8200 From: KennethOng
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:38pm
Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill)
Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the Land of Utmost Bliss. According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana
Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think).
a. recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations. Pure Land utilised mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and break away from dualism.
b. To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas.
c. There is a desire to be born there. This is the most contentious topic of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity. Sentinental beings could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha, when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world. However, there is a catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is to be born there). There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way out. You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts.
d. the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land
e. this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be including as another pillar).
the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to go, I really wish to go there. It is like a buying a insurance policy for our retirement. we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts. Pure Land is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you reach the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise.
Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that. I welcome comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism. Personnaly I do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not outside.
with kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
Robert Epstein wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote:
> Dear Sarah,
> I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years
> of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also
> because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot
> of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted
> greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana
> Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops
> attachment).
> Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It
> has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement)
> :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in
> so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many
> weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud
> of myself.
> Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware
> and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning
> mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts
> when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till
> late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand
> does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated.
> Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family
> commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring
> sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat
> group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a
> lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this
> opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who
> contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and
> practises.
> My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a
> Singaporean.
> With kind regards
> KO
Kenneth,
I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the
somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about
your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never
posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three
year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late
starter].
One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar
with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure Land
Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you
would like to.
Regards,
Robert E.
======================
8201 From: rikpa21
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
--- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote:
> Dear Erik,
> Just popping my head into dsg again---I better be careful because
I'm
> starting to make a habit of it!
>
> Just a few quick comments, in a direct sort of way:
As you know, I do prefer directness, Dan! :)
> > On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to
the
> > point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away?
>
> Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in
> order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end
> because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for
the
> effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is
> silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation.
I find these comments unusual, given the Buddha seemed to pretty
clearly describe a whole slew of "techniques" for cultivating
mindfulness (cf. the Satipatthana Sutta). By the way, the definition
of "technique" I am using is the commonly accepted one: "The
systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is
accomplished". Dukkha-nirodha seems to fit the bill of being a
complex task, to me. At least, I've never heard anyone suggest that
dukkha-nirodha is easy.
It appears you're either using a very different definition
of "technique" than I am, or you have misunderstood the meaning of
silabbataparamasa (belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals). It
sound as if you are suggesting that we need not do anything at all,
not even "focusing on the body...feelings...mind...mental qualities";
that enlightenment will just magically drop in our laps apropos of
nothing--or even more surprising (given I have never seen this
interpretation anyplace other than DSG), that any efforts at all are
the fetter of silabbataparamasa and directly hinder enlightenment!
Is this what you're suggesting? I have seen this view expressed often
here in DSG, so perhaps it is. Since this is a view that seems to be
endorsed by some of the learned scholars here in DSG, I imagine
someone should be able to show plenty of support for this in the
Suttas of the Pali Canon (something we can all agree represent the
Buddha's instructions to his disciples). Just a single in-context
reference from the Suttas would do so much to help clarify this. I
think this is a rather crucial point, all told.
Also, given you appear to be using the term silabbataparamasa,
perhaps you can point to a Sutta which provides us with the
definition of the term as you're using it, which specifically talks
about thinking of Satipatthana as a "method" is a hindrance to
awakening. From what I see, Dan's definition of silabbataparamasa
appears to include any efforts spent practicing the techniques of
Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, or viewing these
as "methods".
For the record, I use the definition I have found in the Tripitaka,
which matches definitions like Buddhadasa Bikkhu's: "Attachment to
rites and rituals (Silabbatupadana): This refers to clinging to
meaningless traditional practices that have been thoughtlessly handed
down, practices which people choose to regard as sacred and not to be
changed under any circumstances. In Thailand there are beliefs
involving amulets, magical artifacts, and all manner of secret
procedures."
Given these definitions of silabbataparamasa and silabbatupadana, I
can't see how employing techniques and methods and purification
practices found in, for example, the Satipatthana Sutta, can be
construed as "silabbataparamasa ". I am not trying to twist your
words here. If this is not what you mean, can you explain how you see
these practices in light of the above definition? Since I've heard
you make this comment on a number of occasions, I assume you have
some basis for this from the Suttas you can share with us that might
help clarify your understanding on this.
The reason I am spending so much precious time sitting here
addressing these issues is because many of the discussions here in
DSG seem to come back to this in one way or another. The nature of
Right Effort keeps popping up in some way, and I have seen some
make the argument that there is no need at all to seek out favorable
conditions for developing Right Mindfulness; that we can, without any
sort of diligent effort or practice, simply be aware of all realities
arising here and now, and that this alone leads to Nibbana. Yet
another opinion I have seen expressed here--taking this idea even
further--is that any effort spent in cultivating favorable conditions
for the development of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness is "wrong
practice" somehow--that by directing one's efforts one is actually
hindering enlightenment!
I have to say that the only place I have ever seen this opinion
expressed is right here in DSG, and nowhere else. This opinion
implies (and I have heard this stated directly on a number of
occasions, most recently in your post), that those who suggest
seeking out favorable conditions for development and practicing the
cultivation of mindfulness using the Four Frames of Reference and all
the accepted objects--like the breath, the body, the hindrances, the
Four Noble Truths--are mistaken and advocating silabbataparamasa. By
my reckoning, that would appear to include the Buddha! And I hope you
can clarify your interpretation, because that is a pretty tough nut
to swallow!
Once again, I am completely and dispassionately open to hearing a
case made for what you're saying--backed up by references from the
Suttas--since my sole interest is in any method (or even any non-
method) demonstrated to bring dukkha to cessation--my own and that of
others if I may be so presumptuous as to imagine I could ever be of
service in such a way. Because that to me would be in accord with the
Dhamma as I understand its purpose ("dukkham ceva paññapemi,
dukkhassa ca nirodham"). Anything not leading directly to the
cessation of suffering would not be in accord with the teacher's
instructions as I understand them.
For example, the little book on Mindfulness I brought home from Wat
Mahatat the other day discusses the practice of Mindfulness. I am
curious as to how you see these instructions, and if you agree or
disagree with what they say. And if you agree or disagree, I am
curious on which points specifically, and why. This goes for anyone
here who cares to comment:
"[The mediator] must practice mindfulness meditation seriously. If he
is not serious about the technique or the result of the meditation,
then he will not put enough effort into the practice. Consequently,
he will not concentrate his mind well on the object of meditation and
realize the true nature of nama and rupa. He must also be constantly
mindful of what is happening in his body and mind. In other words,
his mindfulness must be constant, sustained, uninterrupted, and
continuous. Only when he is able to do this will he be able to attain
the deep concentration to build the insight knowledge which
penetrates into the true nature of the bodily and mental processes.
This is a very important point, a very important way in which every
mediator must follow...Sati means constant, sustained,
uninterrupted mindfulness and not the ordinary mindfulness."
In light of this (which by the way accords in every way with what I
have been taught in the "Mahayana"), how does the meditation system
and practice you're advocating enable one to sustain focus such that
sufficient concentration arises to penetrate the essence of dhammas?
That is where the rubber meets the road, as I see it. How long can
you sustain meditation without interruption using the non-method you
appear to be advocating? Again, based on the above (which concurs not
only again with everything I've
been taught in the Mahayana, but also accords perfectly with my own
experience), one should be able to sustain uninterrupted
concentration without break for long enough periods of time for there
to be enough of a "head of steam" to penetrate the characteristics of
nama and rupa, or at the very least to be able to easily discern
their arising and passing away. If there is not this degree of
sustained and uninterrupted concentration, I am at a loss to see how
there is any hope at all of coming to see things as
they are. It just doesn't follow that there would be without the
basis of rock-solid concentration. And there are a number of
distinguishing characteristics that become very evident to any
mediator who's properly practiced sati meditation, which I would be
happy to enumerate at some other point so we're all on the same page.
> Buddha was much wiser and much more eloquent than I, but even he
could
> not explain, in plain language, how to replicate that experience
> through diligent effort.
If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of
plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note
breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out
long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some) in the
Suttas was for the express purpose of showing us how to end our
suffering (thus replicating the Buddha's experience), how does Dan
see us getting from suffering sentient being right now to arahat?
I think hearing how we're supposed to do this from your own
understanding would be the most instructive thing of all here (this
is what I've been asking for here all along, and in my original
post), because from this we can perhaps work through the chain of
cause-and-effect from Dan's understanding of getting from suffering
sentient being to dukkha nirodha, and see how Dan's version of this
fits (or not) with the Buddha's teachings on the chain of causes and
conditions leading from suffering sentient being to arahat. That is,
if you accept that there is a chain of cause-and-effect that leads
from suffering sentient being to arahat, which, based on your earlier
comments, isn't entirely clear to me.
> The problem is that once you start to say
> "I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created
and
> all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I",
> gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is
> remarkably resisient and sneaky.
Dan, I think we all accept that the false idea of "I" is always there
until sotapatti-magga-nana (and the anusaya version of it is there
until arahata-magga-nana), and there's certainly no need to expend
any special effort creating it. From my understanding, though, we do
have to expend serious effort getting rid of that notion, and for
that there is the practice outlines in the Four Foundations of
Mindfulness.
If we are entirely honest, there is a sense of "I" to be worked with
while cultivating the path, and this reality has to be worked with
skillfully, not simply ignored by sticking our fingers in our ears
and singing "it's all anatta"--but by applying that undersatnding
when observing the characteristics of composed things as they arise
and cease, thus discerning them as impermanent, suffering, and not-
self by observing these very characteristics. Simply understanding
this fact intellectually doesn't terminate the problem. If that's all
it took, then we'd all be arahats by now. There has to be more to it
than this.
And according to my understanding, diligently applying the
instructions in the Sutra on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness--
focusing on specific objects (body, feelings, mind, mental qualities)
as a way to train the mind to observe how whatever we're observing
all share the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not-
"self"--is that very way.
> Soon this very "I" starts building up
> an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince
> itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself.
Glad you mention this, because there appears to be a lot of evidence
that merely studying scriptures and learning the definitions
for "anatta", or just saying the words "just seeing", without
diligently applying this understanding in directed practice (until
this mindfulness is naturally established such that there is clear
noting of these characteristics) acts as a condition for exactly the
sort of problem you indicate.
> Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the
Buddha
> described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully
> consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to
each
> moment in the day.
There's that elusive "moment" again. Where? What does the "reality"
of this moment look like? What characteristics are we supposed to be
looking for here? That was my original question, and I still haven't
gotten a satisfactory answer on this one.
> If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed,
and "meditate",
> or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting,
> raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may
> even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that
> that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that
liberates,
> at which point it becomes a dead end.
I would be interested in seeing the references in the Suttas that
clearly say how the Four Foundations of Mindfulness become a "dead
end" if they are seen as a "method". The Buddha seemed to teach it as
a "method": "[Satipatthana] is the direct path for the purification
of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the
disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right
method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the
four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this
was it said."
"Path" is a synonym of "method" in the thesaurus, Dan, so to me it
appears that the Buddha is indeed advocating a "method"--which by
your definition is slabbataparamasa? There are only two possibilities
I can see here regarding what you've just said: 1) your definition of
the term "method" differs vastly from mine or 2) your intended
meaning differs from the Buddha's intended meaning somehow. Given
you're a college educated chap, I will be generous and assume you at
least share the same definition of "method" I'm
using, since that would seem pretty basic for anyone who's been
properly educated in the English language.
> Buddhadasa's word about the kinds of clinging are certainly
> instructive. What kinds of clinging am I experiencing now? A whole
> rash of them are apparent in retrospect, as they occurred a second
> ago, or a few seconds ago. Sometimes it is less than a second ago.
> Sometimes there is a moment or two where there is awareness of
vedana
> or tanha or bhava without elaboration. These moments are quite
> different from most moments and description of them is difficult.
Ah, now we get to something a bit more meaty. Your suggestion
that "you" experience vedana, tanha, or bhava without elaboration
implies you have directly seen realities as they are (yatha-bhuta-
dasa-nana), and now I am really interested in what you have to say,
because this is exactly the sort of thing I have been hoping to hear
from someone.
Anyway, I am far less interested in hearing about others' meditative
experiences (unless doing so is some form of helpful instruction) and
am far more interested in hearing how I can get the same
understanding as you claim to have. So, if you would be so kind,
please tell, how did you get from "deluded Dan" to where you are now
able to clearly discern these things as impermanent, suffering, and
not-self? What "method" (as in path) did you employ to bring this
knowledge about? What were or are the conditions for its arising
(surely it can't arise absent conditions, there have to be conditions
someplace, in keeping with the law of cause and effect)?
8202 From: Christine Forsyth
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Robert,
Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in
detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned
in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I
might have.
Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method
of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen,
and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly
do not do sitting meditation.
metta,
Christine
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati
Sutta, THE SUTRA
> ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says
that the breath
> is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of
mindfulness and the
> seven factors of awakening.
>
> This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon:
>
> http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra
>
> I'd be interested in your comments after reading this.
>
> Best,
> Robert E.
8203 From: rikpa21
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik
--- Sarah wrote:
> Hi Erik,
Hi Sarah!
> Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness:
Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the
body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four
Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :)
> 'he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent,
clearly
> comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this
world
> covetousness and grief...'
>
> What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing,
hearing,
> smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door
> experiencing.
I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha-
Satipatthana Sutta:
"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There
is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that
the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns
that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he
discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without
aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the
mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the
mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without
delusion.
"When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is
restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is
scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind
is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind
is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the
mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns
that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he
discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he
discerns that the mind is not released.
"In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of
itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally
& externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the
phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon
of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of
origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his
mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of
knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by
(not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains
focused on the mind in & of itself. "
> E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on
*forms*
> > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be
> > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would
even
> > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain
how
> > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What
> > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati
> > finds a firm foundation for arising?
>
> One doesn't go about anything,
Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we
just sit here like lumps?
> but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in
front of us.
Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender
mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the
characteristics of what we're seeing?
> Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or
> arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On
account
of
> what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that
what
is
> seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at
all, can
begin
> to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise
and be
aware
> of its very characteristic or nature. (I'll leave sabhava and
essence for
> now;-))
I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the
bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we
understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as
permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest
beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I
cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth
and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to
help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure
we'd all be arahats by now.
> I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant
these same
> realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other
suttas) such
as
> seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on.
Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana
Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again,
the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include
specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific
characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference
(does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five
hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven
factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths.
Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it
doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any
bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that
this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to
apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the
characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not-
self.
> Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote
above are
> referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and
understood,
> including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is
because you
may
> have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments
of
> consciousness.
I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I
question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort
of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these
things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to
focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining
focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and
sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least
at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the
mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the
characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in
which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and
heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in"
deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and
discernment.
> I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as
many
believe
> at all.
Indeed it is not, and it takes enormous discipline to practice to
develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain
focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for
penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted.
Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time. It may get
more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different
objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind
to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises
in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are
best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is
how this degree of focus is established in the first place.
> Studying and considering more about what are the realities now,
even while
> dreaming about
> Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for
sure.
It has
> to be developed in daily life.
Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by
deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away.
Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step,
the barest beginning, as I see it. To come to see their
characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time,
until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink
in" to any object being observing.
8204 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
---
Dear Christine,
As I know you realise, the Dhamma of the supreme Buddha is not easily
comprehended. You are right to query and investigate anything that is
said. Anapanasati, mindfulness of breath, is an object that has
numerous benefits, it can be an object for samattha and is also
included in the satipatthaan sutta. It is the object of samattha from
which the Buddha emerged and developed vipassana on the morning he
was enlightened.
However, it has never been an object that was recommended for all
people. The reason:it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood.
One may
focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment and
one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not
necessarily of kusala. This object does need special conditions
- erect back, fixed posture, quiet, much application etc.; thus
when on dsg we talk about vipassana in daily life it perhaps
seems so different from what people are used to thinking of as
bhavana (mental development- meditation).
However ,there are other samatha objects that
can be developed in daily life in any posture.
The Anguttara nikaya (Book of the Elevens ii 13 p213
Mahanama) says about recollection of
the virtues of the Buddha, and recollection of the
Dhamma and several other types of sammattha that:
"` you should develop it as you sit, as you stand, as
you lie, as you apply yourself to business. You should
make it grow as you dwell at home in your lodging
crowded with children"ENDQUOTE
In the Samyutta nikaya V (Sayings on stream entry p347
The great chapter Dhammadina ) 5oo rich merchants
came to see the Buddha . They asked how they should
live their lives. The Buddha suggested that they train
themselves thus:
"as to those discourses uttered by the Tathagatha,
deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and concerened
with the void (about anatta) from time to time we will
spend our days learning them. That is how you must
spend your days."
_
Ken (also Australian) recently wrote about a sutta that is very
worthy of contemplation "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. (!)""
You might find this letter I wrote helpful
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5540
best wishes
robert
"Christine Forsyth" wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in
> detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly
learned
> in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I
> might have.
> Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method
> of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen,
> and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly
> do not do sitting meditation.
> metta,
> Christine
>
>
8205 From: Howard
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat...
Hi, Mike -
In a message dated 9/20/01 8:12:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mike writes:
> Dear Howard,
>
> --- Howard wrote:
>
> > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to
> > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise
> > after
> > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon.
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > No, I think it was a reference something to
> > the effect of the mind
> > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > adventitious defilements that is
> > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga.
>
> Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what
> commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be
> very interested in finding this idea (an originally
> luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements)
> anywhere in the Pali canon.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I'm too poor of a Buddhist scholar, unfortunately, to give you any
specifics here with regard to commentaries, but there is the following sutta:
Anguttara Nikaya I.49-52
Pabhassara Suttas
Luminous
For free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma Context of this sutta
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."
"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The
uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is
present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill
person -- there is no development of the mind." "Luminous, monks, is the
mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed noble
disciple discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you
that -- for the well-instructed noble disciple -- there is development of the
mind." Revised: 9 November 1998
http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/anguttara/an1-49.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> > (BTW, I'm not sure
> > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the
> > suttas.)
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not sure either, not at all sure. You know, last
> time we chatted off-list, I expressed some grave
> reservations about the abhidhamma, and the conviction
> that it was of far less significance than the other
> two baskets. Fickle fellow that I am, I seem to've
> swung back into a more standard Theravadin view. At
> the time I think I was reacting against some of Jon's
> comments regarding the path. I REALLY didn't want to
> give up my path--unfortunately, I've come to the
> conclusion that Jon was right, and yet another view
> lies in ruins (damn--I thought they were already all
> kaput!)
>
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
My "view" remains pretty much as it was. I have reservations and
questions about the Abhidhamma, but I also value it highly; and it has had
its effect on my understanding of the Dhamma, a salutary one.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the
> > > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness',
> > which
> > > concept I believe is clearly alien to the
> > Theravada.
