come > crashing down. The > surety itself becomes a hindrance because what I > thought was > confidence in Buddha-dhamma (saddha) was really > confidence in Self > (moha and mana)! > > It is indeed useful to think about the differences > between > sammasamadhi and sammasati, but it is also useful to > think about the > difference between ekaggata and sati. It is so easy > to underestimate > the power of special experiences to confuse and lead > astray; it can > take years or decades to even get an inkling that a > practice is > generating more mana and lobha than panya. > > > Try jhana meditation! Seriously, there's a point > where words stop > > being helpful and start getting in the way. Again > the difference-- > > from the original post--is that samma sati doesn't > have absorption > > and unification of the mind as characteristics. > But words alone > > aren't helpful here at all, other than if you're > coming from the > > perspective of already knowing the experience > jhana to begin with > and > > use these terms to differentiate with that as a > basis. Then they > make > > a lot of sense. Otherwise, they're not all that > helpful, as I see > it. 7750 From: Erik Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:18am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access concentration > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry with > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration with > fruits of insight, etc. Dan, you sound terribly confused by all these labels! Have you considered putting your categories down for awhile and taking a few deep breaths? :) > I find that being "sure" of the differences is > no real assurance at all. That's why it's indispensible to have qualified teachers who can see our blind spots. It is the "whole of the holy life" after all. > I've been so sure of so many things about > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an Arahant > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness always > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual structures > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. Watching all those conceptual elaborations come crashing down can only be good thing. There's nothing worse in terms of understanding the oh-so-simple Dhamma (a direct pointing at the heart) than a "hardening of the categories." What I'm curious to know is how it's believed such conceptual structures provide any solid footing at all! The whole point is to tear them down! > It is indeed useful to think about the differences between > sammasamadhi and sammasati, but it is also useful to think about the > difference between ekaggata and sati. It is so easy to underestimate > the power of special experiences to confuse and lead astray; it can > take years or decades to even get an inkling that a practice is > generating more mana and lobha than panya. Conversely, it can take practically notime to awaken to the deathless with a dose of humility and the right teachers. I had many problems like the ones you indicate before I found the right teachers, thought I knew it all, etc. Fortunately they saw through my ego's multilayered defense mechanism and skillfully got me into the right place, though it did take several hard whacks and a lot of whining from my ego to accomplish. 7751 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:09am Subject: (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Hi Sarah, this is a question from Mike, a friend of mine on another list. Anyone wanting to respond can just respond on this group, I will forward it back to mike later. -fk Note: forwarded message attached. 7752 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 3:52am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation > > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access concentration > > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry with > > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration > with > > fruits of insight, etc. > > Dan, you sound terribly confused by all these labels! Have you > considered putting your categories down for awhile and taking a few > deep breaths? :) Hmmm... I don't feel confused or befuddled by the labels. I wonder what went wrong in the transition from my experience, to my understanding, to my interpretation, to my writing, to your eyes, to your brain, to your conceiving, to your writing, to my seeing, to my interpretation, to my conceiving, because it seems like you are attributing comments to my terrible confusion. Or are you? > > I find that being "sure" of the differences is > > no real assurance at all. > > That's why it's indispensible to have qualified teachers who can see > our blind spots. It is the "whole of the holy life" after all. Yup. > > I've been so sure of so many things about > > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an > Arahant > > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness > always > > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual > structures > > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. > > Watching all those conceptual elaborations come crashing down can > only be good thing. There's nothing worse in terms of understanding > the oh-so-simple Dhamma (a direct pointing at the heart) than > a "hardening of the categories." What I'm curious to know is how it's > believed such conceptual structures provide any solid footing at all! > The whole point is to tear them down! The building up of conceptual structures is a process that is going to happen in the non-arahant regardless of how much you don't want it to, or think that it shouldn't. How is it believed that conceptual structures provide solid footing? Ignorance. Ignorance -> conceptual structures; and ignorance -> perception of conceptual structures as real -> perception of conceptual structures as solid footing. Belief that conceptual structures provide solid footing? I don't know what belief has to do with it: the clinging to conceptual structures as solid footing continues unabated, whether you believe that they do or not, whether you want them to or not, whether you think they do or not. I don't "believe" that concepts provide solid footing, but that does not prevent my concept building. Desire to not cling to concept does not prevent clinging to concept; and even strong desire to not cling to concept does not prevent clinging to concept. The whole point is to tear down conceptual structures? No. The point is to develop wisdom. As the development proceeds, clinging to concept lessens naturally, of its own accord. "Tear down conceptual structures" sounds like a recipe for dosa! > Conversely, it can take practically notime to awaken to the deathless > with a dose of humility and the right teachers. I had many problems > like the ones you indicate before I found the right teachers, thought > I knew it all, etc. Fortunately they saw through my ego's > multilayered defense mechanism and skillfully got me into the right > place, though it did take several hard whacks and a lot of whining > from my ego to accomplish. "...with a dose of humility..." -- I can always use one of those! One good place for that is the suttas. One that comes particularly to mind right now is the Mulapariyaya sutta (MN 1). Wonderful sutta! Very humbling! Another great source of humility is discernment of dhammas. But that isn't always there, even though I would like it to be. Dan 7753 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 4:42am Subject: Re: Insights: real or imaginary? > Fascinating post. Can you give an example or two or > more that illustrate how you thought a particular type > of insight turned out to not be, or of a different > type? Good question, fk. In my first extended, intensive meditation retreat in Thailand a number of years ago (1988), my teacher often emphasized how important it was to learn how to distinguish the difference between sati and samadhi. "Yeah, yeah. I know. It's obvious now that you've made it so clear." By the end of my stay, I had experienced deep calm and peacefulness unlike anything I'd ever experienced before. Another monk questioned me after my retreat was over: "So, what did you learn?" I replied: "I feel very clear." I had mistaken pleasant sensation with wisdom. He gently pointed this out to me, and said the feeling would pass soon. I responded with irritation! I was insulted: "I know the difference between calm and insight. Who does he think he his, lecturing me on something so basic as that." Later, after the feeling of clarity had passed, I began to think more about some of the "insight" experiences I had during the retreat--the clear, almost disarming recognition of the sound of a bird singing being distinct from my perception of the sound of the singing, the hasty retreat of discursive conceiving when the mind recognized the discoursing, the stunning perception of toothbrush, hand, and brushing motion as clearly distinct from the conception of the person doing the brushing, etc. These experiences began to take on more importance in my mind than the calm feelings, the lightness, the perception of this light or that image, etc. "Oh, so NOW I understand the distinction between what is path and what is not path. These lights and calm feelings are not path, and the little insights are path." After I was back in the states, someone asked what happens in a retreat like that, why it has to be so long (two weeks). So wise was I, I confidently told them that it takes about two weeks to get to a breakthough in the meditation, that it really takes a full two weeks to get established in udayabbaya-ñana (knowledge of arising and passing away). "For some people it takes longer, but many people get established in the technique in two weeks." I was so confident about my attainment because my meditation experiences matched so closely those experiences that wise people said accompany certain insights (e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html). Of course, I was not at all "established in udayabbaya-ñana". In fact the very idea of "being established in udayabbaya-ñana" is nonsense, but I didn't realize that for several years. Yet, there's a grain of truth to the misperceptions and misconceptions, but that grain is rarely what I think it is at the time. That was the just the beginning! I look back at myself and how naive I was then and just laugh. And then I look at myself now, and I laugh again at how naive I still am! After many more intensive, extended retreats and after years and years of daily "formal practice" and years of study, the same sorts of delusions arise almost uninterruptedly. That tendency for delusion is reborn every minute. The object of the delusion changes and shifts and perhaps gets more subtle, but by God it is extradinarily persistent. And it is there whether I want it to be or not, and even whether I think it is there or not. The path is indeed long, despite the impression I sometimes get from special experiences. Dan 7754 From: Howard Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:23am Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opini... Hi, Erik (and Dan) - In a message dated 8/30/01 1:56:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Erik writes: > --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access concentration > > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry with > > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration > with > > fruits of insight, etc. > > Dan, you sound terribly confused by all these labels! Have you > considered putting your categories down for awhile and taking a few > deep breaths? :) > > > I find that being "sure" of the differences is > > no real assurance at all. > > That's why it's indispensible to have qualified teachers who can see > our blind spots. It is the "whole of the holy life" after all. > > > I've been so sure of so many things about > > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an > Arahant > > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness > always > > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual > structures > > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. > > Watching all those conceptual elaborations come crashing down can > only be good thing. There's nothing worse in terms of understanding > the oh-so-simple Dhamma (a direct pointing at the heart) than > a "hardening of the categories." What I'm curious to know is how it's > believed such conceptual structures provide any solid footing at all! > The whole point is to tear them down! > > > It is indeed useful to think about the differences between > > sammasamadhi and sammasati, but it is also useful to think about > the > > difference between ekaggata and sati. It is so easy to > underestimate > > the power of special experiences to confuse and lead astray; it can > > take years or decades to even get an inkling that a practice is > > generating more mana and lobha than panya. > > Conversely, it can take practically notime to awaken to the deathless > with a dose of humility and the right teachers. I had many problems > like the ones you indicate before I found the right teachers, thought > I knew it all, etc. Fortunately they saw through my ego's > multilayered defense mechanism and skillfully got me into the right > place, though it did take several hard whacks and a lot of whining > from my ego to accomplish. > > > ============================ Excellent post, Erik (in my opinion). Humans are so perverse that we will even take a doctrine which includes the non-clinging to all dhammas, including concepts and systems of thought, and harden that doctrine into a fixed, unyielding mass of granite-like concepts, so that we end up confusing the map for the territory, and being unable to see the realities for the concepts! BTW, Dan, I don't mean to imply that you are any more likely to be stuck in a web of concepts and views than the rest of us. In fact, you are probably less so, since your post shows how much attention you pay to what is really what. My comments are just general ones on the sorry state of all of us worldlings! ;-)) 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) 7755 From: Howard Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Hi, Frank - > Hi Sarah, this is a question from Mike, a friend of > mine on another list. Anyone wanting to respond can > just respond on this group, I will forward it back to > mike later. > > -fk > ================================ I suspect that attachments won't work on the Yahoo lists. 