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I don't even have a clue what "cosmic
> > consciousness" would be. But
> > awareness without an object, beyond all conditions
> > and conditioning, unborn,
> > and deathless would be nibbana to me.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, by my reading of Mr. Webster, 'boundless
> awareness' could certainly be a synonym for 'cosmic
> consciousness'--an expression I've heard often, and
> for a long time. I didn't mean to be insulting,
> though.
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I didn't think you had. I was just clarifying my perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> Shalom!
>
------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Hah! ;-)) And Salaam as well.
----------------------------------------------------
>
> mike
>
==========================
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)
8206 From: Derek Cameron
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:44pm
Subject: Unsubscribing
Hi, all,
I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening
in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for
your stimulating posts.
Derek.
8207 From: Gayan Karunaratne
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:03pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing
OK, sir,
pls return with a vengence!
:o)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Cameron"
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:44 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing
> Hi, all,
>
> I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening
> in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for
> your stimulating posts.
>
> Derek.
8208 From: Dan Dalthorp
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are all
frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of discussing
them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too much
time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I
hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I
certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief
comments for now.
> If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of
> plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note
> breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out
> long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some)
I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is
discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of
Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I am
familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing
in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out
long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in
short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out
short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a
distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a
thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could be
that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the
second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit
cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the abdomen
as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or
short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other
ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what it
has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to
convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", but
it may be useful to think about how it might be so.
Dan
8209 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 6:07am
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
---
Dear Dan,
If I could just butt in a little to your interesting conversation.
I think we can say that samatha bhavana (tranquility meditation) is,
at least to some degree, dependent on following a correct method (as
well as much understanding of the actual nature of kusala and
akusala - not easy). And that method is described in the suttas and
commentaries.
It is vipassana bhavana, profound insight into dhammas as are they
are, that can't (I believe) be reduced to a simple technique.
robert
"Dan Dalthorp" wrote:
> Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are
all
> frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of
discussing
> them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too
much
> time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I
> hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I
> certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief
> comments for now.
>
> > If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use
of
> > plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long,
note
> > breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out
> > long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some)
>
> I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is
> discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of
> Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I
am
> familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu,
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing
> in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out
> long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in
> short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out
> short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a
> distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a
> thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could
be
> that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the
> second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit
> cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the
abdomen
> as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or
> short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other
> ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what
it
> has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to
> convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual",
but
> it may be useful to think about how it might be so.
>
> Dan
8210 From: Cybele Chiodi
Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing
Sweetheart!
Best wishes to you and however life is more
stimulating than our blah, blah!
All the best for your practice and your life. :-)
Love
Cybele
--- Derek Cameron wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so
> much happening
> in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe.
> Thank you all for
> your stimulating posts.
>
> Derek.
8211 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:50am
Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill)
Thanks, Kenneth. I appreciate the description of Pure Land Buddhism.
Wouldn't it be nice if we all wound up, in one of these lifetimes, in the company
of Amitahba and each other, in the land of Utmost Bliss?
It sounds pretty good to me.
Best Wishes to you,
Robert E.
==================================
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the
> Land of Utmost Bliss. According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a
> Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana
> Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think).
> a. recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of
> feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations. Pure Land utilised
> mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and
> break away from dualism.
> b. To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts
> but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas.
> c. There is a desire to be born there. This is the most contentious topic
> of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity. Sentinental beings
> could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made
> when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha,
> when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world. However, there is a
> catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name
> (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is
> to be born there). There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way
> out. You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts.
> d. the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land
> e. this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to
> learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be
> including as another pillar).
> the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going
> through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to
> go, I really wish to go there. It is like a buying a insurance policy for our
> retirement. we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts. Pure Land
> is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach
> us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you
> reach the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly
> there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my
> personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise.
> Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not
> know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that. I welcome
> comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism. Personnaly I
> do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay
> homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not
> outside.
> with kindest regards
> Kenneth Ong
>
>
> Robert Epstein wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote:
>
> > Dear Sarah,
> > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few
> years
> > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada
> also
> > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot
> > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted
> > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana
> > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops
> > attachment).
> > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It
> > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another
> attachement)
> > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in
> > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have
> many
> > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very
> proud
> > of myself.
> > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware
> > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning
> > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts
> > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till
> > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand
> > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be
> appreciated.
> > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family
> > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring
> > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat
> > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn
> a
> > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this
> > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who
> > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and
> > practises.
> > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a
> > Singaporean.
> > With kind regards
> > KO
>
> Kenneth,
> I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the
> somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about
> your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never
> posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three
> year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late
> starter].
>
> One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar
> with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure
> Land
> Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you
> would like to.
>
> Regards,
> Robert E.
8212 From: rikpa21
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:13am
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
--- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote:
> Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are
all
> frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of
discussing
> them.
Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of dukkha,
as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be
diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or not
there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this understanding,
there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of arousing
persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's
intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and
developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not
energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana
does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's
instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not to
laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).
> I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is
> discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of
> Buddha's words?
My question to you was, and is, by observing that Satipatthana is
a "method" or "technique", does this have any bearing whatsoever on
whether or not it works? Perhaps the words the Blessed One spoke here
would be beneficial to consider, as I think this addresses the
question you raise (and the Buddha even talks about, Brahma forbid,
*the wish for results*!)
"...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right
resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy
life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable of
obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made
no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the
holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish,
they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life
even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they
are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an
appropriate way of obtaining results."
The Bhumija Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn126.html
This has quite a different ring to it than what I am
> familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu,
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing
> in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out
> long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in
> short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out
> short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a
> distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a
> thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could
be
> that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the
> second. Sometimes. Perhaps.
This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see
no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting"
vs. that of "discerning". I think the important issue is that one
practice noting/discerning on the appropriate objects, in an
appropriate fashion, such that one comes to see them as impermanent,
suffering, and not-self. That is what I see as being the thing that
that matters here, not whether we label that technique "noting"
or "discerning" (both synonyms, by the way). To get caught on
superficial distinctions between mere labels while ignoring what
those labels are pointing at seems to be a case of focusing on the
finger, rather than the moon.
> Now, what is that technique? "Sit
> cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the
abdomen
> as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or
> short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other
> ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what
it
> has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to
> convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual",
but
> it may be useful to think about how it might be so.
I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't see any
connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't see how
thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any bearing on
whether or not it works if practiced diligently, the the point one
has established unbroken concentration on the appropriate objects of
discernment, such that one comes to see them as they are: anicca,
dukkha, and anatta.
.
8213 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:48am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.
--- Christine Forsyth wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in
> detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned
> in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I
> might have.
> Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method
> of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen,
> and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly
> do not do sitting meditation.
> metta,
> Christine
Following and noting of the rising and falling of the breath is the root of my own
practice as well. I think the Sutra will give you some good clues as to how you
can expand that awareness to include the Four Foundations of Mindfulness once
concentration is adequate and begin to observe all arising dharmas from the anchor
of the breath.
I speak as someone who finds it a possibilty and sees the potential there, but my
meditation practice is not always so consistent.
Best,
Robert E.
====================================
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> > Dear Christine,
> > I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati
> Sutta, THE SUTRA
> > ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says
> that the breath
> > is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of
> mindfulness and the
> > seven factors of awakening.
> >
> > This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon:
> >
> > http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra
> >
> > I'd be interested in your comments after reading this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robert E.
8214 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 1:27pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door
Nina
> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In
> Cambodia,
> > A.
> > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors
> in
> > our
> > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the
> > mind-door
> > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each
> > sense-door
> > process. But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and
> > concepts,
> > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at
> > such
> > moments realities that arise and fall away. My feeling is: we think of
> > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking
> > there
> > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not
> > appear.
> > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door
> > process is hidden by the sense-door processes?
>
> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a
> passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this
> wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door
> being
> hidden by sense-doors. Thanks.
Here is the passage from the Cambodia talks I have in mind. It was about
this passage that Sarah asked one or two questions in Bangkok.
"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."
As regards the subject of 'mind-door being hidden by the sense-doors', I
found the following reference in one of your footnotes to the Cambodia
talks--
"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 A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part
V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: The 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. "
Hope this clarifies!
Jon
8215 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re:
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
> > Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very
> > familiar with appamada
> > as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its
> > meaning of
> > 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative
> > formulation of
> > 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above).
>
> I assume you meant 'heedfulness' here, rather than
> 'heedlessness'?
Thanks for this correction, and my apologies to all for any confusion.
Ven. Buddhadatta has, for appamaada:
>
> vigilance; earnestness.
>
> and for pamaada:
>
> negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness.
I think this is similar to the meaning of the term (bramaat -- as in 'yaa
bramaat') as used in Thai.
Jon
> > Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the
> > meanings of 'zeal,
> > non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes
> > that "In the
> > commentaries, it is often explained as the presence
> > (lit. non-absence) of
> > mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).'
>
> Glad for this confirmation.
>
> > As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as
> > saying that even though
> > it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it
> > leads to it is reckoned
> > as chief among the supramundane states.
>
> Somehow not surprising that it bridges the gap
> (because being both a mundane and supramundane
> factor).
>
> > Difficult to know for sure with so little available
> > from the Com. (and so
> > much ignorance!).
>
> Yes, some speculation here.
>
> mike
8216 From: dalthorp
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
Erik:
> Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of
dukkha,
> as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be
> diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or
not
> there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this
understanding,
> there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of
arousing
> persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's
> intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and
> developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not
> energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana
> does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's
> instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not
to
> laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).
I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we
disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I
consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you
don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as
a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique'
interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you
wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't
see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't
see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any
bearing on whether or not it works...").
> "...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right
> resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
effort,
> right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy
> life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable
of
> obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having
made
> no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the
> holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no
wish,
> they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life
> even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they
> are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an
> appropriate way of obtaining results."
Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech,
right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, &
right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should
say so! Now which ritual was he selling here?
> This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see
> no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting"
> vs. that of "discerning".
I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs.
declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but
the difference in meaning is tremendous.
8217 From: Sarah
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
Dear Rob E,
Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here:
--- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your
message.
>
> Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both
> interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach
> to
> Vipassana meditation.
>
> I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how
> one
> applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems
> that
> most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the
> sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the
> accumulation
> of panna.
>
> I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and
> objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis.
> Or is
> that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of
> the
> moment?
Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go
to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and
Abhidhamma.
Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all
realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we
talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific
realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four
foundations of mindfulness.
‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first
book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the
Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are
expounded in them. This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals,
consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own
natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes. In other words, the
realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’ U Narada,
‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii
These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental
and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and
all the other suttas), i.e:
1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue
and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) =
2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness)
=
3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to
Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching,
experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing =
4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana, accompanying the cittas
(moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory),
lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones =
In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas
(aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different
suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand
there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities.
Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily
Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify
these points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a
matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what
the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their
respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right.
This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be
developed at this very moment by panna.
Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question.
Sarah
p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the
wordiness;-))
8218 From: KennethOng
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (Dan)
It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now while we are typing the emails. I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations.
It is definitely impt to be mindfull, actually mindfullness is the pivotal practises, all school of thoughts, be it Thervadas, Zen, Tibetan or Other Mahayana Schools, on depend on this to reach enlightment. My humble opinion is that this is the "mother of all practises"
If I am not wrong what dalthorp (sorry did not get your name) trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness. From your point of view, it seems like everything is a ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual. You are not wrong by saying that. If I do not forget, there is a story about letting go of the raft after crossing the river. But I have to admit that I really needs this raft. It is excellent that you have point this ritual as a fetter, however presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise.
I hope I do not get you wrong. Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative. I quite confuse what you are referring to.
Sorry if I have misinterpret your meaning. With my kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
P.S. Could I suggest that all of us kindly provide a name or initials after the end of our email so that we could identify each other as sometimes the reply could get very confusing and I always wondering who is who.
dalthorp wrote: Erik:
> Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of
dukkha,
> as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be
> diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or
not
> there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this
understanding,
> there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of
arousing
> persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's
> intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and
> developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not
> energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana
> does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's
> instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not
to
> laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta).
I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we
disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I
consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you
don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as
a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique'
interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you
wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't
see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't
see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any
bearing on whether or not it works...").
> "...Any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right
> resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
effort,
> right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy
> life even when having made a wish [for results], they are capable
of
> obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having
made
> no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the
> holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no
wish,
> they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life
> even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they
> are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an
> appropriate way of obtaining results."
Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech,
right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, &
right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should
say so! Now which ritual was he selling here?
> This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see
> no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting"
> vs. that of "discerning".
I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs.
declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but
the difference in meaning is tremendous.
8219 From: rikpa21
Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
--- Dan D wrote:
Dan,
> I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs.
> declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting,
but
> the difference in meaning is tremendous.
Since you seem to believe this is so critical, then I imagine you
should have no problem describing from your own experience how you
have found this distincion directly applicable to overcoming dukkha.
Or if you don't have any direct experience to share on this, where
the Buddha clearly noted the importance of this to overcoming dukkha.
8220 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:06am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
Dear Sarah,
I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat
quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in
different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than one
canon, I suppose that is to be expected.
It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke down
even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in different
types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his
understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his
career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get clearer
about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't particularly
helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different suttas.
The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas;
aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be
coordinated. But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual' divisions
of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their mechanics
and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?]
I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions leads
to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your
explanation.
And thanks for your nice response to my 'wordy' self-intro. :-)
Best,
Robert E.
================================
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Rob E,
>
> Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here:
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your
> message.
> >
> > Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both
> > interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach
> > to
> > Vipassana meditation.
> >
> > I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how
> > one
> > applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems
> > that
> > most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the
> > sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the
> > accumulation
> > of panna.
> >
> > I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and
> > objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis.
> > Or is
> > that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of
> > the
> > moment?
>
> Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go
> to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and
> Abhidhamma.
>
> Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all
> realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we
> talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific
> realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four
> foundations of mindfulness.
>
> ‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first
> book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the
> Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are
> expounded in them. This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals,
> consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own
> natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes. In other words, the
> realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’ U Narada,
> ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii
>
> These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental
> and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and
> all the other suttas), i.e:
>
> 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue
> and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) =
>
> 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness)
> =
>
> 3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to
> Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching,
> experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing =
>
>
> 4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana, accompanying the cittas
> (moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory),
> lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones =
>
> In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas
> (aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different
> suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand
> there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities.
>
> Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily
> Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify
> these points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a
> matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what
> the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their
> respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right.
> This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be
> developed at this very moment by panna.
>
> Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question.
>
> Sarah
>
> p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the
> wordiness;-))
8221 From: Christine Forsyth
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:01am
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Robert E., Robert K.,
I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently.
metta,
Christine
"The Indispensable Factor
Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual
evolution:
Commitment to continuous and correct practice!
It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual
development.
The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously
appear
without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is
repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other
aspects of
the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled
manner.
As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and
meditation principles for many years. All my instructors, especially
my
first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and
continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these
admonishments years after year. A few years later, I became an
instructor
and taught for some time. I realized that I had only "book" Dharma,
so I
entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for
seven
months. I finally understood their intention and great kindness in
teaching
their students so well.
When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will
understand that training takes place everywhere. Self-cultivation
contnues
*all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator
who
fully comprehends the implications of mind development. When we
decide to
become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances
which can
harm our practice. No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal
sitting
posture, being in a special environment or associating with like-
minded
friends.
We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights,
sounds
and experiences.
THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not
grasping
and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at
every
opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really
free
and unburdened, moment to moment. Insight meditation in daily life is
cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment."
Achan Sobin S.Namto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8222 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Christine,
This message has an important point, but I have a couple of questions about it.
1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that Insight Meditation
should take place at all times and does not begin or end with formal meditation.
Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that opened his
eyes to this reality.
Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is hard for me to
tell from this message.
2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, and rather
strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is the one
essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and simplistic. It is
certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and sometimes it's not the
most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really committed 'nothing can
disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is because I haven't
entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very long, but my
practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a simple matter to
me to become consistent.
On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of practice, or
has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and even 'correctness' will
not be enough.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to get out of it
is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most important
points.
Best,
Robert E.
======================
--- Christine Forsyth wrote:
> Dear Robert E., Robert K.,
>
> I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently.
>
> metta,
> Christine
>
> "The Indispensable Factor
>
> Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual
> evolution:
>
> Commitment to continuous and correct practice!
>
> It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual
> development.
> The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously
> appear
> without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is
> repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other
> aspects of
> the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled
> manner.
>
> As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and
> meditation principles for many years. All my instructors, especially
> my
> first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and
> continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these
> admonishments years after year. A few years later, I became an
> instructor
> and taught for some time. I realized that I had only "book" Dharma,
> so I
> entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for
> seven
> months. I finally understood their intention and great kindness in
> teaching
> their students so well.
>
> When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will
> understand that training takes place everywhere. Self-cultivation
> contnues
> *all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator
> who
> fully comprehends the implications of mind development. When we
> decide to
> become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances
> which can
> harm our practice. No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal
> sitting
> posture, being in a special environment or associating with like-
> minded
> friends.
>
> We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights,
> sounds
> and experiences.
>
> THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not
> grasping
> and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at
> every
> opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really
> free
> and unburdened, moment to moment. Insight meditation in daily life is
> cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment."
>
> Achan Sobin S.Namto
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
8225 From: Christine Forsyth
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:28am
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your reply.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any
point out of it. I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or
not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at
the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at
the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem
to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly
straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects,
Uni degrees etc. But Social Work and Management studies don't seem
to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating.
It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting
meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate practice to learn
concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and easily evoked,
one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised
continuous mindfullness.
Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions.
Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article
complete in itself.
metta,
Christine
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> This message has an important point, but I have a couple of
questions about it.
>
> 1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that
Insight Meditation
> should take place at all times and does not begin or end with
formal meditation.
> Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that
opened his
> eyes to this reality.
>
> Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is
hard for me to
> tell from this message.
>
> 2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice,
and rather
> strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is
the one
> essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and
simplistic. It is
> certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and
sometimes it's not the
> most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really
committed 'nothing can
> disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is
because I haven't
> entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very
long, but my
> practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a
simple matter to
> me to become consistent.
>
> On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of
practice, or
> has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and
even 'correctness' will
> not be enough.
>
> Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to
get out of it
> is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most
important
> points.
>
> Best,
> Robert E.
>
> ======================
8226 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:42am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.
Hi Christine.
Thanks for the clarification.
I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find what works for
them. To me this means that you can try out a number of approaches, and at some
point you may find one particular way of contemplating or meditating or focussing
or learning that will allow you to grow in understanding.