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) 7756 From: m. nease Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Insights: real or imaginary? Bravo! --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > Fascinating post. Can you give an example or > two or > > more that illustrate how you thought a particular > type > > of insight turned out to not be, or of a different > > type? > > Good question, fk. In my first extended, intensive > meditation retreat > in Thailand a number of years ago (1988), my teacher > often emphasized > how important it was to learn how to distinguish the > difference > between sati and samadhi. "Yeah, yeah. I know. It's > obvious now that > you've made it so clear." By the end of my stay, I > had experienced > deep calm and peacefulness unlike anything I'd ever > experienced > before. Another monk questioned me after my retreat > was over: "So, > what did you learn?" I replied: "I feel very clear." > I had mistaken > pleasant sensation with wisdom. He gently pointed > this out to me, and > said the feeling would pass soon. I responded with > irritation! I was > insulted: "I know the difference between calm and > insight. Who does he > think he his, lecturing me on something so basic as > that." > > Later, after the feeling of clarity had passed, I > began to think more > about some of the "insight" experiences I had during > the retreat--the > clear, almost disarming recognition of the sound of > a bird singing > being distinct from my perception of the sound of > the singing, the > hasty retreat of discursive conceiving when the mind > recognized the > discoursing, the stunning perception of toothbrush, > hand, and brushing > motion as clearly distinct from the conception of > the person doing the > brushing, etc. These experiences began to take on > more importance in > my mind than the calm feelings, the lightness, the > perception of this > light or that image, etc. "Oh, so NOW I understand > the distinction > between what is path and what is not path. These > lights and calm > feelings are not path, and the little insights are > path." After I was > back in the states, someone asked what happens in a > retreat like > that, why it has to be so long (two weeks). So wise > was I, I > confidently told them that it takes about two weeks > to get to a > breakthough in the meditation, that it really takes > a full two weeks > to get established in udayabbaya-ñana (knowledge of > arising and > passing away). "For some people it takes longer, but > many people get > established in the technique in two weeks." I was so > confident about > my attainment because my meditation experiences > matched so closely > those experiences that wise people said accompany > certain insights > (e.g. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html). > Of > course, I was not at all "established in > udayabbaya-ñana". In fact the > very idea of "being established in udayabbaya-ñana" > is nonsense, but I > didn't realize that for several years. Yet, there's > a grain of truth > to the misperceptions and misconceptions, but that > grain is rarely > what I think it is at the time. > > That was the just the beginning! I look back at > myself and how naive I > was then and just laugh. And then I look at myself > now, and I laugh > again at how naive I still am! After many more > intensive, extended > retreats and after years and years of daily "formal > practice" and > years of study, the same sorts of delusions arise > almost > uninterruptedly. That tendency for delusion is > reborn every minute. > The object of the delusion changes and shifts and > perhaps gets more > subtle, but by God it is extradinarily persistent. > And it is there > whether I want it to be or not, and even whether I > think it is there > or not. The path is indeed long, despite the > impression I sometimes > get from special experiences. > > Dan 7757 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:28am Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation --- Thanks Dan, Very useful. robert "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > > > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > > > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access > concentration > > > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > > > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry > with > > > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration > > with > > > fruits of insight, etc. > > > > Dan, you sound terribly confused by all these labels! Have you > > considered putting your categories down for awhile and taking a few > > deep breaths? :) > > Hmmm... I don't feel confused or befuddled by the labels. I wonder > what went wrong in the transition from my experience, to my > understanding, to my interpretation, to my writing, to your eyes, to > your brain, to your conceiving, to your writing, to my seeing, to my > interpretation, to my conceiving, because it seems like you are > attributing comments to my terrible confusion. Or are you? > > > > I find that being "sure" of the differences is > > > no real assurance at all. > > > > That's why it's indispensible to have qualified teachers who can see > > our blind spots. It is the "whole of the holy life" after all. > > Yup. > > > > I've been so sure of so many things about > > > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an > > Arahant > > > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness > > always > > > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual > > structures > > > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. > > > > Watching all those conceptual elaborations come crashing down can > > only be good thing. There's nothing worse in terms of understanding > > the oh-so-simple Dhamma (a direct pointing at the heart) than > > a "hardening of the categories." What I'm curious to know is how > it's > > believed such conceptual structures provide any solid footing at > all! > > The whole point is to tear them down! > > The building up of conceptual structures is a process that is going to > happen in the non-arahant regardless of how much you don't want it to, > or think that it shouldn't. How is it believed that conceptual > structures provide solid footing? Ignorance. Ignorance -> conceptual > structures; and ignorance -> perception of conceptual structures as > real -> perception of conceptual structures as solid footing. Belief > that conceptual structures provide solid footing? I don't know what > belief has to do with it: the clinging to conceptual structures as > solid footing continues unabated, whether you believe that they do or > not, whether you want them to or not, whether you think they do or > not. I don't "believe" that concepts provide solid footing, but that > does not prevent my concept building. Desire to not cling to concept > does not prevent clinging to concept; and even strong desire to not > cling to concept does not prevent clinging to concept. > > The whole point is to tear down conceptual structures? No. The point > is to develop wisdom. As the development proceeds, clinging to concept > lessens naturally, of its own accord. "Tear down conceptual > structures" sounds like a recipe for dosa! > > > Conversely, it can take practically notime to awaken to the > deathless > > with a dose of humility and the right teachers. I had many problems > > like the ones you indicate before I found the right teachers, > thought > > I knew it all, etc. Fortunately they saw through my ego's > > multilayered defense mechanism and skillfully got me into the right > > place, though it did take several hard whacks and a lot of whining > > from my ego to accomplish. > > "...with a dose of humility..." -- I can always use one of those! One > good place for that is the suttas. One that comes particularly to mind > right now is the Mulapariyaya sutta (MN 1). Wonderful sutta! Very > humbling! Another great source of humility is discernment of dhammas. > But that isn't always there, even though I would like it to be. > > Dan 7758 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Thanks for bringing that to my attention Sarah and Howard (attachments don't work across lists with it blocked). Mike, if you want to subscribe to dhammastudygroup, you can do it at this location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup Mike's question follows. -fk From: Michael Chu < Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:13 pm Subject: cultivation style and the need for sitting meditation Dear Sara and all, Sara: With such confidence as you have in `nitty-gritty dhamma' as exemplifiedin the Six Sets of Six, I wonder why you wish to sit for several hours like this or why you feel that this is the way to understand the Teachings? Look forward to many more interesting posts from you, I am very lazy at my practice of meditation. I average about fifteen minutes of meditation every other day. Comparing myself to my fellow cultivator friends, namely Frank and William, who do at least one hour of sitting meditation each day continuously for several years, I have noticed their ability to be mindful and serene far exceed mine. I personally noticed that lacking the mindfulness of cultivation from meditation, I am having a much more difficult time progressing in the Noble Eightfold Path compare to my peers. On the concentration group, I can only sporadically address my present moment with the right effort, mindfulness, and concentration. Without the appropriate concentration, I find myself to have further difficulty achieving the right speech and action. My progress of having the right understanding, thought, and speech is also hindered. By lacking the right understanding, I find myself making poor plans for my livelihood. My clarity of mind is always compromised. I also noticed lacking the ability to be mindful even hinders the right breathing and induces undesirable states like sluggishness, impatience, restlessness, and anger. I can only so far only be able to do a limited form of damage control on these undesirable states when I occasionally remember to stay away from them. Another thing I noticed is that these undesirable statements can be quickly terminated if I catch them on their early stages. To be able to catch the arising of these undesirable states, we need to be mindful. Sara: We may think there's no more anger for now, but what about all the little uneasy feelings, minor irritations, petty resentments and all. Maybe now we're not really being tested, but what about when life doesn't go our way such as when we're sick and in pain. The tests are when it's hard. I'm thinking of the Dhammapada story when the maidservant turned up later and later to test her mistress' good humour (perhaps someone can supply the details or reference?).Don't we all have our limits? The very reason why we should apply appropriate mindfulness and catch the arising anger before it gets any bigger and out of control. So far the best way to achieve mindfulness that I know of is through practicing proper meditation. If you have any suggestion that we can better achieve mindfulness, I would love to know. Much Metta, Mike 7759 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:47am Subject: Re: Insights: real or imaginary? Dear group, As Dan has explained; without an understanding of what the characteristic of sati of the eightfold path is there is bound to be the mistaking of samadhi (which can be either kusala or akusala) for sati. For so long there has been clinging to the idea of self that most of the time we are not even aware of it. Hence one sits down, concentrates , feels much calmer than usual daily life and believes that this is now sati of the eightfold path. If unusual experiences occur this adds more certainly. The commentary to the satipatthana sutta notes that true awareness (of satipatthana) is nothing like the usual meaning of awareness. "From the sort of mere awareness.. proceeds the idea of a soul, the perverted perception, with the belief that there is a doer and an experiencer. One who does not uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to non- opposition to that perception and to absence of contemplative practice cannot be called one who develops anything like a subject of meditation."" Endquote. We think 'I' am having insight. No, not so. If it is real insight it is simply a kusala citta(momentary consciousness) associated with panna cetasika (mental factor of wisdom) that takes a paramattha dhamma as object and sees some aspect of it correctly. Panna cetasika doesn't try to know this, it doesn't even want to know this. But its kicca(function) is to understand. On the other hand if it is imitation insight then it is akusala citta arising with a subtle type of avijja that misunderstands, that is mistaking concept for something real. Avijja has no wish to distort but its function is to obscure, that is what it does. It is also not self. Not your avijja, or mine. An example of imitation insight. One feels the subtle sensations and vibrations in the body and assumes this is now direct insight. But there can still be a deep-rooted idea that these are particles. That they have some type of lasting existence, that they have time to "vibrate" or do something. If so there is not yet insight into paramattha. In this case citta and sanna are present - they know the object but they don't know it in the way that panna does. Avijja is still running among concepts - even if there is no thinking in words. True insight slowly understands the characteristic, cause, and function of rupas as well as other dhammas. It will distinguish between concept and reality. "We" can't know the difference - but if the right conditions are nurtured then panna must develop and see. The problem, of course, is that there are powerful conditions for avijja to arise. It has been arising, almost without break, ever since we took birth. That is just this life - there is no beginning to the round of samsara, and avijja is the cause of it all. Panna - of the level of satipatthana - arises due to hearing and considering Dhamma. But in its infancy it can't firmly cognise dhammas. Much patience, a parami, is needed I think. Can we be patient and still see the urgency of the task? Can we understand that it is not us being patient. robert 7760 From: Howard Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 5:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Insights: real or imaginary? Hi, Robert - In a message dated 8/30/01 6:48:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert Kirkpatrick writes: > Dear group, > As Dan has explained; without an understanding of what the > characteristic of sati of the eightfold path is there is bound > to be the mistaking of samadhi (which can be either kusala or > akusala) for sati. For so long there has been clinging to the > idea of self that most of the time we are not even aware of it. > Hence one sits down, concentrates , feels much calmer than usual > daily life and believes that this is now sati of the eightfold > path. If unusual experiences occur this adds more certainly. > The commentary to the satipatthana sutta notes that true > awareness (of satipatthana) is nothing like the usual meaning of > awareness. > "From the sort of mere awareness.. proceeds the idea of a soul, > the perverted > perception, with the belief that there is a doer and an > experiencer. > One who does not uproot or remove that wrong perception owing to > non- > opposition to that perception and to absence of contemplative > practice cannot be called one who develops anything like a > subject of > meditation."" Endquote. > > We think 'I' am having insight. No, not so. If it is real > insight it is simply a kusala citta(momentary consciousness) > associated with panna cetasika (mental factor of wisdom) that > takes a paramattha dhamma as object and sees some aspect of it > correctly. Panna cetasika doesn't try to know this, it doesn't > even want to know this. But its kicca(function) is to > understand. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes! When the conditions are in place for wisdom's arising, it arises and does what it does. Without the conditions, all the "trying" in the world will be fruitless. This touches a bit, I think, on the notion of "uncontrollability", a notion which we worldlings always try to resist. For the Zen-type folks on the list, the following analogy occurs to me: I just came home from a t'ai chi class in which we were doing a push-hands exercise; if one tries to "attack" one's partner when the conditions for it are not in place, the attempt will be futile and may only lead to making oneself vulnerable, but when the conditions *are* in place, mainly that your partner is "off his/her root", adding the one additional condition of the very slightest properly directed push is enough to defeat the "adversary". The critical condition in *our* practice, as I see it, is being wisely, consistently, and patiently attentive. Being *wisely* attentive comes from having studied the Buddhadhamma. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand if it is imitation insight then it > is akusala citta arising with a subtle type of avijja that > misunderstands, that is mistaking concept for something real. > Avijja has no wish to distort but its function is to obscure, > that is what it does. It is also not self. Not your avijja, or > mine. > An example of imitation insight. One feels the subtle sensations > and vibrations in the body and assumes this is now direct > insight. But there can still be a deep-rooted idea that these > are particles. That they have some type of lasting existence, > that they have time to "vibrate" or do something. If so there is > not > yet insight into paramattha. In this case citta and sanna are > present - they know the object but they don't know it in the way > that panna does. Avijja is still running among > concepts - even if there is no thinking in words. > True insight slowly understands the characteristic, cause, and > function of rupas as well as other dhammas. It will distinguish > between concept and reality. "We" can't know the difference - > but if the right conditions are nurtured then panna must develop > and see. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent!! This is so relevant for those of us who have been trained in the Sayagi U Ba Khin/Goenka style of meditation! It is, indeed, quite possible to clearly, and in full detail, witness pulses of energy throughout the body, a very dramatic and fascinating phenomenon, yet without clearly seeing their emptiness, their merely dependent status. Their impermanence *is* hard to miss, but, even so, there is the tendency, rooted in ignorance, to cognize the pulses as independent particles, as self-existent - though fleeting - *things*. And without seeing their emptiness, their non-thingness, wisdom is still weak. ------------------------------------------------------------ > The problem, of course, is that there are powerful conditions > for avijja to arise. It has been arising, almost without break, > ever since we took birth. That is just this life - there is no > beginning to the round of samsara, and avijja is the cause of it > all. Panna - of the level of satipatthana - arises due to > hearing and considering Dhamma. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, in part. The other part is constant practice, constant cultivation. -------------------------------------------------------- But in its infancy it can't > firmly cognise > dhammas. Much patience, a parami, is needed I think. > Can we be patient and still see the urgency of the task? Can we > understand that it is not us being patient. > robert > =============================== 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) 7761 From: Erik Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 10:59am Subject: Re: Insights: real or imaginary? --- Howard wrote: > Howard: > Yes! When the conditions are in place for wisdom's arising, it arises > and does what it does. Without the conditions, all the "trying" in the world > will be fruitless. Ah, those pesky "conditions" again! :) > > The problem, of course, is that there are powerful conditions > > for avijja to arise. It has been arising, almost without break, > > ever since we took birth. That is just this life - there is no > > beginning to the round of samsara, and avijja is the cause of it > > all. Panna - of the level of satipatthana - arises due to > > hearing and considering Dhamma. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, in part. The other part is constant practice, constant > cultivation. Perhaps one of the most helpful pieces of advice from one of my teachers is that to do the Dhamma justice one should practice with the sort of dedication one would have if practicing for a Carnegie Hall recital. Meaning, several hours per day. That need not all be sitting, of course, but the general idea holds. Needless to say, if something as mundane and trivial as a Carnegie Hall recital is worth this sort of practice, how much moreso the Dhamma! 7762 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Catching Up - Robert E --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Robert E, > > I've been appreciating all your well-considered posts to this list very much. Thanks, Sarah. > ...Of course, there's no sadness or grieving at > actual moments of awareness or wisdom, good point > but they so easily slip in at other > times and as you suggest there can be grieving for the loss of anything or > anyone 'we' are attached to, including the good 'self' or a wrong view. Still, > isn't it better to recognize and understand these moments? This can be a > condition straight away to 'cut' the story! Oh, definitely, Sarah. I think that sometimes it may be appropriate to kiss some part of your life goodbye with a tear in your eye, not to indulge but to acknowledge the moment, but that is not to say you can't use the moment to look into the nature of what is taking place and unattach. > Robert, I also really appreciated your comments about science and Buddhism to > Herman which I thought were very well put. this was just one of many examples: > > "Perhaps this is because I believe that science can never prove anything other > than what it already establishes as a given..." I'm glad. I have noticed a sort of movement in the U.S., perhaps elsewhere, to look at Buddhism as a form of empiricism. That what Buddhism adds up to is simply seeing the basic perception of the natural physical world without any clouding conditions, thoughts and emotions. I see this as a kind of lobotomy rather than a nirvanic transcendence. I can't imagine that Buddha would have gone to the immense trouble of dealing with every issue under the sun, and giving such a rigorous path to understanding, if he merely meant for us to see life the way a camera does. You can see I have a tendency to rant on this sort of topic, even if it's just mentioned, so I'll subside. > Thank you also for posting the link to the magazine 'Buddhist Door' and its > abhidhamma section. I was really interested to see their useful summary and > reference to Abhidammattha Sangaha. It seems this was the last issue which is a > shame. I was also glad to read that you appreciated the complex conversation > with Khun Sujin that Rob posted yesterday (I think). I'm very impressed that > you're reading all the details so carefully. Trying. The eightfold path discussion is somewhat mind-boggling. > Btw, I'm a little familiar with Patanjali from yoga circles, but can't help you > with any of the historical information. Of course there were many cultural and > religious influences and literary contexts which the Buddha's Teachings should > be understood in, but no understanding of anatta at all in Patanjali or any > ofther Teachings at the time. This is a good point and very true. I would be the first to acknowledge that Buddha's own contributions to the spiritual path are unique and brilliant. Certainly, the idea of no-self or not-self is a clear break with Hinduism, Yoga included, at least in approach. In this sense, the Buddha's Teachings and 8fold > path are completely original (as Anders suggested), even thought there may be > some superficial or cultural resemblance, I'd think. > Anyway, i'll have to leave it here..Just to say I enjoy your pleasant posts and > style (even when I don't agree with all the points;-). > > Look forward to more, > > Sarah Well, thanks so much for all that you've said and for your helpful points here as well. I certainly feel welcomed here, and even though I am coming from a slightly different standpoint, I have felt comfortable to speak my mind and also listen, and so I've both been learning a lot, and becoming more aware of what an overwhelming expanse Buddha's teachings really are. With appreciation, Robert E. 7763 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:33pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > As the commentary to this part of the sutta points out, the hindrances are > 'knocked out' by right reflection on an object. 'Right reflection' > (yoniso manasikara) here refers I believe to momentary awareness. > However, this should not be taken as meaning that one can use awareness to > 'deal with' akusala--that would be the 'us' thing again. > > So the short answer, I think, is to just develop kusala! Well, I think I'm getting the idea. This is interesting to me because how one deals with their tendencies is such a gigantic issue in all cultures and religions. Christianity, I believe, would ask the believer to suppress and abolish the akusala by main force. Psychotherapy would have the akusala accepted, worked through and 'corrected' by analyzing and grappling with it. What you are saying, it seems to me, is that mindfulness *is* an antidote to akusula in the moment, and I recall another quote from a recent post in which the bhikku goes through a process of seeing the hindrance, becomes fully aware of it, and becomes aware that the hindrance has been abolished and will not return. I can't remember the exact wording. But you caution that this is not 'oneself' 'dealing' with the akusala, because that makes it a cause to feed the notion of self, and will create more problems, rather than abolishing the ones at hand. Am I reading you correctly? Thanks for the good clarifications, Robert E. 7764 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:40pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: I'm concerned about your > logic that simply because impurities can be the object of awareness > that they are not obstacles to the development of insight. What I got out of it, Dan, was not that there was a causal connection between making the akusala the object of awareness and it not being an obstacle to vipassana, but simply that it was not an obstacle to vipassana, and it also can be treated with mindfulness like any other momentary experience. The idea that impurities in and of themselves are not an obstacle to insight seems to me to be another exciting and surprising innovation of the Buddha's. Almost any other spiritual philosophy would say that they *were* an obstacle. Buddhism seems to be so much rooted in becoming aware of the truth of existence that the content is always secondary to the strength of awareness of the practitioner. At least, that's the idea I'm getting here, and to me that's very hopeful, since it has been pointed out many times that akusala is a fact of life and is here to stay for a while. 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" 7765 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 1:58pm Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic. Re: MN vs. DN, another opinion Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: looking for good Pali translation Dear Dan, I think I am being presumptuous in speaking to your sincere issues here, because I am not a greatly consistent meditator, or an expert in the distinctions you are talking about. But I have two ideas about what you are saying and I will offer them with the understanding that I may be off the mark. 1. What I hear you expressing is a lot of doubt. So what I would do is look at it and acknowledge it as doubt, rather than getting involved with all the doubts. If you go through the inventory below, you are talking about the inability to tell different types of experience from each other, the possibility for going for years on the wrong path -- these are all the opposite of discrimination which allows you to distinguish one thing from the other. Doubt is the opposite of discrimination, so rather than believe that your thoughts are 'true', I would see them as doubt and treat them with mindfulness. 