I tend to be eclectic, so I can't give any great testimonials on commitment to one
form of practice, but there is still a strong pattern of growth in my spiritual
history. It's just hard for me to define. At this point in my life, I see that
Buddhism resonates for me the most clearly. I wanted to say that I was committing
myself to a Zen view, but then my interest expanded into both Dzogchen [Tibetan]
and Theravada. This list has introduced me to the abhidhamma, which I am finding
fascinating, and so my attempts to focus seem to only lead me to more expansion.
Within all of this, there have been two actual practices that have been stable for
long periods of time: one is the practice of physical yoga, which I did and
taught for many years, and the other is basic Vipassana meditation, starting with
breathing awareness and then trying to become mindful of arising conditions as
completely as possible.
Since my three-year old was born it's been difficult for me to have a regular
practice and to find quiet time, and I find that I don't feel up to it by the time
she goes to bed [late]. So these days my practice is mainly trying to practice
awareness and mindfulness at all times, to the extent I can. I've made my life an
imperfect meditation, but it seems to lead to insights at times.
When I do have a chance to sit, I love it. I would never give up the idea of
sitting meditation because I find it deepens my experience of everything. I also
would never give up the idea of practicing mindfulness in everyday life. I think
both is a great combination. That way, you can have your specialized meditation
time, and you can also have your commitment to making life an exercise in
awareness. Best of both worlds.
Regards,
Robert E.
=========================
--- Christine Forsyth wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any
> point out of it. I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or
> not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at
> the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at
> the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem
> to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly
> straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects,
> Uni degrees etc. But Social Work and Management studies don't seem
> to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating.
>
> It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting
> meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate practice to learn
> concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and easily evoked,
> one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised
> continuous mindfullness.
>
> Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions.
> Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article
> complete in itself.
>
> metta,
> Christine
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> > Dear Christine,
> > This message has an important point, but I have a couple of
> questions about it.
> >
> > 1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that
> Insight Meditation
> > should take place at all times and does not begin or end with
> formal meditation.
> > Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that
> opened his
> > eyes to this reality.
> >
> > Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is
> hard for me to
> > tell from this message.
> >
> > 2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice,
> and rather
> > strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is
> the one
> > essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and
> simplistic. It is
> > certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and
> sometimes it's not the
> > most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really
> committed 'nothing can
> > disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is
> because I haven't
> > entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very
> long, but my
> > practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a
> simple matter to
> > me to become consistent.
> >
> > On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of
> practice, or
> > has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and
> even 'correctness' will
> > not be enough.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to
> get out of it
> > is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most
> important
> > points.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robert E.
> >
8227 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 1:57pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Howard
Catching up. Just found this earlier post of yours that I had part
answered and put aside. Sorry for the delay in getting back.
--- Howard wrote:
>>Jon:
> > 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.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks about
it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
effort.
Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the letting
go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that we
are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an unwelcome
interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it showed
us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
akusala could not be 'right effort'.
On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, or of
the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional sense*.
As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever (including
the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. Or there might
be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for example,
that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different reality
altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation in
the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible object
arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the mind
with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and are
themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously 'letting go
of' the akusala.
I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it is
easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' light
-- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had less
anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of the
anger so it must be kusala.
Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we
need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there need
not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of some
level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is
'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those
moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments of
kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of whatever
level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed on
kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by
natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that sense of
the word).
'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have*
kusala.
Jon
8228 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:00pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
>
> --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
>
> > The anusaya (latent
> > unwholesome tendencies) are carried forward not just
> > in the bhavanga citta
> > but in every citta, including the kusala citta.
>
> Understood--also latent wholesome tendencies etc.
>
> > So the explanation for this might not be quite as
> > intricate as Suan has
> > described in his interesting example. It just
> > happens to be that way, in
> > the same way that every moment of sanna is also
> > passed on in every citta.
> > It has to do perhaps with the relationship
> > (conditions/paccaya) between
> > one citta and the next, and the fact that there is
> > no 'gap' between the 2.
>
> Yes, this makes sense. I'm thinking that maybe
> 'passed along' or 'carried forward' are somewhat
> misleading expressions (to me). Maybe what's
> accumulated and inherited by each citta is more like
> history--that is that each citta inherits the
> 'history' (conditions/paccaya?) of all the cittas
> preceding it. I've been thinking of it as something
> like data or information or memory.
I tend to think of it as the totality of the experience of every previous
moment of consciousness. However, I don't know of any texts that explain
this aspect of things. Anyone?
> I suppose saññaa
> is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't
> recognition of everything experienced be occurring all
> the time?
I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent' is the right word for
sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with every citta.
> So that this 'history' is the condition
> that makes it possible for latent perception, or
> kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when conditions
> are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot of
> 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe someday...
Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is concerned, it is all
accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise when, as you say,
conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp, but we can see in our
lives how the kilesas do pop up without the slightest provocation and
despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for no reason other than
that we have that particular accumulation of unwholesomeness (this is
easier to see in others than in ourselves, of course!).
Jon
8229 From: Sarah
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
Dear Rob E,
--- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat
> quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in
> different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than
> one
> canon, I suppose that is to be expected.
I’m not sure we can say there is more than one canon, but I’ll leave that to
others;-))
The reason, I think, why there are different classification schemes is to
stress different realities to be known in different contexts and with different
audiences.
We could just say that all paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) are namas
(mental phenomena) or rupas (physical phenomena) and leave it at that. For most
people, however, this simple classification does not give enough detail to
really understand those realities or to understand the anattaness, impermanence
or unsatisfactoriness of them.
So, for example, when talking about the 5 khandhas of rupas (physical
phenomena), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankhara (formations) and
vinnana (consciousness), we have a further break down of the namas (mental
phenomena) to help us understand that consciousness (=citta) is different from,
but accompanied by mental factors (= cetasikas). Further more, in this
classification, feelings and perception are given their ‘own’ aggregate to
stress their important roles.
Both arise with every single moment of consciousness. Aren’t we so very
affected by the feelings accompanying seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and so
on. We complain about dosa (aversion) because the feeling is unpleasant and we
seldom object to lobha (attachment) because the feeling is usually so pleasant.
In the same way, sanna (perception) plays a critical role. Seeing now merely
sees its object, but it is the perception, the marking which helps give rise to
the world of concepts in which we live (with right or wrong view). Could we
even function for an instant without sanna? Even the arahats who have
eradicated all kilesa still have vedana and sanna accompanying every citta .
> It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke
> down
> even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in
> different
> types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his
> understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his
> career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get
> clearer
> about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't
> particularly
> helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different
> suttas.
I think that the classifications used on different occasions by the Buddha were
probably perfectly clear and appropriate from the start. With his omniscience
and wisdom, he knew at any time what would be most helpful.
I don’t think it matters very much whether we remember the numbers or different
classifications (I’ve always been hopeless at remembering the details, unlike
Rob or Kom or Num, for example, who have a more ‘scientific’ bent). What is
really important is to begin to understand different realities, however they
are classified and then, whatever one reads or studies, it becomes clearer what
is being discussed.
>
> The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas;
> aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be
> coordinated.
Even here, if you look under the 4th foundation, dhammanupassana, you’ll see it
actually includes ALL realities:
1. The 5 hindrances
2. The 5 aggregates (yes, our friends the khanhas all included here)
3. the 6 internal and the 6 external sense-bases
4. the 7 Factors of Enlightenment
5. the 4 Noble Truths
So again, we have different realities being stressed in different
classifications. Rupas, vedana and cittas were given their own ‘Foundation’ but
are included again here. The hindrances (5 cetasikas) are discussed as a
category of their own and so on. None of this is meant to be confusing or meant
to be memorised. As I mentioned before, the Buddha discusses the different
phenomena that can be known right now in daily life in order that we can see
that there is no self or lasting consciousness anywhere to be found .
But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual'
> divisions
> of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their
> mechanics
> and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?]
YES! Very nicely put too.
>
> I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions
> leads
> to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your
> explanation
The same happens to me too. This weekend is pretty busy because I’m attending
some yoga workshops and have a lot of work to do. I think I'll just be here for
a few minutes and then I find I need to check a reference, start reading more
and so on;-))
Thanks for your encouragement,
Sarah
p.s. a minor correction here to my last post:
> > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose,
> tongue
> > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) =
This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the
5 sense doorways)
8230 From: Herman
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Robert E.
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Hi Christine.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find
what works for
> them.
I am sorry to take just one line out of the recent discussion and to
query you on this alone. I hope you don't mind. ( I guess it means I
found nothing controversial in the preceding).
How does one know if something works for them ? To me this implies a
knowledge of the goal before one has started the journey ie already
having been there previously.
The reason why I would follow the prescriptions of the Buddha is
because he has said that he has reached enlightenment, and he has
described how he got there. When the Buddha describes the goal he has
reached, of course I have no idea what he is talking about. I only
imagine my imaginations to be similar to what he found along the way.
But I acknowledge as I go, that I know nothing, and need to shed even
that. But back to sitting. When I sit, am I on the way to
enlightenment? The Buddha says so, he's been there and I haven't.
Simplistic? I don't think so. Simply an acknowledgement that a Buddha
is one who knows.
Love
Herman
8231 From: Sarah
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 8:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik
Hi Erik,
I’m back!
--- rikpa21 wrote: > Hi Sarah!
>
> > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness:
>
> Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the
> body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four
> Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :)
Good, we’re all agreed here.
S:> > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing,
> hearing,
> > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door
> > experiencing.
>
> I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha-
> Satipatthana Sutta:
Hopefully my posts to Rob E have clarified;-) ‘ citte
cittaanupassi....viharati’ - he lives contemplating consciousness in
consciousness. I’ve personally found it really helps to consider any sutta in
the light of other suttas, the abhidhamma and commentary notes, but I know this
is all controversial;-))
>
> "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There
> is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that
> the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns
> that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he
> discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without
> aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the
> mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the
> mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without
> delusion.
>
>
S: > > One doesn't go about anything,
>
> Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we
> just sit here like lumps?
The translation for this section by Soma Thera starts:
“And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in
conciousness?”
“ Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust; the
conciousness without lust, as without lust; the consciousness with hate, as
with hate............”
By contemplating consciousness (cittanupassanaa) is meant sati (awareness) of
the cittas discussed. There is no self to remain focussed or to sit like a lump
except in the world of pa~n~natti (concepts).
>
> > but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in
> front of us.
>
> Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender
> mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the
> characteristics of what we're seeing?
Again, we don’t penetrate anything. It may seem, like you were saying to Dan,
that we’re arguing about semantics, but like he expressed so clearly, these are
very important distinctions. By beginning to understand more precisely the
difference between concepts and realities now, by knowing more and more what
the objects of sati (awareness) are, by realizing there is nothing at all to be
done by you or me, no method to follow at all, sati can and will begin to be
aware of these same realities and panna (understanding) will begin to know or
penetrate the characteristics. If there is doubt about this (or anything else)
or attachment to results (or anything else), these are also realities which can
be known as they arise now.
> I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the
> bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we
> understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as
> permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest
> beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I
> cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth
> and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to
> help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure
> we'd all be arahats by now.
I think it’s simple and not simple. It’s simple in that nothing has to be done
or changed. Realities are already arising and falling away and when awareness
begins to be aware of them, it’s not a matter of changing them or leading a
different lifestyle at all. It’s not simple because although we repeat that
these realities are not self and so on, there is no understanding at all of
what this means if there isn’t any understanding now of the reality appearing,
whether it is seeing, visible object, doubt or attachment .
>
> > I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant
> these same
> > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other
> suttas) such
> as
> > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on.
>
> Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana
> Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again,
> the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include
> specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific
> characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference
> (does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five
> hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven
> factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths.
Let me know if this still isn’t clear after my posts to Rob E. All realities
are included at least twice over as I read it. The same realities are
discussed over and over in the suttas. In the Samyutta Nikaya (Kindred
Sayings), Salayatana-vagga, there are many suttas which discuss the ‘6 worlds’
and the 'All'. In First Fifty, Ch 111, par 25 we read:
‘The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by fully comprehending it.
Objects..eye-consciousness..eye-contact..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant
feeling or neutral feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing , by
fully comprehending it.
The mind..mind-states..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral
feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it.’
>
> Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it
> doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any
> bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that
> this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to
> apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the
> characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not-
> self.
Exactly so, and this is why your questions here about the objects of
satipatthana are exactly the questions many of us have been waiting quite a
long time for you to ask;-))
> I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I
> question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort
> of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these
> things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to
> focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining
> focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and
> sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least
> at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the
> mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the
> characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in
> which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and
> heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in"
> deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and
> discernment.
I'd say, forget about this deliberate concentration, ‘sinking in’ and
focussing. They are all accompanied by a subtle idea of self ‘trying to do’.
Understanding is the key. If there is minding about the object, it shows the
attachment rather than the understanding. Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) as
we’ve discussed before, will in any case arise with every citta and when there
is a wholesome citta, concentration will be wholesome anyway, assisting the
other cetasikas and citta by being one-pointed on the object or 'welding
together the co-existent states' at that moment. As the citta falls away in an
instant (right now), concentration falls away with it. It doesn't make it last
longer.
>
> and it takes enormous discipline to practice to
> develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain
> focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for
> penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted.
Does it? Is it?
>
> Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time.
True. It lasts for an instant and then gone!
It may get
> more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different
> objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind
> to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises
> in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are
> best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is
> how this degree of focus is established in the first place.
I don’t find any exercises in the Sutta and I think it's more interesting to
understand what awareness is and what the objects are rather than focussing.
>
> Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by
> deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away.
Being aware rather than deliberately noting with attachment.
> Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step,
> the barest beginning, as I see it.
YES!
To come to see their
> characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time,
> until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink
> in" to any object being observing.
....now we’re off on different tracks again ;-((
Erik, your recent posts and questions are really showing a sincere interest in
understanding all the dhammas discussed by the Buddha and described in the
Tipitaka. Please be patient if we’re slow to respond or don’t make ourselves
clear enough .
Sarah
8232 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right View as to kamma and vipaka
Nina
Thanks very much for the comments below and the reference to 'Asoka's
Footsteps' which I have just read (I found it very helpful).
--- Nina van Gorkom wrote:
> Dear Jon and all,
> A.Sujin spoke in India about the understanding of kamma and vipaka,
> kammassakata ~naa.na (saka meaning one's own, kamma that is one's own),
> see
> my in Asoka's Footsteps, Ch 3, Zolag Web. She explained that there is
> this
> understanding at each stage of insight. At those moments there is no
> self,
> no world, no doer of deeds, nobody who receives results. Panna can
> realize
> seeing as a conditioned element. It realizes seeing as nama. Panna can
> realize immediately that seeing is vipaka, different from kusala or
> akusala,
> no need to think. We read in the Sumangala Vilasini, Co to Sangiti Sutta
> (D.N.) that the panna that is kammasakata ~naa.na is vipassana
> adhipanna,
> higher panna of vipassana. We may have theoretical understanding of
> kamma
> and vipaka,and this is a level of panna, but the deep understanding is
> developed through satipatthana.
On this last point, I think that clarifies the question I had. It must be
a level of panna (ie, samatha or vipassana), but only the panna of
satipatthana brings deep understanding.
Jon
8233 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma
Nina
I was interested to read the passage below, which seems to suggest there
are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, vinaya and abhidhamma --
whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite coming from Khun Sujin.
I would be interested to hear what you make of this. Do the 'methods'
refer to practice or to the manner of teaching?
Jon
--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, many times
we discussed the methods of Sutta and
> Abhidhamma.
> We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas, and Suan explained
> this
> very well recently. Now I would like to quote from A.Sujin's Cambodian
> talks
> about this subject. Her approach is directed towards the practice. She
> stresses all the time that right understanding should be developed of
> the
> characteristics of realities appearing now, through six doors, otherwise
> we
> shall only have theoretical understanding. Then we shall also understand
> the
> deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. The
> method
> of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. When you are used to the
> idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma explained in
> conventional
> terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the Buddha in the suttas
> explained about confidence, moral shame and fear of blame. These
> accompany
> kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us to see the benefit of
> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of
> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one sees the disadvantage
> of
> akusala. Again, the purpose is not the theory, but the practice. Now I
> quote:
>
> understanding of realities, but it should be the practice, that is the
> development of paññå according to the method of the Suttanta, of the
> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline for the monks .
>
> Question: In which way is the practice according to those three methods
> different?
>
> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya deals with conduct through
> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know that wholesome conduct
> through body and speech is developed by kusala citta. An example of this
> is
> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat down without having been
> invited by the owner of the house. When the Buddha heard of this he laid
> down a rule that only when the owner of a place had invited the monk he
> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to someone1s house, but the
> owner
> has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even small matters, matters
> that concern etiquette and manners, such as while one is eating, are all
> explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply these. We do not need
> to
> sit down and consider how many more sílas in addition to the five
> precepts
> we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct through body and speech.
> As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very subtle and detailed, such
> as
> the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, bodily pain and unhappy
> feeling), vipariùåma-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and
> saòkhåra-dukkha
> (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). We should study the
> Suttanta
> so that we acquire a more detailed understanding of confidence, saddhå,
> moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. When we listen to the
> Dhamma
> there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We do not realize that
> there
> are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there in reality. Whenever
> kusala
> citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and ottappa, without the need to
> think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not need to think first of
> moral
> shame in order that it arises and that we shall listen to the Dhamma.
> Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there is kusala citta at that
> moment. Thus, we should have more understanding of realities in detail.
> With regard to the Abhidhamma method, this is in accordance with the
> characteristics of each and every one of the realities. The practice
> according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely knowledge of the
> concepts
> nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the characteristics of nåma
> and
> rúpa that are appearing. When satipaììhåna arises there is awareness and
> understanding of the characteristics of realities, one at a time. When
> anger
> arises, is there anybody who does not know this, even if he does not
> study
> the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess arises, is it necessary to
> study
> the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know it without study, but
> they
> take these realities for self, and they do not know that these are only
> different dhammas. If one practises according to the Abhidhamma method
> one
> understands that all realities are non-self. When attachment, aversion
> or
> conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there is no person, no self.
> When
> there is the firm remembrance of the truth of anattå, a person will not
> have
> misunderstandings about it and believe that he can do whatever he likes
> because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses anattå as a trick to
> excuse his behaviour and he gives his own interpretation of this term.
> As
> regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp already its meaning? Or do
> we
> just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a considerable
> difference in
> the understanding of someone who merely studies the theory of the Dhamma
> and
> of someone who develops pañña and knows the characteristics of realities
> as
> they are. We should understand this correctly: if we know only terms and
> names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that level, and we shall
> continue
> to know only terms. We should develop pañña so that the truth of anattå
> can
> be realized, in accordance with the teaching that all dhammas are
> anattå.
> Otherwise, to use a simile, we are like the ladle that serves the curry
> but
> does not know the taste of it. If we study but we do not realize the
> true
> nature of realities, how many lives shall we be only at that level, and
> this
> means that we study and then forget what we learnt.
>
> If we know that we study with the purpose of understanding realities at
> this
> very moment, then our understanding will be in accordance with our
> ability.
> We can understand, for example, what årammaùa, object, is. It is
> impossible
> that citta does not experience an object. Citta is the reality that
> experiences and thus there must be something that is experienced. That
> which is experienced can be anything, it can be citta, cetasika, rúpa or
> nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of citta that thinks. We
> can
> know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality,
> paramattha
> dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have
> the
> characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true
> characteristic.
> When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic,
> the
> object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the
> characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know
> paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the
> way
> of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is
> accumulated as the khandha of formations, saòkhårakkhandha, and this is
> a
> condition for the growth of pañña.>
>
> End quote. Nina.
8234 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:35pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui
Howard
(Still catching up)
--- Howard wrote:
> I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying)
> comment.
> Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly*
> including a
> few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal
> meditation,
> sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness"
> of
> mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does*
> seem
> that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in
>
> formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all.
> But
> most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general
>
> mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be
> not
> entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all.
As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can
occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state,
posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation.
However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with
one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the
teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of
awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. So
I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general
mindfulness.
Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
Jon
8235 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Rob E
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his
> immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and
practiced
> mindfulness meditation?
> So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no?
As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general
use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance
from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment.
Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have
said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient
commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes,
I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found.
Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle
this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is,
unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our
accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper
judgment.
Jon
8236 From: Howard
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:28pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
> Howard
>
> Catching up. Just found this earlier post of yours that I had part
> answered and put aside. Sorry for the delay in getting back.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
No problem. As a matter of fact, with regard to replying to posts, it
probably isn't really necessary that everyone reply to every post directed to
him/her, especially in a sequence of posts. Sometimes, just as one example, a
third (or 4th) party adds a msg, making a reply by the original recipient
unnecessary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
> --- Howard wrote:
> >>Jon:
> > > 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.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
>
> Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks about
> it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
> effort.
>
> Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the letting
> go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that we
> are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
> itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an unwelcome
> interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
> awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it showed
> us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
> shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
> akusala could not be 'right effort'.
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that there be)
no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of the
event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until that
object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for attention to
return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter of
*letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing it
or tearing the mind away.
--------------------------------------------------
>
> On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, or of
> the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
> didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional sense*.
> As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever (including
> the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
> arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yep!
---------------------------------------------------
Or there might
> be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for example,
> that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different reality
> altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation in
> the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
> difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible object
> arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the mind
> with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and are
> themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
>
> When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
> kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously 'letting go
> of' the akusala.
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it is
> easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' light
> -- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had less
> anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of the
> anger so it must be kusala.
>
> Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we
> need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there need
> not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of some
> level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is
> 'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those
> moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments of
> kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of whatever
> level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed on
> kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by
> natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that sense of
> the word).
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever, neither
pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction,
merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation, diminution,
and cessation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have*
> kusala.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying mindfulness,
focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather
automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the
conscious application of volition and constant remembering.
----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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)
8237 From: Howard
Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui
Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
> Howard
>
> (Still catching up)
>
> --- Howard wrote:
>
> > I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying)
> > comment.
> > Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly*
> > including a
> > few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal
> > meditation,
> > sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness"
> > of
> > mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does*
> > seem
> > that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in
> >
> > formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all.
> > But
> > most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general
> >
> > mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be
> > not
> > entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all.
>
> As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can
> occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state,
> posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any moment.
But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice laid
out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about what
the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom can
arise at any time - or, it may not.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with
> one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the
> teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of
> awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> So
> I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general
> mindfulness.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice to be
that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually lead
to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to
exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or not,
independent of "personal" effort?
------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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)
8238 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:08am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hi from Robert E.
Dear Robert,
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> I can understand how any one property emphasized
> improperly could create a
> problem. The three pillars of Zen are considered to
> be Prajna [wisdom], Sila
> [morality] and Samadhi [concentration].
I don't think I've mentioned (to you) that I was a
student of Rinzai Zen for about ten years before
discovering the Theravada and running off to Thailand
and Burma. Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen' was my
second Zen book, if memory serves--I was tremendously
impressed by it at the time. I wonder if you're
thinking of this book? By the way, I'm also very
familiar with all the texts you mentioned in your
introduction. Several were among my favorites.
As I'm sure you know these are considered to be
'sections' of the path--1 and 2 in 'paññaa (Prajña), 3
- 6 in 'sila', and 7 and 8 in 'samaadhi'. So all
three are present (and balanced, I think) in a moment
of satipatthaana.
> Too much
> Prajna and you would probably
> have someone who was intellectually wise but not
> experientially wise. Too much
> Samadhi and you would become attached to the trance
> state perhaps, or use the
> power of concentration to suppress faults. Too much
> Sila and you have a moralist
> with no real insight.
Though I think I'm somewhat at odds with the group on
this one, I think that there's a sort of conventional
path at the level of concept. Insight is possible
here only on a conceptual level (because concepts
can't be objects of satipatthaana--only cittas,
cetasikas, ruupas and nibbaana). On this level the
three can certainly be out of whack as you've
described, I think. In a moment of satipatthaana,
however, all three are present and balanced, I think,
whether on the mundane (five- or six-fold) or on the
supramundane (eight-fold) path. It is at these levels
that satipatthaana can occur and paññaa can be
developed, in a sense slightly different from paññaa
as a 'section' of the path--that of Right View of the
Path. On this level there is no such thing as too
much paññaa because for there to be satipatthaana, as
I understand it, these must all arise simultaneously
and spontaneously, in balance (and fall away
instantly, of course--leaving only paññaa 'behind' as
an 'accumulation'.
> The three properties are supposed to support each
> other, and should also be
> developed in balance.
Here I would stress that the idea that any of these
can be developed presupposes a developer. The
subjective experience of 'I'm developing these',
besides its implicit 'I', can only give rise to
conceptual development, I think. Though by no means
useless (because it can condition investigation and so
forth), development on this level can't produce
profound insight. If I understand this correctly, the
path factors (on the level of satipathaana) can all
only arise (and subside) according to conditions, most
importantly hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma.
> But I can't see highlighting
> samadhi as a fault in its own
> right.
I wouldn't fault samaadhi in its own right at all,
sorry if I gave that impression. However it is
completely neutral and can (and will) coordinate and
concentrate and strengthen whatever it arises with,
for good or ill. When it arises with the other
path-factors it's among the very best of things. When
it arises without them, it isn't and can (and will)
contribute to any act imaginable.
> Without the deep ability to concentrate, I
> don't see how mindfulness is
> possible.
Concentration isn't really an ability--it's a mental
factor that arises according to conditions and
instantly falls away completely. Satipatthaana is
exactly the same and always arises with sufficient
samaadhi to perform its function. So, although
satipatthaana always arises with samma-samaadhi, it is
by no means dependent on it as a prerequisite or a
precursor. There are many instances in the
Dhammavinaya of laypeople with no jhaana background
experiencing profound insight on hearing the
Dhamma--this could not have occurred without the
spontaneous arising of samma-samaadhi (and the other
path factors).
> And from what I understand of the jhanas,
> they are dependent on
> samadhi. Is that not correct?
Definitely, as I understand it. There isn't much
attention to attaining by way of the jhaanas on this
list, partly because some members are convinced (by a
commentary) that those born by this time in the
saasana cannot attain jhaana. I don't know if this is
true or not. But I do think there is more than ample
evidence in the Dhammavinaya alone (not to mention the
Abhidhamma) that the jhaanas are not the only way to
path and fruition. Remember that the Buddha learned
samaadhi from his teacher--it was commonplace among
samanas in India before the Buddha saasana. This is
speculation on my part, but since this was a common
tool to the recluses of the day, why wouldn't the
Buddha suggest they use it to take a look at the four
noble truths rather than their customary objects? On
the other hand, I am unaware of his ever teaching
anyone that s/he had to master the jhaanas before
experiencing satipatthaana.
> So i sympathize with what you say, particularly if
> samadhi is the exclusive 'hook'
> of the practice, but don't quite understand the idea
> that samadhi in itself is
> more dangerous than an imbalance in the other two.
I hope my comments above have addressed this.
> Interested in hearing your comments on this, and I'm
> glad you feel so nurtured by
> the process on dsg.
This really isn't the way I feel about it. Certainly
I would see anything that nurtures 'I' as something to
be carefully avoided (though I do welcome the
encouragements, of course). Most of what I've
experienced in the year that I've been here as been
the gradual (occasionally sudden) demolition of a
number of big ideas I held very dear for many, many
years. This hasn't always been pleasant at the moment
but looking back, there's no way I would (or could)
return to the ruins of my old views. Hope this is a
good thing(!).
> Always great talking to you!
A pleasure as always, Robert,
mike
> --- "m. nease" wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> >
> > To tell you the truth, I would gladly trade the
> three
> > months in Rangoon for a week of correspondence on
> this
> > list. The one lasting benefit 'I' gained from the
> > retreat was the conviction that Ven. Mahasi's way
> is
> > not the way--at least not for me. I was so
> > tremendously impressed by his writing and
> translations
> > before going that I don't think I would have got
> past
> > it without this experience.
> >
> > I don't have the problems with samaadhi meditation
> > that some in the group have, but I do think their
> > warnings are very pertinent. The problem with
> > samaadhi is that it can more easily be akusala
> than
> > kusala and it's VERY hard to tell the difference.
> It
> > has the function of consolidating some other
> mental
> > factors and sort of strengthening them, I think (I
> > forget the technical details)--it really doesn't
> care
> > if they're kusala or akusala. So, since it sort
> of
> > 'strengthens', consolidates and so on, and since
> most
> > moments of most days are akusala, I think it's
> much
> > more likely to be strengthening akusala than
> > kusala--especially self-view, conceit and liking
> for
> > calm itself. I still do it, anyway, because I
> enjoy
> > it. But I don't take it for the path anymore,
> that's
> > for sure.
> >
> > Pardon the rant,
> >
> > mike
8239 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Jon,
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> > I suppose saññaa
> > is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't
> > recognition of everything experienced be occurring
> > all
> > the time?
>
> I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent'
> is the right word for
> sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with
> every citta.
Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the
characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has
been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's
'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the
latent ability to recognize what is not being noted
(cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small
part of what it can recognize from having noted it in
the past...(?)
> > So that this 'history' is the condition
> > that makes it possible for latent perception, or
> > kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when
> > conditions
> > are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot
> > of
> > 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe
> > someday...
>
> Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is
> concerned, it is all
> accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise
> when, as you say,
> conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp,
Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation
I'm aware of...
> but we can see in our
> lives how the kilesas do pop up without the
> slightest provocation and
> despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for
> no reason other than
> that we have that particular accumulation of
> unwholesomeness (this is
> easier to see in others than in ourselves, of
> course!).
To be sure.
mike
8240 From: dalthorp
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:43am
Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth]
Hi Kenneth,
Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good
presence on the dsg.
I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's
comments. Hmmmm....
----------------------
Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about
Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now
while we are typing the emails."
----------------------
This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for
satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while
sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a
snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and
hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and
observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition
satipatthana.
---------------------
Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated
up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?"
---------------------
Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know
that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say,
that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't
do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my
words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he
serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber-
dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of
inquiry.
I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with
anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that
glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing
Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and
always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest
assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed
out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness.
--------------------
Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that,
cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness."
--------------------
Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as
something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati
can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible
objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an
opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the
diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion
that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in
moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking
at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily
helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep
concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati
cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise
from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep
concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in
everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh,
the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that
satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that
he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed
possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the
understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well,
how strong is the attachment to the cushion?
Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse
samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt
to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the
cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This
may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing
that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how
strong is the attachment to the cushion?
Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the
fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong
attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced"
and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the
subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a
particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with
pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is
unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is
so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations
cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the
attachment to the cushion?
I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of
mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with
concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to
the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion.
---------------------
Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a
ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it
seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual."
---------------------
What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the
attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular
activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a
particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the
activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong
with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala
habits. But development of insight requires something different. It
requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's
another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg
archives on cultivating right view and right effort.]
---------------------
Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this
ritual in order to practise."
---------------------
Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for
your practice, and may you find peace.
--------------------
Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative
and imperative."
--------------------
"Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do
something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a
situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative"
interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note
that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to
establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this,
the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing
the consciousness of someone when sati is established.
A simile---
Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up,
the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth."
Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt
your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth."
The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Dan
8241 From: dalthorp
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:56am
Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan)
Hi Erik,
Robert already wrote a nice post to Bhante D. entitled "Sabhava
or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo" (no. 8189) addressing some of the
issues in your question. Also, my post to Kenneth touches on some of
the issues as well.
Enjoy!
Dan
> > I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs.
> > declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting,
> but
> > the difference in meaning is tremendous.
>
> Since you seem to believe this is so critical, then I imagine you
> should have no problem describing from your own experience how you
> have found this distincion directly applicable to overcoming
dukkha.
>
> Or if you don't have any direct experience to share on this, where
> the Buddha clearly noted the importance of this to overcoming
dukkha.
8242 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 10:54am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
Thanks Sarah,
That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of
these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different angles
this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the extent
one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in life.
If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not as
important. They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at real
experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm
happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha breaks
down these realities.
Thanks again.
Best,
Robert E.
========================
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Rob E,
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> > I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat
> > quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in
> > different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than
> > one
> > canon, I suppose that is to be expected.
>
> I’m not sure we can say there is more than one canon, but I’ll leave that to
> others;-))
>
> The reason, I think, why there are different classification schemes is to
> stress different realities to be known in different contexts and with different
> audiences.
>
> We could just say that all paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) are namas
> (mental phenomena) or rupas (physical phenomena) and leave it at that. For most
> people, however, this simple classification does not give enough detail to
> really understand those realities or to understand the anattaness, impermanence
> or unsatisfactoriness of them.
>
> So, for example, when talking about the 5 khandhas of rupas (physical
> phenomena), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankhara (formations) and
> vinnana (consciousness), we have a further break down of the namas (mental
> phenomena) to help us understand that consciousness (=citta) is different from,
> but accompanied by mental factors (= cetasikas). Further more, in this
> classification, feelings and perception are given their ‘own’ aggregate to
> stress their important roles.
>
> Both arise with every single moment of consciousness. Aren’t we so very
> affected by the feelings accompanying seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and so
> on. We complain about dosa (aversion) because the feeling is unpleasant and we
> seldom object to lobha (attachment) because the feeling is usually so pleasant.
> In the same way, sanna (perception) plays a critical role. Seeing now merely
> sees its object, but it is the perception, the marking which helps give rise to
> the world of concepts in which we live (with right or wrong view). Could we
> even function for an instant without sanna? Even the arahats who have
> eradicated all kilesa still have vedana and sanna accompanying every citta .
>
> > It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke
> > down
> > even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in
> > different
> > types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his
> > understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his
> > career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get
> > clearer
> > about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't
> > particularly
> > helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different
> > suttas.
>
> I think that the classifications used on different occasions by the Buddha were
> probably perfectly clear and appropriate from the start. With his omniscience
> and wisdom, he knew at any time what would be most helpful.
>
> I don’t think it matters very much whether we remember the numbers or different
> classifications (I’ve always been hopeless at remembering the details, unlike
> Rob or Kom or Num, for example, who have a more ‘scientific’ bent). What is
> really important is to begin to understand different realities, however they
> are classified and then, whatever one reads or studies, it becomes clearer what
> is being discussed.
> >
> > The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas;
> > aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be
> > coordinated.
>
> Even here, if you look under the 4th foundation, dhammanupassana, you’ll see it
> actually includes ALL realities:
> 1. The 5 hindrances
> 2. The 5 aggregates (yes, our friends the khanhas all included here)
> 3. the 6 internal and the 6 external sense-bases
> 4. the 7 Factors of Enlightenment
> 5. the 4 Noble Truths
>
> So again, we have different realities being stressed in different
> classifications. Rupas, vedana and cittas were given their own ‘Foundation’ but
> are included again here. The hindrances (5 cetasikas) are discussed as a
> category of their own and so on. None of this is meant to be confusing or meant
> to be memorised. As I mentioned before, the Buddha discusses the different
> phenomena that can be known right now in daily life in order that we can see
> that there is no self or lasting consciousness anywhere to be found .
>
> But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual'
> > divisions
> > of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their
> > mechanics
> > and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?]
>
> YES! Very nicely put too.
> >
> > I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions
> > leads
> > to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your
> > explanation
>
> The same happens to me too. This weekend is pretty busy because I’m attending
> some yoga workshops and have a lot of work to do. I think I'll just be here for
> a few minutes and then I find I need to check a reference, start reading more
> and so on;-))
>
> Thanks for your encouragement,
>
> Sarah
>
> p.s. a minor correction here to my last post:
> > > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose,
> > tongue
> > > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) =
>
> This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the
> 5 sense doorways)
8243 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:10am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E.
Dear Herman,
Well, I would certainly agree that following the Buddha's intent and instructions
will lead you in a good direction. However, I might hasten to add that there are
a lot of different indications for how to do this. In one sutra he talks about
breathing as a base for mindfulness, gradually adding the four foundations and
moving through the 7 factors of awakening. In another he talks about being
mindful in every possible position and circumstance of life. In another he talks
about developing various supernatural powers and how to cultivate them for an
advanced stage of the path. In another he talks about breaking down every reality
in detail and the different categories that they fall into. In another he talks
about the ways in which one should live and work, etc.
Well, I guess we should do all of those things, but there is certainly a lot of
room for variation in how one emphasizes all of these factors and organizes an
actual life around them. One person may eat sparsely, spend hours reading sutras
and do one hour of meditation in the morning and one in the evening. Another
person may not meditate at all, and may try to stay aware of the distinctions in
the Abhidhamma at all times. Another may spend time doing yoga to cultivate a
good full lotus and then make sure they are sitting correctly before doing
extensive noting of breathing. Another may spent time on practicing metta and
good works, and also do some meditation. Another may go to a Buddhist temple
every day and listen to lectures on the Buddha's teaching as a way of gaining
understanding.
This of course is not even considering the different Buddhist schools which have
differen philosophies and ways of meditating or seeing realities, such as Zen,
Tibetan Buddhism, and Dzogchen. One may think that these are not the direct
methods of the Buddha, and others may think that they are advanced methods given
to advanced students. No doubt that in the Buddhist history at this point, there
have been many brilliant teachers in different Buddhist traditions who have given
different forms of practice. Whether one thinks one or another is valid is up to
each one of us, isn't it?
So when I say 'whatever works for you' I mean whatever path seems right for you.