2. I don't think we can avoid the obstacles on the path, such as wrong view, wrong knowledge, etc. That's everyone's condition. But it seems to me that the Buddha's promise is that all of this treated with sincere determination and continued efforts to concentrate awareness will yield fruit either sooner or later. In other words, that the properties of right effort and mindfulness are actually stronger in the long run than delusion and weakness. So if that is the case you cannot be on the wrong path for 30 years. You can be on a difficult path for 30 years, but the effort to be on the right path is the path. It may take thousands of years to get through all the obstacles we have and wind up in the full flower of enlightenment, but the path is still the path. Since you know where you want to be and are supposed to be, you're actually lucky and the time of confusion and doubt is relatively short compared to those who are truly lost in the confusion that this life is ultimately real and that they are separate independent beings. Mistakes are okay, as long as you keep going. If that weren't true, imagine what sad shape we'd all be in. Robert E. ================================ --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access concentration > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry with > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration with > fruits of insight, etc. I find that being "sure" of the differences is > no real assurance at all. I've been so sure of so many things about > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an Arahant > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness always > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual structures > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. The > surety itself becomes a hindrance because what I thought was > confidence in Buddha-dhamma (saddha) was really confidence in Self > (moha and mana)! > > It is indeed useful to think about the differences between > sammasamadhi and sammasati, but it is also useful to think about the > difference between ekaggata and sati. It is so easy to underestimate > the power of special experiences to confuse and lead astray; it can > take years or decades to even get an inkling that a practice is > generating more mana and lobha than panya. > > > Try jhana meditation! Seriously, there's a point where words stop > > being helpful and start getting in the way. Again the difference-- > > from the original post--is that samma sati doesn't have absorption > > and unification of the mind as characteristics. But words alone > > aren't helpful here at all, other than if you're coming from the > > perspective of already knowing the experience jhana to begin with > and > > use these terms to differentiate with that as a basis. Then they > make > > a lot of sense. Otherwise, they're not all that helpful, as I see > it. ===== 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" 7766 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 2:14pm Subject: Re: Catching Up - Robert E --- --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I have noticed a sort of movement in the U.S., perhaps elsewhere, to look at > Buddhism as a form of empiricism. That what Buddhism adds up to is simply seeing > the basic perception of the natural physical world without any clouding > conditions, thoughts and emotions. I see this as a kind of lobotomy rather than a > nirvanic transcendence. I can't imagine that Buddha would have gone to the > immense trouble of dealing with every issue under the sun, and giving such a > rigorous path to understanding, if he merely meant for us to see life the way a > camera does. > ________ Very good point, Robert. I think Howard alluded to this when he said that being wisely attentive (yoniso manisikara) comes from having studied the Buddha's teaching. We might hear phrases like 'bare attention' or 'seeing things as they are' and assume that simply because there is no obvious clinging one is now understanding reality directly. However, citta and sanna (perception) arise and experience realities too. What makes the difference - as to whether there is true insight - is the factor of panna (wisdom). And that, at the level of satipatthana, is dependent on correct understanding of the Dhamma. robert 7767 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] Howard: > Excellent post, Erik (in my opinion). Humans are so perverse that we > will even take a doctrine which includes the non-clinging to all dhammas, > including concepts and systems of thought, and harden that doctrine into a > fixed, unyielding mass of granite-like concepts, so that we end up confusing > the map for the territory, and being unable to see the realities for the > concepts! Dan: This hardening of concepts is certainly a problem when it manifests itself as a rigid dogmatism. But it is also a problem in less obvious ways. You mentioned the perception of subtle sensations that are associated with Goenka-style training and that it is easy to perceive the anicca of these sensations. Much more difficult to see is the clinging to the view of an "observer" of these sensations, an experiencer. Avijja attaches the concept of a Self experiencing these sensations. The attachment to the Self concept is even so strong that when samadhi is developed enough so that the perception of craving for the sensations fades, there is still a craving for a self to experience the pleasant, subtle sensations. When samadhi is deepened even further, the tendency for the mind to wander fades and eventually is totally suppressed and replaced by just the experiencing. But even still, the clinging to the notion of a someone experiencing is going just as strong, and the craving for a self to experience the pleasant sensations continues in full force, long after the craving for the sensations themselves has subsided. There is an almost unbelievably strong craving for being that is utterly untouched by samatha. That craving for being is rooted in avijja, the mind's penchant for creating concepts. That tendency to create concepts, that clinging to the mother of all concepts --- the "I", the experiencer of the sensations --- goes on just as strong as ever, even when concentration is developed to a high degree. The hardening of concepts continues! Yet, we usually only think of it in very gross terms, like ideological dogmatism. We recognize the dangers in dogmatism, so we set about the task of tearing down conceptual structures, not recognizing that this desire to "tear down" is rooted in and arises from a very strong craving, a craving for being or annihilation, a craving that is so personal and familiar that it is very difficult to see. Very difficult. We can easily see craving for gross objects when it arises. With enough practice, we can see the craving for the subtle sensations that pop to mind in meditation. With more practice, we can see the craving for being associated with a sensation or being not associated with a sensation. But seeing the craving for being is difficult. Recognizing it, we see its enormity and realize that the path is longer than we thought. The realization is not discouraging. It only SOUNDS discouraging when we are stuck in a notion of a "being" making "progress" toward a "goal". > BTW, Dan, I don't mean to imply that you are any more likely to be > stuck in a web of concepts and views than the rest of us. In fact, you are > probably less so, since your post shows how much attention you pay to what is > really what. I am certainly no less likely to stuck in a web of concepts and views than the rest of dsg. Every moment of every day I am continually stuck in a web of concepts and views. Some moments it FEELS like I'm less stuck in the web than others. But really, this is just an indication that I'm being too superficial. Some moments I RECOGNIZE that I am deeply stuck in the web. But really, escape is very distant. No sense in fooling myself about that! 7768 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 9:44pm Subject: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Robert E] Thanks for the helpful comments, Robert E. I appreciate your attention. Recognizing doubt as doubt when it arises is very important. I like your idea of doubt masquerading as surety. Whenever we feel most certain about some piece of Dhamma, it could be just a tricky manifestation of doubt. I don't doubt it! > 2. I don't think we can avoid the obstacles on the path, such as wrong view, > wrong knowledge, etc. That's everyone's condition. Although I can only speak for myself, I think that's probably right. > Mistakes are okay, as long as you keep going. If that weren't true, imagine what > sad shape we'd all be in. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. Dan 7769 From: Erik Date: Fri Aug 31, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Dan: > This hardening of concepts is certainly a problem when it manifests > itself as a rigid dogmatism. But it is also a problem in less obvious > ways. [much snipped] When I was taught meditation by my teachers it was presented much more simply than this. If I had heard this long list of potential dangers I think I'd have become totally paralyzed by worry and doubt, such that meditation would have been impossible. "Wisdom is to see the truth of the various manifestations of body and mind. When we use our trained and concentrated minds to examine the five khandhas (material form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness), we will see clearly that both body and mind are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. In seeing all compounded things with wisdom we do not cling or grasp. Whatever we receive, we receive mindfully. We are not exessively happy. When things of ours break up or disappear, we are not unhappy and do not suffer painful feelings - for we see clearly the impermanent nature of all things. When we encounter illness and pain of any sort, we equanimity because our minds have been well trained. The true refuge is the trained mind. "All of this is known as wisdom which knows the true characteristics of things as they arise. Wisdom arises from mindfulness and concentration. Concentration arises from a base of morality or virtue. All these things, morality, concentration and wisdom, are so inter-related that it is not really possible to separate them. In practice it can be looked at in this way: First there is the arising of morality. When mindfulness of breathing is practised continuously until the mind is quiet, this is the arising of concentration. Then examination showing the breath as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not- self, and the subsequent non-attachment, is the arising of wisdom. Thus the practice of mindfulness of breathing can be said to be the course for all development of morality, concentration and wisdom. They all come together. We can say this practice reaches the Buddha- Dhamma truly and precisely. "The practice of meditation must be pursued as continouosly as possible in order for it to bear fruit. Don't meditate for a short time one day and then in one or two weeks, or even a month. Meditate again, this will bring results. The Buddha taught us to practise often, to practise diligently, that is, to be as continuous as we can in the practice of mental training. To practise meditation we should also find a suitable quite place free from distractions. In gardens or under shady trees in our back yards, or in places where we can be alone are suitable environments." > But really, escape is very distant. No sense in > fooling myself about that! By placing it "far away" many would say you are fooling yourself. The Tibetan schools list "four faults" to recognizing our innate wisdom: not recognizing it's 1) too near 2) too easy 3) too profound and 4) too excellent. 7770 From: Dan Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 2:12am Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] > > Dan: > > This hardening of concepts is certainly a problem when it manifests > > itself as a rigid dogmatism. But it is also a problem in less > obvious > > ways. [much snipped] Erik: > When I was taught meditation by my teachers it was presented much > more simply than this. If I had heard this long list of potential > dangers I think I'd have become totally paralyzed by worry and doubt, > such that meditation would have been impossible. Dan: I'm not trying to teach meditation to beginning meditators. I'm just describing some of the ways that I see the mental processes described in Mulapariyaya sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html) manifested in everyday life. It is very easy to underestimate the impact and influence of wrong view from moment to moment and from day to day. > > But really, escape is very distant. No sense in > > fooling myself about that! > > By placing it "far away" many would say you are fooling yourself. I just see kilesa arising virtually without interruption, beyond my immediate control. That stream of kilesa is rooted in a craving that is much deeper from superficial cravings for any particular sensations, whether it is for something coarse like cigarettes or sex or listening to the radio or something subtler like the pleasant sensations arising with samadhi in meditation. You may not agree or may not like to think about it very much, but sometimes it's easy to overlook the grip that craving has on our living. 