You will find yourself on one path or another, one way or the other, so it is a
question of whether your path is congenial for your temperament and, as you say,
whether you can presume that it will eventually get you to your goal.
For myself, I have no doubt that there are enlightened people in the history of
Buddhism who practiced Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, with various emphasese
within each one of these, since each of them have a number of different practices
and possible stages of practice. So I think it's important that Christine, as
with anyone else, make a choice that is right for her. Should one contemplate the
distinctions of the Abhidhamma? Should one do sitting meditation on the breath?
Should one go through the day breaking down countless momentary realities to see
how they are really constituted? Should one read sutras and contemplate the
teachings so as to understand the Buddha's view of reality better? Should one
work systematically through the four foundations of mindfulness, looking at
sensations for a time, then switching to emotions, then looking at mind, etc.?
Should one go to a zen master and contemplate a series of koans under his
direction? Should one focus on anatta in all experiences and try to see the basic
emptiness and self-lessness of all arising experiences?
I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions should play into
any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have one answer as
to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do?
You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like. I hate to
disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the goal was like,
and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice Buddhism. So you do
have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they accord with
your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free from suffering,
with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this world really is.
I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for what
enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We wouldn't even
notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some sort of
understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there, and where we
want to wind up.
Best Regards,
Robert E.
===============================================
--- Herman wrote:
> Dear Robert E.
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> > Hi Christine.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find
> what works for
> > them.
>
> I am sorry to take just one line out of the recent discussion and to
> query you on this alone. I hope you don't mind. ( I guess it means I
> found nothing controversial in the preceding).
>
> How does one know if something works for them ? To me this implies a
> knowledge of the goal before one has started the journey ie already
> having been there previously.
>
> The reason why I would follow the prescriptions of the Buddha is
> because he has said that he has reached enlightenment, and he has
> described how he got there. When the Buddha describes the goal he has
> reached, of course I have no idea what he is talking about. I only
> imagine my imaginations to be similar to what he found along the way.
> But I acknowledge as I go, that I know nothing, and need to shed even
> that. But back to sitting. When I sit, am I on the way to
> enlightenment? The Buddha says so, he's been there and I haven't.
>
> Simplistic? I don't think so. Simply an acknowledgement that a Buddha
> is one who knows.
>
>
> Love
>
> Herman
8244 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:20am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Rob E
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> > But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his
> > immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and
> practiced
> > mindfulness meditation?
> > So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no?
>
> As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general
> use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance
> from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment.
>
> Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have
> said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient
> commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes,
> I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found.
>
> Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle
> this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is,
> unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our
> accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper
> judgment.
>
> Jon
Dear Jon,
Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus quite a bit,
as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but on the
other hand, it is possible that it does.
While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the fact that
he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get into, it has
to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult posture
if it had no significance?
Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans consider
the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies to align
properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation when
meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things, it may be
that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely his. But it
may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a proper way
of sitting for meditation or contemplation.
I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to sit, but
should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not?
Best Regards,
Robert E.
================================
8245 From: rikpa21
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:32am
Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth]
--- Dan D wrote:
> This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for
> satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while
> sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a
> snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and
> hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it,
and
> observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition
> satipatthana.
Dan, it appears we agree completely on this point.
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated
> up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?"
> ---------------------
>
> Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know
> that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I
say,
> that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't
> do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of
my
> words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he
> serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber-
> dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of
> inquiry.
Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be
obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a
very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system,
of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan
recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross-
examination a witness on the stand.
This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because
it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not
taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the
course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent
opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self
in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion.
The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to
stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about
turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only
one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure.
> I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As
with
> anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until
that
> glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing
> Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and
> always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik?
Rest
> assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed
> out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness.
And you have to admit, this has been some really good back-and-forth
on essential points of Dhamma as of late.
> Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as
> something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life.
In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan
within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :)
> Sati
> can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible
> objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an
> opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the
> diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly.
I agree. To use a concrete experience from my own life, I take "panic
attacks". Anyone who's ever had the wonderful opportunity for
satipatthana these present will know what I'm talking about. It was
going into states of "panic" that helped really illustrate
what the deeper nature of satipatthana is all about, in particular by
seeing how it's possible to disengage the arising of bodily
sensations presaging a panic attack from a sense of "self". The
problem with a panic attack is not with the sensations that arise,
but with identifying these sensations with a "self" that suffers
them, which leads to a vicious feedback-loop that only serves as the
conditions for increasing panic.
Being subject to panic attacks at one point in my practice was
one of the most incredible blessings I've ever had in terms
of discovering how it's possible to neutralize panic using
the understanding of impermanance, but especially, no-self,
and applying the foundations of mindfulness to the bodily
"trigger" sensations arising (which served as a condition for
the arising of severe dukkha in the form of panic).
There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for
panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a
massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was
deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The
degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the
panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years
ago, for example, so this was excellent training.
In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any
unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile
through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former
Khmer Rouge stronghold recently. This was a place my Cambodian
companion, who'd fought the KR in combat, was utterly terrified of
going into with me--as the names may have changed, but the attitudes
haven't. This was as a passport and cash-carrying American--for whom
the KR have an unusual antipathy--walking side-by-side with the
daughter of a former KR. There was only a moment of initial
apprehension after hearing my friend say that he was too scared
to come along, and that I should turn back (we had seen the former
head of the KR cadres on the way to this village, who'd stopped his
moto to "chat" with us, by the way, which I think provoked my
friend's fear even more). It was having trained in confronting fear
and panic with the tool of satipatthana that enabled the noting of
the arising of sensations normally associated with fear without
clinging to it, and in so doing, the sensation that normally triggers
a "fear" response, like all impermanent things, ceased, and never
resurfaced once afterward.
That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training
(though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There
was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding
that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and
that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of
these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of
understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how
this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the-
by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman
I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most
incredible moments of this short life!)
> The notion
> that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in
> moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking
> at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are
necessarily
> helpful can be dangerous.
Agreed. However, the point I was making was that we have to
diligently *train* the mind to get to the point of having sati amidst
daily activities. This isn't something that just happens without
serious training, at least not in my experience, and not in the
experience of teachers I greatly admire.
So while I agree that to believe mindfulness can only happen on the
cushion is unhelpful, ultimately, until mindfulness is truly
developed by this type of practice (the reason the Buddha and every
teacher I've studied with has recommend this approach), to think it
possible to dispense with this training is to pretend it's possible
to run before having learned to walk.
That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts.
Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the
mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without
training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around. But in practical
terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the
noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice
(even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and
ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to
cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html
> Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the
> fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong
> attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced"
> and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for
the
> subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a
> particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with
> pleasant feeling.
Any good teacher should be able to help the student see past this
clinging with some gentle reminders. Proper training in meditation
should include a very clear list of the dangers that can arise, I
think, and in the case of meditation, the role of a qualified
meditation instructor is indispensible.
> But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations
> cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the
> attachment to the cushion?
This gets into "near enemies"--lobha masquerading as kusala. I've had
these battles many times (and still do, though I'm getting better
and better at seeing them for what they are). Not just regarding
pleasant sensations in meditation--which never proved a big problem
for me since this body rarely "feels" somanassa at all, and domanassa
is the predominant condition of experience--perhaps due to chemistry.
There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one
occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source
of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there
is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha?
Wisdom, as they say, arises from experience. And experience arises
from making mistakes. So making mistakes isn't bad in & of itself.
Not knowing how to profit from them is.
I think that if practice is going well, if one is training under
experienced teachers and places enough trust in their judgment to
apply their instructions as diligently as possible, there will still
be mistakes and learning, since the map is most definitely not the
territory, and the territory will throw out surpises in the process
of exploration.
But any mistakes will not become fatal hindarnces, and be overcome
far more readily and not become the sticking-points they might
otherwise become. That is where I really think the role of kalyana-
mitrata comes in, because having the guidance of someone who's not
only studied the maps, but more important, actually covered that
territory, is necessary, I think. And this is exactly why I am so
grateful to my teachers for their tireless guidance.
8246 From: Sarah
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:55am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise
Hi Herman,
Welcome back;-))
--- Herman wrote:
I'm leaving the role of knees in the enlightenment process to others, but
regardless of whether one sees a cross-legged position as important or not, I
know from years of problematic-knee-experience that they're worth taking care
of;-))
>
> NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine.
Glad to hear about yr ixcellent trip and intact knees. NZ sounds like a pretty
good place to hang out these days (months? years?). I don't suppose you bumped
into Rob K...
As you'll have seen, we're all finding plenty to discuss/debate. Still no news
from your nearest neighbour, Antony Brennan. What else? Erik's phenomenal
typing speed may have reduced a little (probably because the rest of our
combined brain cells and fingers cannot keep up with him;-)
Anyway, glad to have you back and appreciating your discussion here with Rob E
and others. Keep it up!
Sarah
8247 From: KennethOng
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:58am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth]
Dan,
Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be like computers just taking instructions or programming codes.
With kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of the email.
dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth,
Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good
presence on the dsg.
I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's
comments. Hmmmm....
----------------------
Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about
Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now
while we are typing the emails."
----------------------
This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for
satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while
sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a
snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and
hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and
observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition
satipatthana.
---------------------
Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated
up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?"
---------------------
Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know
that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say,
that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't
do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my
words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he
serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber-
dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of
inquiry.
I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with
anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that
glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing
Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and
always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest
assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed
out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness.
--------------------
Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that,
cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness."
--------------------
Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as
something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati
can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible
objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an
opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the
diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion
that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in
moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking
at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily
helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep
concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati
cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise
from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep
concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in
everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh,
the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that
satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that
he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed
possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the
understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well,
how strong is the attachment to the cushion?
Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse
samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt
to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the
cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This
may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing
that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how
strong is the attachment to the cushion?
Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the
fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong
attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced"
and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the
subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a
particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with
pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is
unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is
so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations
cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the
attachment to the cushion?
I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of
mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with
concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to
the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion.
---------------------
Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a
ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it
seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual."
---------------------
What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the
attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular
activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a
particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the
activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong
with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala
habits. But development of insight requires something different. It
requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's
another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg
archives on cultivating right view and right effort.]
---------------------
Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this
ritual in order to practise."
---------------------
Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for
your practice, and may you find peace.
--------------------
Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative
and imperative."
--------------------
"Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do
something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a
situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative"
interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note
that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to
establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this,
the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing
the consciousness of someone when sati is established.
A simile---
Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up,
the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth."
Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt
your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth."
The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Dan
8248 From: Sarah
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:15pm
Subject: Kenneth's intro
Dear Kenneth,
Thanks a lot for all the info you cared to share with us. I have a dear
(Chinese) friend here in Hong Kong who also follows Pure Land practise. Now I
know a little more about it. I have to say it sounds a little like a fantasy
land to me, but don't we all have our fantasy lands?
--- KennethOng wrote: >
> Dear Sarah,
> I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few
> years of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn
> Thervada also because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I
> also learn a lot of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and
> I have benefitted greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in
> understanding Mahayana Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of
> them equally (oops attachment).
Well. it's good you see the attachment and it's so very, very common for us
all;-)
> Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life.
> It has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another
> attachement) :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help
> me in my life in so many ways that i cannot descibed.
I'm glad to hear this and it's how it should be...it should make life easier
rather than harder.
>But I have to admit
> that I still have many weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst
> petty and also very proud of myself.
> Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware
> and not be easily angry or proud.
Like Mike said, not self and again the weaknesses are so common....no need to
mind about them..better just to know and be aware.
>My mindful periods are very brief, morning
> mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period
> starts when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after
> work till late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also
> on the hand does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply
> be appreciated.
Yes any mindfulnesses should help rather than hinder one's work. If one starts
slowing down or changing one's work pattern, this doesn't seem right at all to
me. However, if there is more understanding and awareness while following one's
responsibilities, it cannot but help. Any wholesome states are always useful. I
think you're already finding it useful to read and consider here and perhaps
because of the emphasis some of us encourage in daily life, this will help.
You mentioned in your subsequent post that you have a lot of fear of future
lives and this is one reason for 'buying' your Pure Land 'insurance' now. I'd
like to stress that we have no idea about even the next moment and there is no
self to fix it or control it in anyway. The most useful thing is to develop
awareness and understanding and all kinds of skilful states now which will
'fix' the future accordingly without having to think about it or cling to it or
be afraid of it.
>Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend
> after family commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
I have the opposite problem...I teach all day Saturday, I'm usually exhausted
and have chores to do on Sundays and also like to hike and look in here. Why
not just give me some of your spare time? I'm joking of course. We'd love to
see plenty from you here at weekends;-))
> Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring
> sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this
> chat group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could
> learn a lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take
> this opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple
> here who contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of
> Buddhism and practises.
Thanks Kenneth. I'm sure we'll all learn plenty from you as well, including
your pleasant and polite manners and good reminders of right speech.
> My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am
> a Singaporean.
I thought you must be either in Sing or Taiwan as we only have Ngs here and not
Ongs;-) Let us know if you visit HK anytime.
Btw, I think it was a good reminder you gave to everyone to put a name at the
end of posts. If you also put a name at the start of your posts, as you did
with this one (e.g Sarah, Dan or All) that would be helpful too.
Thanks again Kenneth and I'm enjoying all your correspondence with others.
Sarah
8249 From: Herman
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E.
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dear Herman,
> I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions
should play into
> any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have
one answer as
> to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do?
>
Well put Robert. No , I don't have an answer to that. In the case of
JC I would have said that the prescription was "to love" and thereby
discover what love is.
In the case of the Buddha I could generalise from my strictly limited
knowledge and say that he advised to foster awareness, but I honestly
wouldn't feel comfortable making that statement. I do think that the
Buddha spent most of his life (after leaving the wife and kids :-) )
cross-legged, and that this would in itself be a suggestion as to how
to proceed. I can see that the physical inactivity that comes with
sitting with eyes closed would naturally lead to awareness of
mentation (or just plain awareness).
Having said all this I do not deny any one the approach they take.
> You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like.
I hate to
> disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the
goal was like,
> and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice
Buddhism. So you do
> have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they
accord with
> your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free
from suffering,
> with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this
world really is.
I wonder whether we have some instinctive knowledge of the goal as
you suggest, or whether we are subtly aware of the unease that comes
with investing in belief systems that do not correlate with reality
ie belief in a self (ego) and the wholeness and permanence of
phenomena? And that the search for the path is a desire to eliminate
the unease that is subtly felt? An escape from the undesirable rather
than a search for the desirable?
This could explain the multiplicity of paths, not just in Buddhism,
but in all cultures and faiths. What is common is suffering and
unease, what is uncertain or not agreed on is the way out.
>
>
> I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for
what
> enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We
wouldn't even
> notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some
sort of
> understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there,
and where we
> want to wind up.
>
> Best Regards,
> Robert E.
>
All the best, Robert
Herman
8250 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:30pm
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> >
> Dear Jon,
> Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full
lotus quite a bit,
> as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance,
but on the
> other hand, it is possible that it does.
>
> While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that
the fact that
> he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to
get into, it has
> to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a
difficult posture
> if it had no significance?
>
> __________________
Dear Robert E.
I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some
among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including
a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude...
This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this
applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses
then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed.
However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the
most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the
Visuddhimagga Viii
211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is
successful
only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation
subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on
giving it
his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult,
difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of
Buddhas,
paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial
matter,
nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." .
Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of
vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good
points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm
meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other
wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable
object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for
insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have
come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of
jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way -
as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development
of vipassana.
All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have
the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan
mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the
eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana.
One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little
more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana.
This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't
want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting
crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or
read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel
the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the
degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all
paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit
quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations,
their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for
insight.
Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that
is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour
are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few
people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of
colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following
mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with
wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be
ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self
perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or
computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna
(insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can
understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination
(paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the
breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen
robert
8251 From: Herman
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth]
Dear Kenneth Dan et al,
Life is full of distractions, and much human activity is purposely
expended on creating more distractions. When the suttas were written
there was no TV, radio, computers, Internet and tourism and marketing
were not fashionable.
I cannot but think that practise in daily life today has less fertile
soil in which to be grounded than when the Buddha lived. A cursory
glimpse of awareness here and there, in between hours of captivating
but meaningless activity is how I would describe my situation.
A layman today is not the layman the Buddha would have addressed.
Extrapolating from the Buddha's sayings, from the Buddha's time and
culture, whether it be declarative or imperative, is asking for
irrelevant conclusions. Given the pace of urban life, I would have
thought that the ability to pursue formal meditation, coupled with
practise in daily life, would be like an invitation to an oasis. Why
reject it?
It seems strange to hear of the dangers of the cushion. I'd rather be
attached to the fruits of concentration than to the Nintendo, Oracle
financials or IIS security patches :-)
This is not a reply to a specific point or person, just my two bits
worth, thats all :-)
Herman
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Dan,
> Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that
satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every
breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple
like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we
should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment.
Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction
to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the
explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha
usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples
as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be
like computers just taking instructions or programming codes.
>
>
> With kindest regards
>
> Kenneth Ong
>
> P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of
the email.
>
>
>
> Dan D wrote: Hi Kenneth,
> Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good
> presence on the dsg.
>
> I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's
> comments. Hmmmm....
>
> ----------------------
> Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about
> Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now
> while we are typing the emails."
> ----------------------
>
> This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for
> satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while
> sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a
> snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and
> hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it,
and
> observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition
> satipatthana.
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated
> up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?"
> ---------------------
>
> Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know
> that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I
say,
> that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't
> do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of
my
> words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he
> serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber-
> dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of
> inquiry.
>
> I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As
with
> anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until
that
> glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing
> Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and
> always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik?
Rest
> assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed
> out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness.
>
> --------------------
> Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that,
> cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness."
> --------------------
>
> Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as
> something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life.
Sati
> can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible
> objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an
> opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the
> diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion
> that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in
> moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking
> at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are
necessarily
> helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep
> concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati
> cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise
> from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep
> concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise
in
> everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh,
> the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that
> satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think
that
> he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed
> possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the
> understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level?
Well,
> how strong is the attachment to the cushion?
>
> Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily
confuse
> samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may
attempt
> to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the
> cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise.
This
> may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing
> that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well,
how
> strong is the attachment to the cushion?
>
> Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the
> fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong
> attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced"
> and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for
the
> subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a
> particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with
> pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is
> unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all
is
> so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations
> cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the
> attachment to the cushion?
>
> I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of
> mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with
> concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to
> the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion.
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a
> ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it
> seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual."
> ---------------------
>
> What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the
> attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular
> activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a
> particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the
> activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong
> with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala
> habits. But development of insight requires something different. It
> requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's
> another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg
> archives on cultivating right view and right effort.]
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this
> ritual in order to practise."
> ---------------------
>
> Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for
> your practice, and may you find peace.
>
> --------------------
> Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by
declarative
> and imperative."
> --------------------
>
> "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do
> something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a
> situation. In the context of the satipatthana post,
the "imperative"
> interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note
> that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to
> establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this,
> the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing
> the consciousness of someone when sati is established.
>
> A simile---
>
> Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up,
> the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth."
>
> Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt
> your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth."
>
> The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta.
>
> Dan
>
>
8252 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth]
Dear Ken,
Just wanted to say (again?) that it's really good to
have you on this list. Remember that talk about
bhaavanaa (cultivation) is one of the three kinds of
kusala speech (along with silaa (morality) and daana
(generosity) (sorry that I can't cite the source of
this--anyone?). So I hope you won't 'let go' of these
emails on general principle (that is, because of the
idea that letting go is good in general)...
mike
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Dan,
> Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I
> agree with you that satipatthana is practise in
> everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of
> our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp
> for pple like me who has a restless mind like a
> monkey. It is true that we should not attached to
> mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just
> like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind
> of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of
> it someday). Thanks for the explanation on
> imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha
> usually like to use declarative in his instructions
> to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to
> think and reflect and not to be like computers just
> taking instructions or programming codes.
>
>
> With kindest regards
>
> Kenneth Ong
>
> P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using
> names at the end of the email.
>
>
>
> dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth,
> Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You
> are a good
> presence on the dsg.
>
> I have a few comments on your comments on my
> comments about Erik's
> comments. Hmmmm....
>
> ----------------------
> Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here
> discussing about
> Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising
> it right now
> while we are typing the emails."
> ----------------------
>
> This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate
> objects for
> satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and
> fall while
> sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back
> and forth at a
> snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for
> satipatthana, and
> hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it,
> discussing it, and
> observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can
> help condition
> satipatthana.
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic
> kind of heated
> up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental
> formations?"
> ---------------------
>
> Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being
> direct. I know
> that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of
> anything that I say,
> that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in
> him, that he won't
> do anything rash or harmful to himself or other
> beings because of my
> words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to
> Erik, and he
> serves it right back at me---maybe even harder!
> Erik's a good cyber-
> dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy
> spirit of
> inquiry.
>
> I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does
> domanassa arise? As with
> anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to
> happen until that
> glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when
> discussing
> Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never
> intensely, and
> always short-lived. The interaction is mostly
> joyful. And Erik? Rest
> assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as
> Sarah has pointed
> out. No need to be averse to our private
> playfulness.
>
> --------------------
> Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point
> out is that,
> cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of
> mindfullness."
> --------------------
>
> Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing
> satipatthana as
> something that happens on the cushion and not in
> everyday life. Sati
> can arise at any time, and a wide variety of
> phenomena are possible
> objects. When this is understood clearly, every
> moment becomes an
> opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to
> Dhamma and the
> diligence with which it is pursued increases
> markedly. The notion
> that satipatthana requires the special phenomena
> that may arise in
> moments of deep concentration while sitting
> cross-legged or walking
> at a snail's pace, or even that the special
> phenomena are necessarily
> helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link
> between deep
> concentration and satipatthana, and may even be
> convinced that sati
> cannot arise without that still, deep concentration
> that may arise
> from time to time on the cushion or even that the
> still, deep
> concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for
> sati to arise in
> everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think
> it's possible! Oh,
> the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion,
> those times that
> satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a
> meditator to think that
> he's safe from this danger because he believes that
> it is indeed
> possible for sati to arise in everyday situations,
> but has the
> understanding advanced beyond a superficial
> intellectual level? Well,
> how strong is the attachment to the cushion?
>
> Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can
> so easily confuse
> samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the
> mind may attempt
> to establish sati by trying to reproduce the
> conditions of the
> cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing
> sati to arise. This
> may go on for years and years without the meditator
> ever realizing
> that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way.
> Not me." Well, how
> strong is the attachment to the cushion?
>
> Another danger of the cushion is that the special
> phenomena, the
> fruits of concentration can readily become objects
> of strong
> attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite
> "advanced"
> and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there
> craving for the
> subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration?
> This is a
> particularly difficult danger because lobha may be
> associated with
> pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize
> because it is
> unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is
> kusala because all is
> so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant
> sensations
> cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how
> strong is the
> attachment to the cushion?
>
> I'm not cautioning against being attached to the
> practice of
> mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing
> mindfulness with
> concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala,
> becoming attached to
> the special conditions and special experiences of
> the cushion.
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like
> everything is a
> ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of
> your view, it
> seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual."
> ---------------------
>
> What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity
> itself but the
> attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that
> a particular
> activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by
> engaging in a
> particular activity one will make spiritual
> progress? If so, the
> activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing
> really wrong
> with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for
> developing kusala
> habits. But development of insight requires
> something different. It
> requires establishment of right view and right
> effort, but that's
> another topic. [There are a number of excellent
> posts in the dsg
> archives on cultivating right view and right
> effort.]
>
> ---------------------
> Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I
> really need this
> ritual in order to practise."
> ---------------------
>
> Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits.
> Best wishes for
> your practice, and may you find peace.
>
> --------------------
> Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you
> mean by declarative
> and imperative."
> --------------------
>
> "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling
> someone to do
> something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact
> statement about a
> situation. In the context of the satipatthana post,
> the "imperative"
> interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When
> doing that, note
> that") would be that the Buddha was giving
> instructions for how to
> establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation
> ("When doing this,
> the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha
> was describing
> the consciousness of someone when sati is
> established.
>
> A simile---
>
> Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of
> the lips turn up,
> the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from
> the mouth."
>
> Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip
> corners up, tilt
> your head back, and make a joyous noise come out
> your mouth."
>
> The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana
> Sutta.
>
> Dan
>
>
8253 From: dalthorp
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:30pm
Subject: Back to hiatus
I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be checking in with dsg
until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the interesting
discussions unfolding!
Dan
8254 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Back to hiatus
Dan,
Miss you already (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
& despair are born from one who is dear, come
springing from one who is dear).
I know you're busy but hope you don't underestimate
the value of your contributions here.
mike
--- dalthorp wrote:
> I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be
> checking in with dsg
> until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the
> interesting
> discussions unfolding!
>
> Dan
8255 From: Anders Honore
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:53pm
Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Anders -
>
> In a message dated 9/14/01 6:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> <> writes:
>
> > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
> >
> =========================
> Could you please be more detailed in this reference?
From "SN 4" I
> have no idea of where to look.
I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
> I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I
have read the
> Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
Nipata, the
> Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come
across this,
> and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think
this is an
> important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is
> impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
unacceptable.
I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific
info. I'll get back to you later this week.
8256 From: Howard
Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 5:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Thanks, Anders.
With metta,
Howard
In a message dated 9/24/01 8:54:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Anders writes:
> > Could you please be more detailed in this reference?
> From "SN 4" I
> > have no idea of where to look.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
>
> > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I
> have read the
> > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
> Nipata, the
> > Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come
> across this,
> > and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think
> this is an
> > important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is
> > impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
> unacceptable.
>
> I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific
> info. I'll get back to you later this week.
>
>
/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)
8257 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:10am
Subject: conditionality
Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the monks to see
conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses this as a
mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a P.T.S.
translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I found it
such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking at the
news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities that are
conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote before
that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a good
reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes, sound
through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about the
news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about stories, we
lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes there can
be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense.
Nina.
8258 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 3:23am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Dear Robert,
I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that I think it is well composed
and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of really interesting questions.
I see some possibilities in it that are very interesting, some important
quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably from my own confusion about
the topics -- which I would love to have clarified.
I will go through this more slowly and send you a detailed post in the next day or
two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think your basic points are very
interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the breath is such a
difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for almost every
meditation system in every culture.
I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu meditation class or
centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So the fact that
it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is extremely funny to me.
It must be some kind of cosmic joke.
I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is that it is the
bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, and so brings
a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems that are
interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification find that the
breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I think that
appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's vitality, capability
and awareness all together.
In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not particularly
interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind and its
objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, not less advanced
than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me to be
attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities and their
apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can someone who does
not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt
it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the moment and at
least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but even this requires
a sharp intellect.
In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate reality of
contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a particular way.
This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual exercise. It
attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as real, but at
the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be pretty sharp.
But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more basic for most
people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting.
Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get back with a
detailed inquiry soon!
[can you tell how excited I am by this topic?]
Best Regards,
Robert E.
============================
--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Dear Jon,
> > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full
> lotus quite a bit,
> > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance,
> but on the
> > other hand, it is possible that it does.
> >
> > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that
> the fact that
> > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to
> get into, it has
> > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a
> difficult posture
> > if it had no significance?
> >
> > __________________
> Dear Robert E.
> I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some
> among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including
> a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude...
> This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this
> applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses
> then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed.
> However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the
> most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the
> Visuddhimagga Viii
> 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is
> successful
> only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation
> subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on
> giving it
> his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult,
> difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of
> Buddhas,
> paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial
> matter,
> nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." .
>
> Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of
> vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good
> points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm
> meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other
> wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable
> object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for
> insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have
> come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of
> jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way -
> as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development
> of vipassana.
> All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have
> the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan
> mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the
> eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana.
>
> One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little
> more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana.
> This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't
> want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting
> crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or
> read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel
> the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the
> degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all
> paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit
> quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations,
> their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for
> insight.
>
> Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that
> is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour
> are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few
> people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of
> colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following
> mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with
> wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be
> ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self
> perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or
> computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna
> (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can
> understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination
> (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the
> breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen
>
> robert
>
8259 From: m. nease
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 5:04am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Dear Robert,
Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my
butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the
beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of
Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a
large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The
only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months
of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing,
being taught and being instructed--no meditation of
any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with
this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for
another month, still with only the mention of teaching
and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks
are said to have been making 'grand, successive
distinctions'--impressive words coming from the
Buddha.
It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to
his great satisfaction for four months straight
(making grand and successive distinctions the while)
that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of
this that I think is often overlooked is the rather
exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by
having been taught and instructed (largely by
arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are
quite up to this standard...
mike
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that
> I think it is well composed
> and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of
> really interesting questions.
> I see some possibilities in it that are very
> interesting, some important
> quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably
> from my own confusion about
> the topics -- which I would love to have clarified.
>
>
> I will go through this more slowly and send you a
> detailed post in the next day or
> two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think
> your basic points are very
> interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the
> fact that the breath is such a
> difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object
> of choice for almost every
> meditation system in every culture.
>
> I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga,
> or Hindu meditation class or
> centre that didn't give breathing as the object of
> meditation! So the fact that
> it is supposed to be only for the most advanced
> students is extremely funny to me.
> It must be some kind of cosmic joke.
>
> I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so
> many systems is that it is the
> bridge between awareness, life, physicality and
> outer envirnonment, and so brings
> a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from
> this, systems that are
> interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and
> intensification find that the
> breath is a vehicle for opening up the
> psychophysical system, and I think that
> appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the
> person's vitality, capability
> and awareness all together.
>
> In any case, the only systems I have encountered
> that are not particularly
> interested in the breath are the ones that are
> confronting the mind and its
> objects more directly, and this seems to me to be
> more advanced, not less advanced
> than working with the breath. For instance,
> abhidhamma seems to me to be
> attempting the kind of specific breakdown of
> objective realities and their
> apprehension that is only really suited for a
> philosopher. Can someone who does
> not have an intellectual bent really follow the
> sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt
> it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at
> objects in the moment and at
> least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the
> moment, but even this requires
> a sharp intellect.
>
> In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and
> the immediate reality of
> contact, perception and thought are also directly
> confronted in a particular way.
> This is also in some ways an intellectual's
> anti-intellectual exercise. It
> attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts
> of realities as real, but at
> the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind
> has to be pretty sharp.
>
> But anyone can do breathing meditation on some
> level. It is more basic for most
> people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very
> interesting.
>
> Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more
> questions. I'll get back with a
> detailed inquiry soon!
>
> [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?]
>
> Best Regards,
> Robert E.
>
> ============================
>
> --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> > --- Robert Epstein
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > Dear Jon,
> > > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did
> sit in the full
> > lotus quite a bit,
> > > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have
> any significance,
> > but on the
> > > other hand, it is possible that it does.
> > >
> > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the
> posture, I think that
> > the fact that
> > > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has
> never been easy to
> > get into, it has
> > > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would
> everyone use a
> > difficult posture
> > > if it had no significance?
> > >
> > > __________________
> > Dear Robert E.
> > I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I
> noted that some
> > among the objects of samatha do require special
> conditions including
> > a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet
> place, solitude...
> > This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga.
> In particular this
> > applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the
> object one chooses
> > then these conditions are necessary if one wants
> to succeed.
> > However, we should know that anapanasati is
> singled out as being the
> > most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a
> passage from the
> > Visuddhimagga Viii
> > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter
> what, is
> > successful
> > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet
> any meditation
> > subject other than this one gets more evident as
> he goes on
> > giving it
> > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing
> is difficult,
> > difficult to develop, a field in which only the
> minds of
> > Buddhas,
> > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is
> no trivial
> > matter,
> > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." .
> >
> > Also one should understand the difference bettwen
> the development of
> > vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today
> for some good
> > points). For the one who is truly at home with
> samatha bhavana (calm
> > meditation) then that has to be an object for
> insight as well other
> > wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered
> a preferable
> > object but rather that all objects should be known
> as they are for
> > insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his
> biggest insights have
> > come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one
> who is a master of
> > jhana would have to see those very pleasant
> objects in the same way -
> > as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object
> for the development
> > of vipassana.
> > All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the
> path, so if we have
> > the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good
> . But easy, as dan
> > mentioned, to get confused about the difference
> between sati(of the
> > eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and
> vipassana.
> >
> > One can have subtle desire for just a little more
> calmness, a little
> > more clarity of mind. And if so one is not
> developing vipassana.
> > This slight desire moves one out of the present
> moment - one doesn't
> > want to see what is there at this very moment. If
> we are sittting
> > crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to
> have awareness, or
> > read a Dhamma book, then that would show a
> misunderstanding. I feel
> > the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to
> vippasana bhavana to the
> > degree that there is understanding of the objects
> for sati (all
> > paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going
> to want to sit
> > quietly more than others. But it should be by
> their accumulations,
> > their nature, rather than because they think it is
> the condition for
> > insight.
> >
> > Also it takes time for everyone to understand how
> to be aware: that
> > is to be aware without craving for some
> experience. Seeing and colour
> > are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and
> again and yet so few
> > people seem to be interested in these objects. But
> why? Because of
> > colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up
> in the following
> > mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in
> association with
> > wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing
> then there will be
> > ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe
> (attasanna -self
> > perception) that one sees people, friends,
> enemies, neutral ones, or
> > computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences
> colours. Panna
> > (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and
> other factors can
> > understand this and break the wheel of dependent
> origination
> > (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to
> be watching the
> > breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to
> happen
> >
> > robert
> >
> >
8260 From: Jinavamsa
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 11:46am
Subject: Re: conditionality
hello Nina,
I see no one has as yet replied to you. I do not find what is
apparently the passage you are referring to. In any case, I
can add a bit: M.iii.19 corresponds to MN #109, from within
sect. 13 to within sect. 15. The sutta is divided overall
into 18 sects., by way of contextualization. I don't know
if that helps. Is the citation correct?
with metta,
jinavamsa
=============
--- Nina van Gorkom wrote:
> Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the
monks to see
> conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses
this as a
> mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a
P.T.S.
> translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I
found it
> such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking
at the
> news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities
that are
> conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote
before
> that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a
good
> reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes,
sound
> through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about
the
> news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about
stories, we
> lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes
there can
> be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense.
> Nina.
8261 From: rikpa21
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:03pm
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- "m. nease" wrote:
Mike,
> It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to
> his great satisfaction for four months straight
> (making grand and successive distinctions the while)
> that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of
> this that I think is often overlooked is the rather
> exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by
> having been taught and instructed (largely by
> arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are
> quite up to this standard...
That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike!
Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a real shot at
getting out of samsara, what is the condition for the type of effort
needed pursue and develop the path to completion? How does this
attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or where does the
Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude profits?
How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth (let alone the
rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the Dhamma), not to
mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara, does thinking like
this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing of self and other
in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of samvega and pasada in
what was just said?
http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html
Is there now enough training in the basics of the Dhamma that
anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a practice the Buddha
was "content at heart with". I have never heard the Buddha so praise
any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there is enough samvega
to enter the homeless life. But is there enough samvega to inspire an
even greater urgency to the degree that there is no place given to
the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too difficult"--to cast that
belief aside that compares self and other to the degree of actual
discouragement?
It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons not to engage this
practice (which is again the very first of the Four Foundations of
Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has ever suggested is
optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am not advanced
enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can liberation possibly
come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm not trying to
bust your chops, but asking.
8262 From: Larry
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:46pm
Subject: Re: conditionality
Hi Nina,
I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up
in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive
search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original
reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya
sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta
doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an
archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this
Ken guy.
Larry
---------------------------
re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
all
things."
8263 From: Sarah
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:21pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ
Dear Nina, Jina and Larry,
I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a
search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps.
this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-))
Sarah
--- Larry wrote: >
> Hi Nina,
>
> I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up
> in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive
> search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original
> reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya
> sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta
> doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an
> archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this
> Ken guy.
>
> Larry
> ---------------------------
> re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
> all
> things."
>
Ken wrote originally:
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) :-)
8264 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:26pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- "m. nease" wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my
> butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the
> beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of
> Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a
> large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The
> only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months
> of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing,
> being taught and being instructed--no meditation of
> any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with
> this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for
> another month, still with only the mention of teaching
> and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks
> are said to have been making 'grand, successive
> distinctions'--impressive words coming from the
> Buddha.
>
> It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to
> his great satisfaction for four months straight
> (making grand and successive distinctions the while)
> that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of
> this that I think is often overlooked is the rather
> exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by
> having been taught and instructed (largely by
> arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are
> quite up to this standard...
>
> mike
Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a roomate, I would jump at it.
This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism.
After many of the lectures, the last sentence is something like: "After Hui Neng
finished speaking, the entire assembly was enlightened". Well, I would have liked
to have been there!
Robert
========================
8265 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
---
Dear Robert E.,
I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one
thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment.
For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many
ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all
personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all.
Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being
developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with
panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath
BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of
attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can
be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does
(hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't
interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even
fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment
way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the
mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that
don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically
recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may
not seem so appealing.