7771 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 6:41am Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic-Kom Dear Kom, This was exactly the sutta I was thinking of and mistakenly looking for in Dhp com. Many thanks indeed....I've always found it a good reminder and like the image of the calm, kind mistress whacking with the rolling pin when sufficiently provoked.....;-)) There are also many good reminders about speech. many thanks! Sarah --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Frank, > > ......................................................................... > > We may think there's no more anger for now, but what about all the > little > > uneasy feelings, minor irritations, petty resentments and all. Maybe > now we're > > not really being tested, but what about when life doesn't go our way > such as > > when we're sick and in pain. The tests are when it's hard. I'm thinking > of the > > Dhammapada story when the maidservant turned up later and later to > test her > > mistress' good humour (perhaps someone can supply the details or > > reference?).Don't we all have our limits? > > In > > Majjhima Nikaya 21 > Kakacupama Sutta > The Simile of the Saw > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html#vedehika > > It is a good reminder that anger doesn't arise now only because there is > no condition for it. As long as we are not an anagami, there is sure to > be anger. > > kom > 7772 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 6:41am Subject: (Not) Catching Up Lately, since school started, I have found it very difficult to keep up with the amount of posts here, and I have basically only been reading those which were direct responses to me as well as a select other few. I am afraid that I will have to take a break from dsg for a while, until I find the time to properly attend this group. I'll probably stop by a few time sover the next week or so to check for any replies to posts I've made and wrap things up, but otherwise, I don't think I'll be posting here for a while. It's been fun. Anders 7773 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 7:09am Subject: Simile of saw, evil/kind mistress, right speech Hello Sarah, Kom, others, > > Majjhima Nikaya 21 > > Kakacupama Sutta > > The Simile of the Saw > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html#vedehika Rereading that sutta, two of the similes really struck me this time. Just not the two you might think. The saw simile always kind of annoyed me because it's like, get real, who can really focus their mind in the moment on metta when they're in that much pain? Even an arhat committed suicide when they had overpowering physical pain, and the Buddha condoned it as a blameless action (another MN sutta). The simile with the servant getting beaten by the kind mistress also really annoys me, for many reasons. I can just see some obnoxious dhamma email list members posting inflammatory material and then using this sutta to justify their public service in "testing" people's defilements. The two similes that really made an impact on me are the ones with the ganges river and the formless space. The saw simile is like asking limited humans who have enough of a hard time trying to do the impossible, whereas the ganges simile somehow feels more attainable to me. -fk sutta excerpt: Suppose that a man were to come along carrying a burning grass torch and saying, 'With this burning grass torch I will heat up the river Ganges and make it boil.' Now, what do you think -- would he, with that burning grass torch, heat up the river Ganges and make it boil?" "No, lord. Why is that? Because the river Ganges is deep & enormous. It's not easy to heat it up and make it boil with a burning grass torch. The man would reap only a share of weariness & disappointment." "In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will equal to the river Ganges -- abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves. 7774 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 9:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Yes, thinking about the level of 'merit' one is accumulating in doing > > something kusala is no doubt unwholesome, and so detracts from the > overall > > level of purity of the action being performed. I dare say that most > of > > our 'wholesome actions' are, like in this example, a mixture of kusala > and > > akusala mental states. ... > > I wonder if it would be wholesome to be aware that one is doing a > meritorious > deed, but rather than feeling good about the merit, enjoying a feeling > of 'giving' > or gratitude, happiness for the other person who receives the gift, > etc.? > > Robert E. Yes, there is a level of kusala that, at the moment of performing kusala, knows and appreciates that kusala is being performed. And there also is a form of kusala that rejoices in another's good fortune (this is mudita, one of the 4 brahma-vihara's--but be alert to the near and far enemies!). Jon 7775 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 9:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > Howard, in response to the example I raised of 'spontaneous' kusala > > (wholesomeness) you said the explanation was-- > > > > > Previous cultivation. > > > > This is undoubtedly true, I think. But even at such moments, kusala > > effort/energy must be present. It arises with the citta, and performs > its > > function. Without it, no kusala whether spontaneous or not. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Mmm, hmm. I agree with respect to the 'energy' translation of > 'viriya' > in this case, but less so with the 'effort' translation if it is > carrying a > sense of intention/volition. > --------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that in conventional speech 'effort' tends to carry the implication of intention. However, as a translation of viriya cetasika/samma vayama/the 4 padhanas (endeavours) it has a very specific function and characteristic, which is not at all like conventional effort, and is of course separate and distinct from the function and characteristic of cetana cetasika (usually translated as ‘intention’). This is why I feel that when the Buddha talks about putting forth effort we should be wary of taking him to mean effort of the conventional 'intentional' kind. Jon 7776 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 9:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Descriptive vs. path of action Dan --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Hi Jon, > I would think that dhamma-vinaya would include the notion of a > 'practice'. If we are not careful, we might fall into the trap that > the practice is viewed as something external, i.e. a formula of "Do > this practice. Get that result." Buddha mentions such formulas often, > but not so much in the context of a particular Thing-to-Do. Yes, the Buddha’s formulas come in many variations, each with its own shade of meaning. The pattern may be, for example— - This being done, that ensues - This situation results from that having been done. - A person does this, then that, then the other. - Having done this, a person does that. and so on. Quite often the 'this' part of the sequence is a reference to the situation of the particular audience being addressed, that is, the listeners are already in the habit of doing the 'this' and are being shown how they can instead/also be achieving the 'that'. In this situation, a reading along the lines "If one happens to be doing the 'this'..." would be closer to the mark than "One should first do the 'this'...". As you say, the teachings are only rarely given in the sense of a particular 'Thing-to-do', but in our eagerness to gain advancement on the path we tend to grab them and run with them! Jon PS My apologies for crediting someone else with your neat 'Thing-to-do' expression! 7777 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 9:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I think that what I am calling 'intention' would be the 'active' form of > a 'view'. > If I think the world is all about money and power, my intention will be > to get > money and power, etc. I understand the desire to use 'view' in terms of > Right > View and the other views that are stuck in one or another concept of > reality. I > think 'intention' is probably just another aspect of the same thing. > > Robert E. Agreed. And I would only add that the intention (ie. in your example, to get money) has its roots in the wrong thinking (ie. that the world is all about money and power), so that as long as the latter remains the former must continue to manifest in some guise or another. Jon 7778 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 10:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Description of path factors Dan --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Hi Howard and Jon et al., > > Do you see a distinction between "eightfold path" and "Noble eightfold > path"? "Noble" is often used in the sense of "supramundane". Of > course, there is the "mundane" eightfold path, or satipatthana with > mundane object--development of wisdom. The moments of mundane path may > be few and far between, but these are precious moments because they > are a basis for panya. Agreed, except that, on a technical point Mr Speaker, the mundane path is not actually 'Eightfold', since it arises with only 5 (or sometimes 6) path factors. As the mundane version of the (supramundane) Eightfold Path, it is more correctly refered to as the mundane 5-fold path or, as found in the texts, ‘mundane insight’ (and such moments are in *in fact* panna). Then, there is the conventional path--strictly > the everyday, run-of-the mill meanings of the words. This conventional > meaning is there and makes sense (I think Jon disagrees with me here > . Whatever are we going to do with him!), but this meaning is > superficial and not liberating. Agreed--I am a real pain. One of the beauties of the Dhamma and > Buddha's exposition is that it so often has many levels of meaning. > Jon's role is to keep prompting us to think about things one step > deeper than we are accustomed. (Is this a role that you aspiring to, O > Jon? Or does it just work out that way sometimes?) > > Dan I suppose I just prefer to talk about the 'deeper' levels (speaking purely relatively, of course) because I see the opportunities for doing so being so extremely limited, as to compared to the countless lifetimes ahead when the purely conventional level will be the best we have access to. And for this opportunity and stimulation I am exceedingly grateful to everyone on this list! With heartfelt thanks Jon 7779 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 10:02am Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment Mike This is a great way of putting it. Satipatthana is indeed the 'middle way'. Glad you foound the post useful. Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hello, Jon, > > Thanks for a clear, concise, balanced and well-cited > answer to the deceptively simple question. In this > context I think satipatthaana could be called the > middle path between 'dealing with akusala' and > ignoring it. > > mike 7780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 10:09am Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (Dan) Dan --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Jon: > > > It is apparent from the Satipatthana Sutta that > > > akusala per se is not an > > > obstacle to the development of awareness/insight. > > > In the section on > > > Contemplation on Mental Objects (the Five > > > Hindrances), it states that > > > one's impurities can themselves be the object of > > > awareness. > > Dan: > I like your post, and it is clear that the idea "I need to deal with > akusala" is rooted in moha and can lead to generation of even more > akusala. (However, when there is a good degree of moha, then one of > the two ideas "I need to deal with akusala because it's akusala" or "I > don't need to deal with akusala because it isn't harmful" is often > likely to arise. While not pure, I find the first far less unwholesome > than the second. But that's another story.) I'm concerned about your > logic that simply because impurities can be the object of awareness > that they are not obstacles to the development of insight. Thanks Dan. It was not meant to be a matter of logic, but an illustration showing how at the moment of actual awareness the hindrances are manifestly not obstacles. The point is that we need not think of the hindrances as being *necessarily* (which I should have had in there) an obstacle to the development of insight, with all the implications that that particular mindset entails (eg. they must be abandoned, jhana must be developed first, awareness is not possible until I have done such and such, I cannot possibly begin the development of awareness, etc). Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Jon 7781 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 10:14am Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank (Dan) --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > It is easy to confuse preparatory concentration with jhana, > > > preparatory concentration with access concentration, preparatory > > > concentration with insight, calm with insight, access > concentration > > > with insight, trivial insight with profound insight, jhana with > > > profound insight (e.g. compare the descriptions of jhana-entry > with > > > stream-entry in Abhidhammattha sangaha), fruits of concentration > > with > > > fruits of insight, etc. > > > > Dan, you sound terribly confused by all these labels! Have you > > considered putting your categories down for awhile and taking a few > > deep breaths? :) > > Hmmm... I don't feel confused or befuddled by the labels. I wonder > what went wrong in the transition from my experience, to my > understanding, to my interpretation, to my writing, to your eyes, to > your brain, to your conceiving, to your writing, to my seeing, to my > interpretation, to my conceiving, because it seems like you are > attributing comments to my terrible confusion. Or are you? > > > > I find that being "sure" of the differences is > > > no real assurance at all. > > > > That's why it's indispensible to have qualified teachers who can see > > our blind spots. It is the "whole of the holy life" after all. > > Yup. > > > > I've been so sure of so many things about > > > Dhamma at so many times, that I figure I ought to have been an > > Arahant > > > several times over by now. The only problem is that my sureness > > always > > > seems to stand on shaky ground. Then, all these conceptual > > structures > > > I build up from the outlines given in Tipitaka come crashing down. > > > > Watching all those conceptual elaborations come crashing down can > > only be good thing. There's nothing worse in terms of understanding > > the oh-so-simple Dhamma (a direct pointing at the heart) than > > a "hardening of the categories." What I'm curious to know is how > it's > > believed such conceptual structures provide any solid footing at > all! > > The whole point is to tear them down! > > The building up of conceptual structures is a process that is going to > happen in the non-arahant regardless of how much you don't want it to, > or think that it shouldn't. How is it believed that conceptual > structures provide solid footing? Ignorance. Ignorance -> conceptual > structures; and ignorance -> perception of conceptual structures as > real -> perception of conceptual structures as solid footing. Belief > that conceptual structures provide solid footing? I don't know what > belief has to do with it: the clinging to conceptual structures as > solid footing continues unabated, whether you believe that they do or > not, whether you want them to or not, whether you think they do or > not. I don't "believe" that concepts provide solid footing, but that > does not prevent my concept building. Desire to not cling to concept > does not prevent clinging to concept; and even strong desire to not > cling to concept does not prevent clinging to concept. > > The whole point is to tear down conceptual structures? No. The point > is to develop wisdom. As the development proceeds, clinging to concept > lessens naturally, of its own