You wrote "Can someone who does
> not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the
abhidhamma? I doubt
> it. ""
Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been
listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They
are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are
much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is
interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I
agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as
an academic subject - but it is different once we see that
Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone
wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma.
look fwd to your further comments.
best wishes
robert
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the
breath is such a
> difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for
almost every
> meditation system in every culture.
>
> I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu
meditation class or
> centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So
the fact that
> it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is
extremely funny to me.
> It must be some kind of cosmic joke.
>
> I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is
that it is the
> bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment,
and so brings
> a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems
that are
> interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification
find that the
> breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I
think that
> appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's
vitality, capability
> and awareness all together.
>
> In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not
particularly
> interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind
and its
> objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced,
not less advanced
> than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me
to be
> attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities
and their
> apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can
someone who does
> not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the
abhidhamma? I doubt
> it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the
moment and at
> least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but
even this requires
> a sharp intellect.
>
> In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate
reality of
> contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a
particular way.
> This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual
exercise. It
> attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as
real, but at
> the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be
pretty sharp.
>
> But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more
basic for most
> people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting.
>
> Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get
back with a
> detailed inquiry soon!
>
> [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?]
>
> Best Regards,
> Robert E.
>
> ============================
8266 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ
Nina, Jina, Larry, Sarah and others
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Nina, Jina and Larry,
>
> I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing
> a
> search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it
> helps.
> this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following
> dsg.....;-))
> Sarah
> > ---------------------------
> Ken wrote originally:
> 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 have checked the book from which Ken was quoting ('What the Buddha
Taught') and the citation he gives is as in the book (p. 66).
In case this is a mistake, there is another citation to the same passage,
namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta Nikaya, PTS edition.
It might be posible to track the passage down from that.
Jon
8267 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Rob E
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight.
> Chogyam
> Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said
> something to the
> affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the
> characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree
> with the
> premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded,
> however, those
> of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of
> 'instinct' that
> such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras
> would
> particularly excite us…..
Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or
wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is
based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of
modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the
texts or commentaries?
If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a
relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an
interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an
indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of
accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous
interest in the teachings.
> …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality.
> Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever
> way one
> has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one.
> Each stage of
> the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the
> understanding, not
> just read about?
I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study
and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one
hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice
being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where
the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found
in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to,
and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings?
> My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and
> experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential
> sense of
> this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think
> there is also
> a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through
> understanding or
> practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so?
It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but
this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to
develop.
> Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood,
> practiced and
> experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the
> scriptures
> cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific
> as the
> words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not
> practiced,
> something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit
> of
> discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'.
> But I would
> think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality,
> would be a
> focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or
> perception
> through some sort of gross activity.
Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your
mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of
the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they
come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful
about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or
encourages any such interpretation.
Jon
8268 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:20pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote:
> Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle,
> understanding does condition the degree of kusala of
> the parami being developed (or rather developing), so
> paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this
> regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent
> parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma?
> (Apologies if someone has already made this clear).
I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you have a specific
reference.
In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha (published
as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Brahmajala Sutta) it is
explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the practice of the other
paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all the paramis". It is
also described as being to the other paramis as life is to the bodily
organism. I think that gives it a certain pre-eminence.
Another passage from the same section is of relevance to one of the other
current threads on our list. In dealing with the role of wisdom in the
perfection of energy parami, it says:
"Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired, since it
is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to
arouse it in the wrong way."
Note that energy is better not aroused at all than wrongly aroused.
Strong words indeed.
Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one that we probably
associate with wisdom, is this:
"Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not
the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only
provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play
and make it grow even stronger."
It might be interesting to consider the connection being made here.
> > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of
> > panna being developed
> > first or the paramis being developed first. If we
> > see the importance of
> > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of
> > kusala--including panna and
> > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the
> > occasion arises.
>
> Likewise, if the importance of developing
> understanding specifically is seen, this knowledge
> will condition the development of more paññaa
> specifically, I should think. That is, this seems to
> me to encourage a particular emphasis on understanding
> in the development of the paramis.
Yes, I believe that's what is found in the teachings.
Thanks for your useful comments, Mike.
Jon
8269 From: m. nease
Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:33pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Hi Erik,
--- rikpa21 wrote:
> That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike!
Really! I honestly hadn't thought of it that way--I
suppose it could sound that way. All I really meant,
though, was that it suggests to me that this was
regarded by the Buddha as a rather advanced practice.
Of course I could be mistaken, I am inferring this
certainly.
> Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a
> real shot at
> getting out of samsara, what is the condition for
> the type of effort
> needed pursue and develop the path to completion?
> How does this
> attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or
> where does the
> Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude
> profits?
Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't the end of
dukkha isn't attainable. I have great confidence that
it is attainable, by the complete understanding of the
four noble truths (exclusively, I think).
> How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth
> (let alone the
> rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the
> Dhamma), not to
> mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara,
> does thinking like
> this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing
> of self and other
> in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of
> samvega and pasada in
> what was just said?
I'll have to wait a bit to answer this in detail.
Certainly samvega conditions a sense of urgency--just
not necessarily to practice anapanasati (for me
anyway).
> http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html
>
> Is there now enough training in the basics of the
> Dhamma that
> anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a
> practice the Buddha
> was "content at heart with". I have never heard the
> Buddha so praise
> any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there
> is enough samvega
> to enter the homeless life. But is there enough
> samvega to inspire an
> even greater urgency to the degree that there is no
> place given to
> the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too
> difficult"--to cast that
> belief aside that compares self and other to the
> degree of actual
> discouragement?
There are so many practices and avenues described and
encouraged in the tipitaka. Just not sure that this
particular one is suitable for everyone, for the
reasons we've so often discussed here. Of course, I'm
also not certain that it isn't.
> It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons
> not to engage this
> practice (which is again the very first of the Four
> Foundations of
> Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has
> ever suggested is
> optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am
> not advanced
> enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can
> liberation possibly
> come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm
> not trying to
> bust your chops, but asking.
Only if these thoughts are correct, I think. Much
depends on our understanding of mindfulness and the
foundations of mindfulness, to be sure.
Thanks for your concern for my welfare. You may bust
my chops anytime.
mike
8270 From: Jinavamsa
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am
Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ
hello Nina, Larry, Sarah, Ken, and all,
I was looking for the passage in M.iii.19. I notice that
the sutta in question, Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, however,
is not at all there but at M.i.256-271.
That should make it easier to find the passage in question.
The Wisdom Publ. (Nyanamoli/Bodhi tr.) version has "Misguided
man, ..." not "you stupid one" , btw, .... :>)
jinavamsa
======================
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Nina, Jina and Larry,
>
> I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by
doing a
> search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case
it helps.
> this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following
dsg.....;-))
> Sarah
>
> --- <> wrote: >
> > Hi Nina,
> >
> > I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought
it up
> > in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but
archive
> > search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the
original
> > reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the
mahatanhasankhaya
> > sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta
> > doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an
> > archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down
this
> > Ken guy.
> >
> > Larry
> > ---------------------------
> > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality
everywhere in
> > all
> > things."
> >
>
> Ken wrote originally:
>
> 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) :-)
8271 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma
op 23-09-2001 15:25 schreef Jonothan Abbott op Jonothan Abbott:
>
> I was interested to read the passage below, which seems to suggest there
> are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, vinaya and abhidhamma --
> whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite coming from Khun Sujin.
> I would be interested to hear what you make of this. Do the 'methods'
> refer to practice or to the manner of teaching?
>
> --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, many times
> we discussed the methods of Sutta and
>> Abhidhamma.
>> We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas, and Suan explained
>> this
>> very well recently. Now I would like to quote from A.Sujin's Cambodian
>> talks
>> about this subject. Her approach is directed towards the practice. She
>> stresses all the time that right understanding should be developed of
>> the
>> characteristics of realities appearing now, through six doors, otherwise
>> we
>> shall only have theoretical understanding. Then we shall also understand
>> the
>> deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. The
>> method
>> of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. When you are used to the
>> idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma explained in
>> conventional
>> terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the Buddha in the suttas
>> explained about confidence, moral shame and fear of blame. These
>> accompany
>> kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us to see the benefit of
>> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of
>> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one sees the disadvantage
>> of
>> akusala. Again, the purpose is not the theory, but the practice. Now I
>> quote:
>>
>> > understanding of realities, but it should be the practice, that is the
>> development of paññå according to the method of the Suttanta, of the
>> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline for the monks .
>>
>> Question: In which way is the practice according to those three methods
>> different?
>>
>> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya deals with conduct through
>> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know that wholesome conduct
>> through body and speech is developed by kusala citta. An example of this
>> is
>> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat down without having been
>> invited by the owner of the house. When the Buddha heard of this he laid
>> down a rule that only when the owner of a place had invited the monk he
>> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to someone's house, but the
>> owner
>> has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even small matters, matters
>> that concern etiquette and manners, such as while one is eating, are all
>> explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply these. We do not need
>> to
>> sit down and consider how many more sílas in addition to the five
>> precepts
>> we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct through body and speech.
>> As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very subtle and detailed, such
>> as
>> the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, bodily pain and unhappy
>> feeling), viparinama-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and
>> sankhåra-dukkha
>> (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). We should study the
>> Suttanta
>> so that we acquire a more detailed understanding of confidence, saddhå,
>> moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. When we listen to the
>> Dhamma
>> there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We do not realize that
>> there
>> are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there in reality. Whenever
>> kusala
>> citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and ottappa, without the need to
>> think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not need to think first of
>> moral
>> shame in order that it arises and that we shall listen to the Dhamma.
>> Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there is kusala citta at that
>> moment. Thus, we should have more understanding of realities in detail.
>> With regard to the Abhidhamma method, this is in accordance with the
>> characteristics of each and every one of the realities. The practice
>> according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely knowledge of the
>> concepts
>> nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the characteristics of nåma
>> and
>> rúpa that are appearing. When satipatthåna arises there is awareness and
>> understanding of the characteristics of realities, one at a time. When
>> anger
>> arises, is there anybody who does not know this, even if he does not
>> study
>> the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess arises, is it necessary to
>> study
>> the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know it without study, but
>> they
>> take these realities for self, and they do not know that these are only
>> different dhammas. If one practises according to the Abhidhamma method
>> one
>> understands that all realities are non-self. When attachment, aversion
>> or
>> conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there is no person, no self.
>> When
>> there is the firm remembrance of the truth of anattå, a person will not
>> have
>> misunderstandings about it and believe that he can do whatever he likes
>> because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses anattå as a trick to
>> excuse his behaviour and he gives his own interpretation of this term.
>> As
>> regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp already its meaning? Or do
>> we
>> just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a considerable
>> difference in
>> the understanding of someone who merely studies the theory of the Dhamma
>> and
>> of someone who develops pañña and knows the characteristics of realities
>> as
>> they are. We should understand this correctly: if we know only terms and
>> names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that level, and we shall
>> continue
>> to know only terms. We should develop pañña so that the truth of anattå
>> can
>> be realized, in accordance with the teaching that all dhammas are
>> anattå.
>> Otherwise, to use a simile, we are like the ladle that serves the curry
>> but
>> does not know the taste of it. If we study but we do not realize the
>> true
>> nature of realities, how many lives shall we be only at that level, and
>> this
>> means that we study and then forget what we learnt.
>>
>> If we know that we study with the purpose of understanding realities at
>> this
>> very moment, then our understanding will be in accordance with our
>> ability.
>> We can understand, for example, what årammana, object, is. It is
>> impossible
>> that citta does not experience an object. Citta is the reality that
>> experiences and thus there must be something that is experienced. That
>> which is experienced can be anything, it can be citta, cetasika, rúpa or
>> nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of citta that thinks. We
>> can
>> know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality,
>> paramattha
>> dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have
>> the
>> characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true
>> characteristic.
>> When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic,
>> the
>> object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the
>> characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know
>> paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the
>> way
>> of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is
>> accumulated as the khandha of formations, sankhårakkhandha, and this is
>> a
>> condition for the growth of pañña.>
>>
>> End quote.
Nina: Dear Jon and all,
The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma is
different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the
development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of defilements.
Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always implied.
Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by these
three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since we
are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of
different aspects of the teachings.
The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have Patimokkha
samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors.
There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest is
satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded,
there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude speech,
or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad
speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from
satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules of
the Vinaya in their own situation.
In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the loss of
family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the
streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready for
it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to change,
and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five
khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post about
the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about
khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual
teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala, and
if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then people
could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should have
as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities appearing
now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study
should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge.
As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous with
understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment, aversion,
feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in the
Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in that
way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the other
defilements.
Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same
goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment.
Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a word
that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental
development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for
vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so glad
the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing them
from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores with
mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be forgetful
either, but I am most of the time forgetful.
The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as
meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of the
Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in detail
as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with these
kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects of
mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of the
nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained.
Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in
Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas.
Best wishes, Nina.
8272 From: m. nease
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Jon,
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Mike
>
> --- "m. nease" wrote:
>
> > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle,
> > understanding does condition the degree of kusala
> of
> > the parami being developed (or rather developing),
> so
> > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in
> this
> > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of
> pre-immminent
> > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma?
> > (Apologies if someone has already made this
> clear).
>
> I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you
> have a specific
> reference.
>
> In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka
> Atthakatha (published
> as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the
> Brahmajala Sutta) it is
> explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the
> practice of the other
> paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all
> the paramis". It is
> also described as being to the other paramis as life
> is to the bodily
> organism. I think that gives it a certain
> pre-eminence.
Definitely (and thanks for correcting my
'pre-immminence').
> Another passage from the same section is of
> relevance to one of the other
> current threads on our list. In dealing with the
> role of wisdom in the
> perfection of energy parami, it says:
>
> "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the
> purpose desired, since it
> is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse
> energy at all than to
> arouse it in the wrong way."
>
> Note that energy is better not aroused at all than
> wrongly aroused.
> Strong words indeed.
Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be
true of the other paramis, too. Without
understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can
be dangerous I think.
> Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one
> that we probably
> associate with wisdom, is this:
>
> "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the
> wrongs of others, not
> the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the
> wrongs of others only
> provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his
> patience into play
> and make it grow even stronger."
>
> It might be interesting to consider the connection
> being made here.
Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening
patience.
Thanks, Jon,
mike
8273 From: Lim Tai Eng.
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 7:47am
Subject: Loving Kindness
Dear All
We hope you like the attachment. A good daily morning "prayer" for all of us. It does convey a beautiful universal message.
Breathing in, I know I am breathing in,
Breathing out, I know I am breathing out,
Breathing in, I relax myself,
Breathing out, I smile.
Slowly, step by step, we will take this journey INWARDS.
Learning to Touch Peace in every step that we take.
Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu.
With Metta
LTE
8274 From: m. nease
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ
Jon, Nina, et al.,
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> In case this is a mistake, there is another citation
> to the same passage,
> namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta
> Nikaya, PTS edition.
> It might be posible to track the passage down from
> that.
I'm afraid it isn't here either. I haven't been able
to locate this phrase anyhere, so far. I'll keep you
posted.
mike
8275 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your message on the
breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very attracted to working
with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been able to meditate
much in this phase.
Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati, or URLs to look
at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-)
Best,
Robert E.
========================
--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> ---
> Dear Robert E.,
> I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one
> thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment.
> For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many
> ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all
> personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all.
>
> Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being
> developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with
> panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath
> BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of
> attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can
> be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does
> (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't
> interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even
> fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment
> way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the
> mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that
> don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically
> recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may
> not seem so appealing.
> You wrote "Can someone who does
> > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the
> abhidhamma? I doubt
> > it. ""
> Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been
> listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They
> are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are
> much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is
> interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I
> agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as
> an academic subject - but it is different once we see that
> Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone
> wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma.
> look fwd to your further comments.
> best wishes
> robert
>
>
> Robert Epstein wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> > > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the
> breath is such a
> > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for
> almost every
> > meditation system in every culture.
> >
> > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu
> meditation class or
> > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So
> the fact that
> > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is
> extremely funny to me.
> > It must be some kind of cosmic joke.
> >
> > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is
> that it is the
> > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment,
> and so brings
> > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems
> that are
> > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification
> find that the
> > breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I
> think that
> > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's
> vitality, capability
> > and awareness all together.
> >
> > In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not
> particularly
> > interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind
> and its
> > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced,
> not less advanced
> > than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me
> to be
> > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities
> and their
> > apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can
> someone who does
> > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the
> abhidhamma? I doubt
> > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the
> moment and at
> > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but
> even this requires
> > a sharp intellect.
> >
> > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate
> reality of
> > contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a
> particular way.
> > This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual
> exercise. It
> > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as
> real, but at
> > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be
> pretty sharp.
> >
> > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more
> basic for most
> > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting.
> >
> > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get
> back with a
> > detailed inquiry soon!
> >
> > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?]
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Robert E.
> >
> > ============================
>
8276 From: Larry
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:24pm
Subject: Re: conditionality
M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english
script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta
109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been
trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to
various things."
The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent
in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The
Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation.
Larry
------------------
re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
all things."
p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather
than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more
experientially accessible.
L.
8277 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:31pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Dear Jon,
A few possible points for your consideration:
If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, and why
the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn Chah or K.
Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their application, then we
can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put the sutras
into practice.
In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many cases by the
Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional
commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of understandings
and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets of wisdom
that come off the main stream, do we not?
Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I have to
consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may start out, in
order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there anything
inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely unqualified to
discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through cultivation and
referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very different
view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of discerning
anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be incorporated
and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom.
As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that panna is
passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even though they
arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing an ability
to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one progresses, I
would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to increase as
well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as nothing and
the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in training.
Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own understanding,
we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of interest or
investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth.
So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should engage with
them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, rather
than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a living document
and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a human being
and turned into their way of seeing and understanding.
I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know what they
mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and even
re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning over time
and going through our own process of discovery.
Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to me.
Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm talking
about.
Best Regards,
Robert E.
=========================
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Rob E
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> > When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight.
>
> > Chogyam
> > Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said
> > something to the
> > affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the
> > characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree
> > with the
> > premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded,
> > however, those
> > of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of
> > 'instinct' that
> > such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras
> > would
> > particularly excite us…..
>
> Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or
> wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is
> based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of
> modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the
> texts or commentaries?
>
> If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a
> relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an
> interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an
> indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of
> accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous
> interest in the teachings.
>
> > …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality.
> > Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever
> > way one
> > has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one.
> > Each stage of
> > the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the
> > understanding, not
> > just read about?
>
> I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study
> and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one
> hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice
> being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where
> the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found
> in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to,
> and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings?
>
> > My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and
> > experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential
> > sense of
> > this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think
> > there is also
> > a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through
> > understanding or
> > practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so?
>
> It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but
> this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to
> develop.