accord. "Tear down conceptual > structures" sounds like a recipe for dosa! Dan I believe there's a world of difference between (a) being confused or in doubt about what the task is, and (b) knowing that what one has previously taken for understanding was not in fact understanding (or, put simply, knowing that we don't know, when previously we thought we did). The former is stultifying and discouraging, the latter is liberating and something to take heart from. What I am hearing from your recent posts is the latter rather than the former. You have obviously been doing some careful considering lately! Jon 7782 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 10:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (Not) Catching Up Anders --- Anders Honore wrote: > Lately, since school started, I have found it very difficult to keep > up with the amount of posts here, and I have basically only been > reading those which were direct responses to me as well as a select > other few. > > I am afraid that I will have to take a break from dsg for a while, > until I find the time to properly attend this group. > > I'll probably stop by a few time sover the next week or so to check > for any replies to posts I've made and wrap things up, but otherwise, > I don't think I'll be posting here for a while. > > It's been fun. And it's been good having you. Look forward to having you back again when you feel the time is right. Good luck with the studies in the meantime. Jon 7783 From: Erik Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > This is why I feel that when the Buddha talks about putting forth effort > we should be wary of taking him to mean effort of the conventional > 'intentional' kind. Indeed. Why listen to the Buddha's very simple words, for example: "generating desire, arousing persistence, upholding and exerting one's intent for the abandoning of unskillful qualities that have already arisen" when personal interpretations of commentaries and subcomentaries are so much more helpful? Being the simpleton that I am, prefer the elementary stuff like the Suttas and the clear teachings on mindfulness I've been taught by my kind teachers here at Wat Mahatat. On that note I will, like Anders, be taking a break from DSG, and intentionally place my efforts in a more fruitful direction like applied meditation--keeping my eye on the Far Shore and my hand gently on the tiller of my storm-tested little raft; and leave this dry-docked state-of-the-art battleship of the Abhidhamma to those who find it neceessary to have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics before setting sail. 7784 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Catching Up - Robert E --- Erik wrote: > --- --- Robert Epstein > wrote: > > > > > > I have noticed a sort of movement in the U.S., perhaps elsewhere, > to look at > > Buddhism as a form of empiricism. That what Buddhism adds up to is > simply seeing > > the basic perception of the natural physical world without any > clouding > > conditions, thoughts and emotions. I see this as a kind of > lobotomy rather than a > > nirvanic transcendence. I can't imagine that Buddha would have > gone to the > > immense trouble of dealing with every issue under the sun, and > giving such a > > rigorous path to understanding, if he merely meant for us to see > life the way a > > camera does. > > > ________ > Very good point, Robert. I think Howard alluded to this when he said > that being wisely attentive (yoniso manisikara) comes from having > studied the Buddha's teaching. We might hear phrases like 'bare > attention' or 'seeing things as they are' and assume that simply > because there is no obvious clinging one is now understanding reality > directly. However, citta and sanna (perception) arise and experience > realities too. What makes the difference - as to whether there is > true insight - is the factor of panna (wisdom). And that, at the > level of satipatthana, is dependent on correct understanding of the > Dhamma. > robert ---------------------------------------------- Dear Robert, Thanks for your response. It occurred to me also when I re-read this, that those who look at nirvana as a camera-like 'objective' perception must have failed to look at the aspect of Vipassana that 'breaks down' the objective existence of objects into less and less coherent arisings, that de-constructs dhammas in other words. Science keeps thinking when it breaks down realities that it will eventually find the final nugget at the heart of phenomena. Buddhism states from the outset that this nugget is missing and that when you break down realities, they break down all the way to annatta and temporary skandhas [if I understand correctly]. If we look at objects as 'objects' we're really missing annatta, aren't we? [Not claiming to fully get it myself, however]. But I do get the idea that the presumption of entity means that even if we can't 'find ourselves' or any other object on the first pass, we feel sure that we will eventually find it, and it's 'in there somewhere'. The explosion of this myth is one of the Buddha's core teachings. For 'primitive' religions, the spirits were the unseen phenomena that had to be respected and served. For modern human beings it is the 'self'. The spirit that science believes in and tiptoes around and prays to is the 'real object' that it believes doesn't change or dissolve, rather than the momentary arising of phenomena, which will and always does, change continuously. Regards, Robert E. 7785 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Robert E] Nice to hear back from you Dan! Regards, Robert ========================== --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Thanks for the helpful comments, Robert E. I appreciate your > attention. > > Recognizing doubt as doubt when it arises is very important. I like > your idea of doubt masquerading as surety. Whenever we feel most > certain about some piece of Dhamma, it could be just a tricky > manifestation of doubt. I don't doubt it! > > > > 2. I don't think we can avoid the obstacles on the path, such as > wrong view, > > wrong knowledge, etc. That's everyone's condition. > > Although I can only speak for myself, I think that's probably right. > > > Mistakes are okay, as long as you keep going. If that weren't true, > imagine what > > sad shape we'd all be in. > > Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu. > > Dan ===== 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" 7786 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] This is really great stuff, Erik, a very clear meditation manual in brief. I think you could take this to a desert island and do pretty well with no other material. Best, Robert E. ============================== --- Erik wrote: > --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > > Dan: > > This hardening of concepts is certainly a problem when it manifests > > itself as a rigid dogmatism. But it is also a problem in less > obvious > > ways. [much snipped] > > When I was taught meditation by my teachers it was presented much > more simply than this. If I had heard this long list of potential > dangers I think I'd have become totally paralyzed by worry and doubt, > such that meditation would have been impossible. > > "Wisdom is to see the truth of the various manifestations of body and > mind. When we use our trained and concentrated minds to examine the > five khandhas (material form, feelings, perceptions, mental > formations and consciousness), we will see clearly that both body and > mind are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. In seeing all > compounded things with wisdom we do not cling or grasp. Whatever we > receive, we receive mindfully. We are not exessively happy. When > things of ours break up or disappear, we are not unhappy and do not > suffer painful feelings - for we see clearly the impermanent nature > of all things. When we encounter illness and pain of any sort, we > equanimity because our minds have been well trained. The true refuge > is the trained mind. > > "All of this is known as wisdom which knows the true characteristics > of things as they arise. Wisdom arises from mindfulness and > concentration. Concentration arises from a base of morality or > virtue. All these things, morality, concentration and wisdom, are so > inter-related that it is not really possible to separate them. In > practice it can be looked at in this way: First there is the arising > of morality. When mindfulness of breathing is practised continuously > until the mind is quiet, this is the arising of concentration. Then > examination showing the breath as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not- > self, and the subsequent non-attachment, is the arising of wisdom. > Thus the practice of mindfulness of breathing can be said to be the > course for all development of morality, concentration and wisdom. > They all come together. We can say this practice reaches the Buddha- > Dhamma truly and precisely. > > "The practice of meditation must be pursued as continouosly as > possible in order for it to bear fruit. Don't meditate for a short > time one day and then in one or two weeks, or even a month. Meditate > again, this will bring results. The Buddha taught us to practise > often, to practise diligently, that is, to be as continuous as we can > in the practice of mental training. To practise meditation we should > also find a suitable quite place free from distractions. In gardens > or under shady trees in our back yards, or in places where we can be > alone are suitable environments." > > > But really, escape is very distant. No sense in > > fooling myself about that! > > By placing it "far away" many would say you are fooling yourself. The > Tibetan schools list "four faults" to recognizing our innate wisdom: > not recognizing it's 1) too near 2) too easy 3) too profound and 4) > too excellent. > > > > > > ===== 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" 7787 From: m. nease Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 0:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Eightfold path - Description of path factors --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I suppose I just prefer to talk about the 'deeper' > levels (speaking purely > relatively, of course) because I see the > opportunities for doing so being > so extremely limited, as to compared to the > countless lifetimes ahead when > the purely conventional level will be the best we > have access to. > > And for this opportunity and stimulation I am > exceedingly grateful to > everyone on this list! > > With heartfelt thanks > > Jon Heartfelt thanks back at you, too, Jon. mike 7788 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 0:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Yes, thinking about the level of 'merit' one is accumulating in doing > > > something kusala is no doubt unwholesome, and so detracts from the > > overall > > > level of purity of the action being performed. I dare say that most > > of > > > our 'wholesome actions' are, like in this example, a mixture of kusala > > and > > > akusala mental states. ... > > > > I wonder if it would be wholesome to be aware that one is doing a > > meritorious > > deed, but rather than feeling good about the merit, enjoying a feeling > > of 'giving' > > or gratitude, happiness for the other person who receives the gift, > > etc.? > > > > Robert E. > > Yes, there is a level of kusala that, at the moment of performing kusala, > knows and appreciates that kusala is being performed. And there also is a > form of kusala that rejoices in another's good fortune (this is mudita, > one of the 4 brahma-vihara's--but be alert to the near and far enemies!). Yeah, when I'm acknowledged or complimented, or when I feel I've done something worthwhile, I notice an awful lot of relief and pride rising up. Since I'm able to look at it, I feel that this is at least a step in the right direction, but it's amazing how the ego-sense pops up and just craves being made real by acknowledgment. On the other hand, I've found that beating oneself with a stick is equally ineffective. I just try to look at it now and see what's happening. Best, Robert E. 7789 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 0:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > I think that what I am calling 'intention' would be the 'active' form of > > a 'view'. > > If I think the world is all about money and power, my intention will be > > to get > > money and power, etc. I understand the desire to use 'view' in terms of > > Right > > View and the other views that are stuck in one or another concept of > > reality. I > > think 'intention' is probably just another aspect of the same thing. > > > > Robert E. > > Agreed. And I would only add that the intention (ie. in your example, to > get money) has its roots in the wrong thinking (ie. that the world is all > about money and power), so that as long as the latter remains the former > must continue to manifest in some guise or another. I see what you mean, it's the chicken and the egg. You are saying that the Buddha [I assume] attributes the wrong intention to the wrong view, and I was attributing the view to the intention. I guess it would be against the rules to ask, 'then what causes Wrong View to arise?' Smilingly, Robert E. 7790 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 0:45pm Subject: Re: Simile of saw, evil/kind mistress, right speech --- Dear Frank, I agree with the gist of your post. Just a small correction. the commentary to the sutta about the monk who committed suicide notes that the monk was not yet enlightened when he cut his throat. The pain was an object for satipatthana and he went though the vippasana insights and stages of enlightenment from the time of cutting his throat and before finally collapsing and dieing. It can happen very fast when the conditions are right. On the simile of the saw - yes I guess few of us could behave in such a way - but that is only because we cling to the khandas as self. We believe they exist and we have an idea of a whole. At moments of sati and insight though there is detachment from taking any of the khandas for self - and so we can see how it is possible to have no dosa in such situations robert frank kuan wrote: > Hello Sarah, Kom, others, > > > > > Majjhima Nikaya 21 > > > Kakacupama Sutta > > > The Simile of the Saw > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn021.html#vedehika > > Rereading that sutta, two of the similes really > struck me this time. Just not the two you might think. > The saw simile always kind of annoyed me because it's > like, get real, who can really focus their mind in the > moment on metta when they're in that much pain? Even > an arhat committed suicide when they had overpowering > physical pain, and the Buddha condoned it as a > blameless action (another MN sutta). The simile with > the servant getting beaten by the kind mistress also > really annoys me, for many reasons. I can just see > some obnoxious dhamma email list members posting > inflammatory material and then using this sutta to > justify their public service in "testing" people's > defilements. > The two similes that really made an impact on me > are the ones with the ganges river and the formless > space. The saw simile is like asking limited humans > who have enough of a hard time trying to do the > impossible, whereas the ganges simile somehow feels > more attainable to me. > > -fk > > > sutta excerpt: > Suppose that a man were to come along carrying a > burning grass torch and saying, 'With this burning > grass torch I will heat up the river Ganges and make > it boil.' Now, what do you think -- would he, with > that burning grass torch, heat up the river Ganges and > make it boil?" > > "No, lord. Why is that? Because the river Ganges is > deep & enormous. It's not easy to heat it up and make > it boil with a burning grass torch. The man would reap > only a share of weariness & disappointment." > > "In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects > of speech by which others may address you: timely or > untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, > beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will > or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely > way or an untimely way. They may address you with what > is true or what is false. They may address you in an > affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you > in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may > address you with a mind of good-will or with inner > hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our > minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil > words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's > welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner > hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness > imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will > keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an > awareness imbued with good will equal to the river > Ganges -- abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from > hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should > train yourselves. > > > > > > 7791 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 4:47pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Anders > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > Lately, since > school started, I have found it very difficult to keep > > up with the amount of posts here, and I have basically only been > > reading those which were direct responses to me as well as a select > > other few. > > > > I am afraid that I will have to take a break from dsg for a while, > > until I find the time to properly attend this group. > > > > I'll probably stop by a few time sover the next week or so to check > > for any replies to posts I've made and wrap things up, but otherwise, > > I don't think I'll be posting here for a while. > > > > It's been fun. > > And it's been good having you. Look forward to having you back again when > you feel the time is right. > > Good luck with the studies in the meantime. Thank you. 7792 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 4:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Anders, --- Anders Honore wrote: > Lately, since school started, I have found it very difficult to keep up with the amount of posts here> I don't think I'll be posting here for a while. ..... Anders. we’ve all been appreciating your contributions and many thanks for your attempts to ‘keep up’. Look in from time to time if you can, otherwise perhaps we’ll see you at Xmas or Easter;-)) > > It's been fun. Likewise and many thanks for your recent comments in our discussions which I’ve taken note of. Let me just pull our a couple of your responses for quick replies before you run: ...................................................................... A: > > All that remains is the primal mind, > > true & unchanging. > S: > Sorry, it doesn't make any sense to me.... A: There's a point to my little query here. I'm not trying to say: "This view of Nirvana is correct or incorrect" or anything like that. Rather, I'm trying instigate an investigative response: So this doesn't accord with your own understanding of Theravada. Why is that? Obviously, someone isn't really enlightened since these two views are so contradictory, but who is it? Mun & Chah (and Mahayanists too) or the Abdhidhamma (which I assume, is where what you are saying is stated) and some of the commentators? How will one know which one is correct or not? Is it really beneficial to believe either is correct, if one doesn't know for himself? Will clinging to one view obstruct eventual realisation of Nibbana? What if its the "wrong" one that one takes to be true? Will that obstruct realisation of Nibbana? Will the right one? ....................................................................... Sarah: When I said it didn’t make sense, what I meant was: 1) It doesn’t accord with what I read in the Tipitaka 2) but more, it doesn’t ‘match’ with what is being experienced now (for me). If I read that right now there is seeing and visible object, heat, cold, happiness and sadness, they can be tested and proved immediately. When I read that visible object is experienced through the eyes and is not-self, likewise, it ‘fits’ logically and with experience of what is seen. Personally, I’ve never had any doubts about the abhidhamma or ancient commentaries because what I’ve read from them (really, just a little) has always matched what makes sense in the Buddha’s Teachings. A ‘true and unchanging’ ‘primal mind’ or nibbana makes no sense on any level to me. When I was trying to answer Erik’s question about the 6 Pairs in Nyanaponika’s book, I saw N. also quoted from AN1, 10: ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive (aagantukehi0 defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from intrusive defilements’ (his transl.) Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal flow of consciousness’. Now in this example, which we’ve discussed at length, I’m sure that without the commentary notes, I might not have understood it correctly even thought the nibbana interpretation wouldn’t have made sense to me. Reading the bhavanga interpretation, it seems logical and furthermore, I admit I have confidence in these ancient commentaries that had to be approved by several councils of arahats so soon after the Buddha’s parinibbana. Who are we to question the wisdom of these arahats? The other day I was talking to Robert E about Patanjali and ancient Hindu masters and by chance (In Yoga Journal) I came across this extract: ‘From the yogic perspective, all human beings are ‘born divine’ and each human being has at core a soul (atman) that dwells eternally ...In Patanjali’s classic statement of this view ‘tat tvam asi’ (thou art that), we already are that which we seek. We are God in disguise. We are already inherently perfect, and we have the potential in each moment to wake up to this true, awake, and enlightened nature’. These are the views that the Buddha was very familiar with and proved to be totally erroneous. However, as Dan has clearly articulated (in my view) in recent posts, the clinging to a self is very insiduous and can take many forms. I know my comments here will seem very controversial, but I’m just making them for you to take away and consider. When there is the idea of a ‘Buddha nature’ or bodhi citta or even a ‘primal mind’, could these be aspects of trying to reintroduce a self into the Buddha’s Teachings? Very best wishes, Anders and many, many thanks for your pleasant, mature and well-reasoned posts to dsg. Sarah 7793 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 5:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana -Erik's raft Hi Erik, --- Erik wrote: > Being the simpleton that I am, prefer the elementary stuff like the > Suttas and the clear teachings on mindfulness I've been taught by my > kind teachers here at Wat Mahatat. > > On that note I will, like Anders, be taking a break from DSG, and > intentionally place my efforts in a more fruitful direction like > applied meditation--keeping my eye on the Far Shore and my hand > gently on the tiller of my storm-tested little raft; and leave this > dry-docked state-of-the-art battleship of the Abhidhamma to those who > find it neceessary to have a Ph.D. in nuclear physics before setting > sail. May I be a little presumptuous and say that, eloquent as this is, it doesn’t sound like our Great Debater.....what were all those comments you made to others about fear and the rest when they bowed out of discussions???;-)) Now a Ph D in nuclear physics would not be for me, but thanks! What happened to all those aspirations to study abhidhamma which I believe even your Tibetan lineage deems essential (even at state-of-the-art battleship levels) for understanding the Teachings?? Take a break, Erik, but pop in whenever you feel inclined to give us all a shake-up ..like I said to Herman, the door’s open. If anyone is NOT a simpleton, it's you;-) Take care and best wishes meanwhile with your pesonal plans;-)) Sorry we won’t be seeing you in Bkk either. Sarah p.s I take it that the silence with regard to my responses on the 6 pairs and Metta means we’re in perfect accord for twice;-)) 7794 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 5:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] (to sarah) need for sitting meditation Dear Mike C, thank you very much for your post and comments below (and thanks Frank for your help). > From: Michael Chu < > Date: Thu Aug 30, 2001 5:13 pm > Subject: cultivation style and the need for sitting > meditation > Dear Sara and all, >> > I am very lazy at my practice of meditation. I > average about fifteen > minutes of meditation every other day. Comparing > myself to my fellow > cultivator friends, namely Frank and William, who do > at least one hour of > sitting meditation each day continuously for several > years, I have noticed > their ability to be mindful and serene far exceed > mine. Mike, may I make 2 quick comments here? I don’t think it’s very fruitful to compare yourself with others. Doesn’t this just lead to thoughts of inferiority (in this case) and unhappy feelings? Secondly, do we ever really know another’s state of mind? isn’t it hard enough to know when we’re really calm or have mindfulness as opposed to a pleasant feeling or subtle clinging? We can never tell in another just be the appearance or posture what the state of mind is. > > I personally noticed that lacking the mindfulness of > cultivation from > meditation, I am having a much more difficult time > progressing in the Noble > Eightfold Path compare to my peers. On the > concentration group, I can only > sporadically address my present moment with the right > effort, mindfulness, > and concentration. Without the appropriate > concentration, I find myself to > have further difficulty achieving the right speech and > action. Mike, i think you have the right idea when you recognise that the time for mindfulness is the present moment. However, it seems that you have an idea of a ‘self’ that should be able to progress, concentrate, be mindful and achieve rt speech and action. When we mind so much about these states, doesn’t it also show how much we cling to ME, myself. Doesn’t it show how much we’d like to be the mindful, concentrated one with good speech and action? What about when we compare or wish to have mindfulness, being aware of the clinging to self at these times? Wouldn’t that be a little progress? People have the idea that concentration should be fixing undistractedly on an object . But in what way is it pure or wholesome when this happens? There is concentration all the time, even when we’re distracted (according to the Teachings). My progress > of having the right understanding, thought, and speech > is also hindered. By > lacking the right understanding, I find myself making > poor plans for my > livelihood. My clarity of mind is always compromised. We all lack right understanding most the time, Mike. Recognizing how little understanding there is, is a really good start. Actually, I think the more understanding develops, the more it sees what real beginners we are. As one of our members, suggested, we think we know and then there’s a little breakthrough and we realise it was all wrong after all! For understanding to really develop, we need to hear and consider more about what are the actual phenomena that can be known. When we talk about livelihood plans, we can talk about them from many angles. Frank is considering taking early retirement and living in a forest. Form a conventional point of view, these would be poor livelihood decisions. From a Buddhist point of view, it would depend on the intentions and motivations involved, because in Buddhism, we’re always more concerned with the present state of mind than ‘the story’. I hope your livlihood works out better in both regards! > > I also noticed lacking the ability to be mindful even > hinders the right > breathing and induces undesirable states like > sluggishness, impatience, > restlessness, and anger. I can only so far only be > able to do a limited > form of damage control on these undesirable states > when I occasionally > remember to stay away from them. Another thing I > noticed is that these > undesirable statements can be quickly terminated if I > catch them on their > early stages. To be able to catch the arising of > these undesirable states, > we need to be mindful. It seems that we can ‘catch’ them or stop them arising and conventionally, this is often true. Hence we say to a child ‘snap out of it’ and the child sometimes does! On a deeper level, however, we can see we’re pretty much stuck with our ‘character’ and inclinations, so that sooner or later these negative states will arise again and again in spite of good intentions. Why is this? Because they have been gathering for so very long and are not controllable. Even if mindfulness is mindful of the anger or impatience for a moment, what about next moment? Again, may I suggest, that the reason we mind so much about these states is not usually because we see the danger of ALL kinds of unwholesomeness, but because the ones you’ve mentioned are unpleasant and we cling so much to a self! When we’re having a great time and there’s no anger or impatience, do we mind about the excitement and attachment? What about all the ignorance in between? > >> The very reason why we should apply appropriate > mindfulness and catch the > arising anger before it gets any bigger and out of > control. > > So far the best way to achieve mindfulness that I know > of is through > practicing proper meditation. If you have any > suggestion that we can better > achieve mindfulness, I would love to know. Actually, Mike, there is no self to apply mindfulness or do anything. This doesn’t mean ‘give up’ and it doesn't mean 'sit' or 'don't sit', it means learn more about what mindfulness really is, what the objects of mindfulness are and develop understanding (by understanding , not doing) of these same realities at any time. This is what I call bhavana or meditation. One or two practical suggestions: 1) Join DSG, go to ‘Useful Posts’ at this link and scroll down to ‘new to Dhamma’ for some suggestions or other topics that look interesting. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 2) Keep asking questions here....be patient for replies and ignore posts that are too technical for now. 3) Go to this website and read anything that doesn’t seem too hard http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Hope to hear more form you, Best wishes, Sarah 7795 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 7:32pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Anders, > > --- Anders Honore wrote: > Anders. we've all been appreciating your contributions and many thanks for your > attempts to `keep up'. Look in from time to time if you can, otherwise perhaps > we'll see you at Xmas or Easter;-)) Yes, probably :-) > .................................................................... > A: > > All that remains is the primal mind, > > > true & unchanging. > > > S: > Sorry, it doesn't make any sense to me.... > > A: There's a point to my little query here. I'm not trying to say: "This > view of Nirvana is correct or incorrect" or anything like that. > Rather, I'm trying instigate an investigative response: > So this doesn't accord with your own understanding of Theravada. Why > is that? Obviously, someone isn't really enlightened since these two > views are so contradictory, but who is it? Mun & Chah (and > Mahayanists too) or the Abdhidhamma (which I assume, is where what > you are saying is stated) and some of the commentators? > How will one know which one is correct or not? Is it really > beneficial to believe either is correct, if one doesn't know for > himself? Will clinging to one view obstruct eventual realisation of > Nibbana? What if its the "wrong" one that one takes to be true? Will > that obstruct realisation of Nibbana? Will the right one? > .................................................................... ... > Sarah: When I said it didn't make sense, what I meant was: > > 1) It doesn't accord with what I read in the Tipitaka I would reformulate that to "it doesn't accord with your logical interpretation of the Tipitaka." My reading is a different one, of course. In the end, the real truth of the matter isn't found in the scriptures, but in the mind. > 2) but more, it doesn't `match' with what is being experienced now (for me). > If I read that right now there is seeing and visible object, heat, cold, > happiness and sadness, they can be tested and proved immediately. When I read > that visible object is experienced through the eyes and is not- self, likewise, > it `fits' logically and with experience of what is seen. Personally, I've never > had any doubts about the abhidhamma or ancient commentaries because what I've > read from them (really, just a little) has always matched what makes sense in > the Buddha's Teachings. A `true and unchanging' `primal mind' or nibbana makes > no sense on any level to me. Well, there are of course many approahces to finding truth/Dhamma, but the Buddha refuted most of them as valid in the Kalama sutta. "Come, Kaalaamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by oral tradition; nor upon succession (from teacher to disciple,); nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon pure reason; nor upon inference; nor upon reasoned consideration; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming expertise; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher'." Do you think your measurements for truth fall into any of these categories? PS. I have come across a great article on the Kalama Sutta, which you might enjoy. The link is: http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol3/Knowledge.htm > Now in this example, which we've discussed at length, I'm sure that without the > commentary notes, I might not have understood it correctly Of course you are assuming that you understand it correctly, but the only way to truly know is through Panna. > even thought the > nibbana interpretation wouldn't have made sense to me. Reading the bhavanga > interpretation, it seems logical and furthermore, I admit I have confidence in > these ancient commentaries that had to be approved by several councils of > arahats so soon after the Buddha's parinibbana. Who are we to question the > wisdom of these arahats? So soon? The Pali Canon was compiled centuries after his Parinibbana, and I'll bet the commentaries are even later. It is always easy to slap the label "300 arahants" on them commentators to canonify their writings as well, but I do not take such statements on blind authority (nor do I take the Mahayana teachings on blind authority). > I know my comments here will seem very controversial, but I'm just making them > for you to take away and consider. When there is the idea of a `Buddha nature' > or bodhi citta or even a `primal mind', could these be aspects of trying to > reintroduce a self into the Buddha's Teachings? Well, writings such as the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not even make any pretense: It says outright that there is a self (Nirvana/Buddha- nature). Prominent figures such as Nagarjuna (who, if aybody, must be regarded as "canon" within Mahayana) said the same thing. As I have stated several times here, I have found no place whatsoever in the Pali Canon that says that there categorically no self. The only thing that comes close is the "Sabbe dhamma anatta", but as we know "dhamma" is pretty much a catch-all prhase which can mean a multitude of things. There a loads of suttas in which the Buddha explains in great detail how all conditioned dhammas are anatta (where he basically goes trhough the entire chain of dependent co- origination), but he never once mentions Nibbbana specifically in relation to annatta. Again, how does your own understanding of anatta accord with the criterions in the Kalama sutta? > Very best wishes, Anders and many, many thanks for your pleasant, mature and > well-reasoned posts to dsg. Thank you. It's been nice talking with you, Sarah. Anders 7796 From: Erik Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:00pm Subject: Re: Cetana -Erik's raft --- Sarah wrote: > May I be a little presumptuous and say that, eloquent as this is, it doesn't > sound like our Great Debater.....what were all those comments you made to > others about fear and the rest when they bowed out of discussions???;-)) Hi Sarah, Just to wrap this up...for the record I'm not bowing out of any sort of fear. Come on! :) I'm taking a break for now because I feel there's nothing I can add here at the moment, and I'd rather put my best efforts in a direction I feel more productive, namely, applied meditation. I have a lot of practice to do with mindfulness of the body in general with all the new techniques I've been taught, and all these discussions have made me see that talking about it beyond a certain point is unhelpful for me. > Now a Ph D in nuclear physics would not be for me, but thanks! > > What happened to all those aspirations to study abhidhamma which I believe even > your Tibetan lineage deems essential (even at state-of-the-art battleship > levels) for understanding the Teachings?? I am not abandoning study of the Pali Abhidharma. I do feel that spending my best efforts in it is not the most productive use of my time right now, though. As far as Abhidharma goes, it's only the Abhidharmakosha which is necessary for Tibetan translation work. I have been interested in the Pali Abhidhamma primarily because it has some things the 'kosa doesn't (and vice-versa), and out of a wish to be as thorough as possible. In fact, the Tripitaka's version of the Abhidhamma has confirmed the accuracy of the Abhidharmakosha in many ways I didn't even expect, so I find it very helpful in this regard. > Take care and best wishes meanwhile with your pesonal plans;-)) Sorry we won't > be seeing you in Bkk either. I am likewise sorry to be missing you this time around, but I have an, um, prior engagement. :) > p.s I take it that the silence with regard to my responses on the 6 pairs and > Metta means we're in perfect accord for twice;-)) I though the "six pairs" follow-ups were great! I didn't agree with them 100% (come on, what did you expect? :), but nonetheless am glad you posted them! 7797 From: Erik Date: Sat Sep 1, 2001 11:19pm Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] --- Robert Epstein wrote: > This is really great stuff, Erik, a very clear meditation manual in brief. I > think you could take this to a desert island and do pretty well with no other > material. I'll be sure to let Ajahn Chah know you appreciated his simple instructions as much as I did, if you don't beat me to the Far Shore, that is! :) 7798 From: Erik Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 0:33am Subject: Re: Hi, my name is Frank, and I'm a dhammaholic [Howard] > I'm not trying to teach meditation to beginning meditators. I'm just > describing some of the ways that I see the mental processes described > in Mulapariyaya sutta > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html) manifested > in everyday life. It is very easy to underestimate the impact and > influence of wrong view from moment to moment and from day to day. Last wrap-up...if you're concerned with this, then why not go full- bore and take the most comprehensive approach to studying Right View available? Why not try the "diamond slivers" and the refutation of the extremes by Nagarjuna? Or better, spend some time studying with qualified teachers in the Gelukpa school of Tibetan Buddhism--which is the most thorough of any extant Buddhist system when it comes to refuting wrong view? I have yet to see any system that exposes various flavors of wrong view in more subtle and explicit detail than the Gelukpa's Madhyamika-Prasangika system. This and "trangye" (the Gelukpa refutation of other tenet systems' wrong views), when meditated on intellectually, helps refute common and subtle wrong views like those held by the so-called Cittamatra system of tenets that "mind exists absolutely", as well as wrong views held by various other tenet systems such as the Vaibhasika, the Sautrantika, and the "lower" Madhyamika systems like Svatantrika. If this approach sounds interesting to you, you may wish to investigate Jefferey Hopkins' "Meditation on Emptiness" for more detail. For people with over-active intellects this can be a very effective strategy (when studied with qualified teachers), since it uses logic and reason to help the mind overcome its tendency to fabricate all sorts of subtle "true existents"--such as "partless particles", "paramattha dhammas" etc. It is even more effective when combined with debate. I found this the most helpful approach of all in my own studies, besides actual mindfulness on the breath and concentration. Actually, it was "trangye" that prepared the groundwork for my mindfulness and concentration meditation. When I began my meditation I was well- trained on what to be on the lookout for--particualarly the most subtle wrong view of all, a view I'd come into trangye with--the view that "mind exists absolutely"--the so called "Cittamatra" view which we spent months tearing apart in excruciating detail, before I was finally able to see where it was mistaken and let it go. That viwe was my particualr malfunction; but everyone has a slighly different malfunction, which is why so many sysetms are analyzed and refuted-- there's a good chance some view we're clinging to is in there and gets refuted. The point of all of this is to help overcome the the tendency to cling to views, and many people may not need to go into this level of detail--but it's nice to know you can, if you really need to. 7799 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Sep 2, 2001 0:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Whenever you are attached to either good 'feel' or bad 'feel' about the wholesome things you do or unwholesome things you do, they are still attachement. Attachments = dukka Kind regards Kenneth Robert Epstein wrote: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Yes, thinking about the level of 'merit' one is accumulating in doing > > > something kusala is no doubt unwholesome, and so detracts from the > > overall > > > level of purity of the action being performed. I dare say that most > > of > > > our 'wholesome actions' are, like in this example, a mixture of kusala > > and > > > akusala mental states. ... > > > > I wonder if it would be wholesome to be aware that one is doing a > > meritorious > > deed, but rather than feeling good about the merit, enjoying a feeling > > of 'giving' > > or gratitude, happiness for the other person who receives the gift, > > etc.? > > > > Robert E. > > Yes, there is a level of kusala that, at the moment of performing kusala, > knows and appreciates that kusala is being performed. And there also is a > form of kusala that rejoices in another's good fortune (this is mudita, > one of the 4 brahma-vihara's--but be alert to the near and far enemies!). Yeah, when I'm acknowledged or complimented, or when I feel I've done something worthwhile, I notice an awful lot of relief and pride rising up. Since I'm able to look at it, I feel that this is at least a step in the right direction, but it's amazing how the ego-sense pops up and just craves being made real by acknowledgment. On the other hand, I've found that beating oneself with a stick is equally ineffective. I just try to look at it now and see what's happening. Best, Robert E.