>
> > Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood,
> > practiced and
> > experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the
> > scriptures
> > cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific
> > as the
> > words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not
> > practiced,
> > something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit
> > of
> > discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'.
> > But I would
> > think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality,
> > would be a
> > focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or
> > perception
> > through some sort of gross activity.
>
> Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your
> mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of
> the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they
> come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful
> about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or
> encourages any such interpretation.
>
> Jon
8278 From: Sarah
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 2:01pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality
Larry,
Conratulations! One obviously needs quite a bit of patience and knowledge to
follow W.Rahula’s refs!
--- Larry wrote: >
> M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english
> script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta
> 109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been
> trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to
> various things."
>
> The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent
> in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The
> Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation.
OK I’m with you or rather with B.bodhi’s translation. In the same footnote (for
those who don’t have this translation) he goes on to say that Nanamoli’s
translation (based on PTS Majjhima text) reads: ‘Now, bhikkhus, you hve been
trained by me in dependent (conditionality) in various instances.’
He mentions the Pali, pa.ticca viniitaa, which I would expect to mean ‘trained
to look for causality/conditionality’. I think we need to read the line in
context of the sutta in which the Buddha admonishes a monk who seems to
appreciate the 5 khandhas are not self but still wonders what self will receive
the results of these non-self khandhas:
‘It is possible, bhikkhus, that some misguided man here, obtuse and ignorant,
with his mind dominated by craving, might think that he can outstrip the
Teacher’s Dispensation thus: ‘So, it seems, material form is not
self...consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the
not-self affect?’ Now bhikkhus, you have been trained by me.......’
In summary, B.Bodhi’s translation doesn’t say much to me, whereas the emphasis
on conditionality in Nanamoli’s and Rahula’s would seem right. I’d be
interested to see the full Pali for the original phrase quoted and better still
to have any further explanation/translation from one of our many Pali scholars
here. (Larry, you must be one yourself to have tracked it down I think;-))
> re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
> all things."
>
> p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather
> than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more
> experientially accessible.
>
Just seen this interesting note of yours, Larry. I’m wondering what the
difference would be here. As I understand it, sankhata refers any reality that
is formed or conditioned (ie all realities except nibbana) and pa.ticca refers
to conditionality and dependent nature of the same realities (i.e. no self to
be found anywhere as stressed in the sutta).
Thanks very much, Larry and again I’m impressed and delighted to read your
recent contributions. I’d like to hear anymore about your studies and dhamma
interest too;-)
Sarah
8279 From: Robert Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:19pm
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Dear Robert E.,
If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had
practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just
some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the
difficulties one may face and how one might confuse
miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right
concentration).
In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40
objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation
It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the
meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets
colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have
developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him
to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina.
If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do
this..
Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this
time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what
suits us.
Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati..
A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in
chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga.
How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways.
Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind )
about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are
doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the
dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so
brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for
the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of
contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of
feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and
understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.."
So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding
and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are
also teaching ourself and making conditions for future
reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that
breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at
any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the
Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha
is.
For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in
sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in
sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the
feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as
"my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self
view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only
phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding
is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature.
I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level)
can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think
too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it
works for me.
robert
Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your
message on the
breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very
attracted to
working
with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been
able to meditate
much in this phase.
Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati,
or URLs to look
at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-)
Best,
Robert E.
========================
--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> ---
> Dear Robert E.,
> I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular.
For one
> thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain
enlightenment.
> For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is
in many
> ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for
all
> personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended
for all.
>
> Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being
> developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated
with
> panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know
breath
> BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object
of
> attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)-
it can
> be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking
one does
> (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It
doesn't
> interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even
> fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the
attachment
> way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and
focus the
> mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati
(ones that
> don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically
> recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and
hence may
> not seem so appealing.
> You wrote "Can someone who does
> > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of
the
> abhidhamma? I doubt
> > it. ""
> Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been
> listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20
years. They
> are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in
Thai are
> much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons
one is
> interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even
aeons. I
> agree that only an intellectual would be interested in
abhidhamma as
> an academic subject - but it is different once we see that
> Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why
anyone
> wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma.
> look fwd to your further comments.
> best wishes
> robert
>
8280 From: Robert Eddison
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26pm
Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Anders:
SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
Howard:
Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no
idea of where to look.
Anders:
I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
Howard:
I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the
Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata,
the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across
this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think
this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana
is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
unacceptable.
Robert:
There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of
*dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or
phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the
Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent"
(sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka
has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context
makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being
referred to.
When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases
it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The
reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such
contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and
the latter is not impermanent).
As the Samyutta Commentary states:
'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa.
'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels
are impermanent.
'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not
self.
(SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material
(ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the
three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
(lokuttarabhuumi)]
Best wishes,
Robert Eddison
P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by
subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a
fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters.
8281 From: Sarah
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:02pm
Subject: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Dear Mike & Howard,
Sorry to butt in here a bit late ..
--- "m. nease" wrote:
> > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to
> > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise
> > after
> > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon.
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > No, I think it was a reference something to
> > the effect of the mind
> > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > adventitious defilements that is
> > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga.
----------------------------------------------------
> Mike
> Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what
> commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be
> very interested in finding this idea (an originally
> luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements)
> anywhere in the Pali canon.
-------------------------------------------------
Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com
notes on AN1 10):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
(aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from
intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s 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’.
..............................................
Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the ancient commentary to AN (not
published in English I think).
The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti
pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti
bhava"ngacitta.m.’
Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : 'luminous' is clear, pure.
'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of Nina’s translation notes and
K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of more interest now.
-------------------------------------------------
> Howard
> > (BTW, I'm not sure
> > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the
> > suttas.)
> --------------------------------------------------
>Mike
> I'm not sure either, not at all sure.
------------------------------------------------------
I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas are in the abhidhamma and
commentaries such as the Vism.
Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across this reference sometime ago,
but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it:
Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl:
‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he awake or asleep?’
‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become
light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that interval it is that dreams
are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, his mind has returned home
(has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus shut in does not act, and a
mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows
not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. Just,
O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall
even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has
returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive
knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream. For it
is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. As the miror, O king, are
you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as the light the mind.’
This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that the arahat does not dream
because there are no kilesa (defilements) which makes sense, I think.
In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that:
‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment during life whenever there
is no active cognitive process taking place. This type of consciousness is
most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it also occurs momentarily during
waking life countless times between occasions of active cognition.’
I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything about bhavanga cittas except
just a little in theory.
Sarah
8282 From: Sarah
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:18pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
Dear Rob E,
We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread
and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful
feedback.
--- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah,
> That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of
> these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different
> angles
> this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the
> extent
> one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in
> life.
> If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not
> as
> important.
Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to
express very well.
>They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at
> real
> experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm
> happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha
> breaks
> down these realities.
Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our
destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us
different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have
a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we
will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move
along.
However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may
be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no
maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way.
>
> Thanks again.
Likewise,
Sarah
8283 From: Sarah
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:41pm
Subject: Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep)
Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I
look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone
when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look
forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-)
I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd
all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your
serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane
such as where you live and so on).
We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I
think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other
ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less ..
Welcome again,
Sarah
--- Robert Eddison wrote:
> There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of
> *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or
> phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the
> Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent"
> (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka
> has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context
> makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being
> referred to.
>
> When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases
> it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The
> reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such
> contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and
> the latter is not impermanent).
>
> As the Samyutta Commentary states:
>
> 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa.
>
> 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels
> are impermanent.
>
> 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
>
> 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not
> self.
> (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
>
> ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material
> (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the
> three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> (lokuttarabhuumi)]
8284 From: m. nease
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely
mistaken, on all counts.
Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise.
What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as
though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence
which was subsequently covered by defilements (but
continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction.
I admit that Jim's translation might be read this
way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no
sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At
these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent
defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
at the moment to be covered, as I understand it.
I obviously don't understand all of this well at all,
even theoretically. But it does remind me of
something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA
Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like
the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense
citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of
the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be
pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
something like 'luminous but covered by defilements'
maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those
who know.
Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my
inane comments, Howard. I should have backtracked
more before posting my response. Even when we
disagree I value your correspondence very highly.
Thanks again, Sarah.
mike
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Mike & Howard,
>
> Sorry to butt in here a bit late ..
>
> --- "m. nease" wrote:
> > > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to
> > > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise
> > > after
> > > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the
> canon.
> > > >
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > No, I think it was a reference something
> to
> > > the effect of the mind
> > > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > > adventitious defilements that is
> > > sometimes associated in commentaries with
> bhavanga.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > Mike
> > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what
> > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd
> be
> > very interested in finding this idea (an
> originally
> > luminous mind, covered by adventitious
> defilements)
> > anywhere in the Pali canon.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts
> of mine, (referring to com
> notes on AN1 10):
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it
> is defiled by intrusive
> (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous,
> and it is freed from
> intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s 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’.
> ..............................................
> Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the
> ancient commentary to AN (not
> published in English I think).
>
> The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the
> commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti
> pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti
> bhava"ngacitta.m.’
>
> Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth :
> 'luminous' is clear, pure.
> 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.”
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of
> Nina’s translation notes and
> K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of
> more interest now.
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> > Howard
> > > (BTW, I'm not sure
> > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in
> the
> > > suttas.)
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >Mike
> > I'm not sure either, not at all sure.
>
------------------------------------------------------
>
> I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas
> are in the abhidhamma and
> commentaries such as the Vism.
>
> Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across
> this reference sometime ago,
> but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it:
>
> Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl:
>
> ‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he
> awake or asleep?’
> ‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But
> when his sleep has become
> light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that
> interval it is that dreams
> are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king,
> his mind has returned home
> (has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus
> shut in does not act, and a
> mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and
> the good, and he who knows
> not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active
> that dreams are dreamt. Just,
> O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light
> is, no shadow will fall
> even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is
> in deep sleep his mind has
> returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not
> act, and a mind inactive
> knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows
> not does not dream. For it
> is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt.
> As the miror, O king, are
> you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as
> the light the mind.’
>
> This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that
> the arahat does not dream
> because there are no kilesa (defilements) which
> makes sense, I think.
>
> In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that:
>
> ‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment
> during life whenever there
> is no active cognitive process taking place. This
> type of consciousness is
> most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it
> also occurs momentarily during
> waking life countless times between occasions of
> active cognition.’
>
> I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything
> about bhavanga cittas except
> just a little in theory.
>
> Sarah
8285 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment
Rob E
Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to
respond in kind.
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your
> description that
> you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of
> pre-existing
> or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition
> involved
> in whether a kusala or akusala moments.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the
intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say
that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the
desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but
principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various
forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the
occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond
better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding
and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen.
The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity,
similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other
kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may
*seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to
discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other
than by inference.
> However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of
> the kusala
> and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an
> effect on
> cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent
> or effort
> to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just
> the outcome
> of arising conditions and causes?
Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the
cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the
development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then
understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently
arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time.
There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the
understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching
that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it
is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and
understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the
reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object
may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door;
but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of
the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less
interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be
developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's
awareness of it.
> I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely
> passive to this
> process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting
> conditions of the
> kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices
> the
> arisings.
I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please
let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but
perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be
appropriate.
Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects.
Jon
> --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
>
> > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path.
>
> > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time,
> > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort
> is
> > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the
> > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila.
> >
> > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of
> greatest
> > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala.
> >
> > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise
> in
> > our lives, just as we should also know more about the
> non-kusala/akusala
> > moments, too.
8286 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise
Herman
Great to have you back, and in one piece, too. Glad to hear you had a
good time.
--- Herman wrote: > Hi all,
>
> I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the
> Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking.
>
> The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions
> are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider
> the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the
> method of the Buddha was seated meditation.
The Buddha's method of what? Of sitting, yes (sorry, Herman, couldn't
resist that one!). I do have a comment to make, though.
> There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated
> meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas.
>
> Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything
> the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to
> have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka??
If it was implicit in everything he said or did (in much the same way as
the suttas are to be read as referring to the realities of the present
moment), then one might expect to find this brought out in the
commentaries and other ancient texts, wouldn't you think?
Just a thought.
Jon
8287 From: m. nease
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:53pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Dear Robert,
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
> Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a
> roomate, I would jump at it.
Hey--get in line.
> This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui
> Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism.
> After many of the lectures, the last sentence is
> something like: "After Hui Neng
> finished speaking, the entire assembly was
> enlightened". Well, I would have liked
> to have been there!
This was a favorite of mine, too. Well, I'm even less
competent to comment on Mahayana texts than on
Theravada texts. So I think I'll leave this one
alone.
Best wishes,
mike
8288 From: Ken Howard
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 9:50pm
Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ
Dear Sarah
>
>
> I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by
doing a
> search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case
it helps.
> this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following
dsg.....;-))
>
Sometimes, as now, I'm a day or two behind, but I read every
message in full. What a day to miss though! I was dsg's most
wanted! Get Ken! Or, as Larry put it, "track down this Ken guy."
Just as I was about to surface with the vital information, I saw that
Jon had beaten me to it. He revealed the `second reference' hidden
in Walpola Rahula's footnotes.
I was encouraged to see that Nina shared my liking for the quote in
question and I also enjoyed your conversation with Larry about the
alternative translations. The Wisdom rendition lacked a certain
something, so it was nice to know that Rahula's version was
acceptable. Although I was joking when I said I used it as a
mantra, I do bring it to mind several times a day; it's suitable for
all occasions.
I'm glad you have raised the subject of whether I am `following
dsg.' If you knew how big a part of my daily routine it was, you'd
probably tell me to `get a life.' I would like be to more of a
contributor by nature, but as things are, I'm all too content to
follow the discussions from the sidelines.
Kind regards
Ken Howard
"I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
all things." (M III (PTS), p. 19; S III, p. 103)
8289 From: Howard
Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 6:43pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Hi, Mike (and Sarah) -
In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
mike writes:
>
> Dear Sarah,
>
> Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely
> mistaken, on all counts.
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I second your thanks for Sarah's post.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise.
> What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as
> though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence
> which was subsequently covered by defilements (but
> continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction.
> I admit that Jim's translation might be read this
> way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no
> sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At
> these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent
> defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
> at the moment to be covered, as I understand it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not
unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using
it.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I obviously don't understand all of this well at all,
> even theoretically. But it does remind me of
> something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA
> Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like
> the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
> citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense
> citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of
> the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
> 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
> cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be
> pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
> something like 'luminous but covered by defilements'
> maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those
> who know.
>
> Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my
> inane comments, Howard.
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative
characterization of your comments.
-------------------------------------------------------
I should have backtracked
> more before posting my response. Even when we
> disagree I value your correspondence very highly.
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Thanks, Mike. Likewise.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks again, Sarah.
>
> mike
>
=============================
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)
8290 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 1:01am
Subject: Ken's Mantra, conditionality
Dear Jina, thank you very much for your kind help, I found the text: You,
monks, have been trained by me (to look for conditions, paticca-vinita) now
here, now there, in these things and in those.(M.N. no. 109, 19)
I find that the translation used by Ken has more impact, it is more direct.
I do not have the Pali.
Many thanks, Nina.
8291 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 6:40am
Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
--
Welcome Robert ED.,
Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here.
best wishes
robert
- Robert Eddison wrote:
> Anders:
>
> SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
>
> Howard:
>
> Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I
have no
> idea of where to look.
>
> Anders:
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
>
> Howard:
>
> I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read
the
> Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
Nipata,
> the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come
across
> this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I
think
> this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1)
Nibbana
> is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
> unacceptable.
>
> Robert:
>
> There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is
predicated of
> *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term
or
> phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example,
the
> Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are
impermanent"
> (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
Pi.taka
> has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the
context
> makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that
are being
> referred to.
>
> When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or
phrases
> it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them.
The
> reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in
such
> contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned
dhamma (and
> the latter is not impermanent).
>
> As the Samyutta Commentary states:
>
> 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
aniccaa.
>
> 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the
three levels
> are impermanent.
>
> 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
>
> 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels
are not
> self.
> (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
>
> ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined
material
> (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels"
means the
> three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> (lokuttarabhuumi)]
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert Eddison
>
> P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by
> subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a
> fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a
backlog of letters.
8292 From: KennethOng
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:35am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Hi all,
All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert.
Three cheers for the three Roberts :)
Warmest regards
Kenneth Ong
robertkirkpatrick wrote: --
Welcome Robert ED.,
Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here.
best wishes
robert
- Robert Eddison wrote:
> Anders:
>
> SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
>
> Howard:
>
> Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I
have no
> idea of where to look.
>
> Anders:
>
> I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
>
> Howard:
>
> I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read
the
> Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
Nipata,
> the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come
across
> this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I
think
> this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1)
Nibbana
> is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
> unacceptable.
>
> Robert:
>
> There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is
predicated of
> *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term
or
> phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example,
the
> Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are
impermanent"
> (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
Pi.taka
> has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the
context
> makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that
are being
> referred to.
>
> When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or
phrases
> it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them.
The
> reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in
such
> contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned
dhamma (and
> the latter is not impermanent).
>
> As the Samyutta Commentary states:
>
> 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
aniccaa.
>
> 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the
three levels
> are impermanent.
>
> 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
>
> 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels
are not
> self.
> (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
>
> ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined
material
> (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels"
means the
> three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> (lokuttarabhuumi)]
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Robert Eddison
>
> P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by
> subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a
> fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a
backlog of letters.
8293 From: m. nease
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:50am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
Hear, hear! mn
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> All the Roberts are very good in their presentation
> and debating of views. Maybe I should consider
> naming my son as Robert.
> Three cheers for the three Roberts :)
> Warmest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> robertkirkpatrick wrote: --
>
> Welcome Robert ED.,
> Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here.
> best wishes
> robert
> - Robert Eddison wrote:
> > Anders:
> >
> > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > Could you please be more detailed in this
> reference? From "SN 4" I
> have no
> > idea of where to look.
> >
> > Anders:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere,
> and I have read
> the
> > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta
> Nikaya, the Sutta
> Nipata,
> > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very
> surprising to come
> across
> > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a
> clearer signpost. I
> think
> > this is an important matter. It would imply one of
> two things: (1)
> Nibbana
> > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of
> which the first is
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > Robert:
> >
> > There are a small number of texts in which
> impermanence is
> predicated of
> > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is
> always some term
> or
> > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of
> dhamma. For example,
> the
> > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned*
> dhammas are
> impermanent"
> > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of
> the Abhidhamma
> Pi.taka
> > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa
> aniccaa), but the
> context
> > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and
> sense objects that
> are being
> > referred to.
> >
> > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such
> limiting terms or
> phrases
> > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is
> predicated of them.
> The
> > reason for this according to the Commentaries is
> that "dhammas" in
> such
> > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the
> unconditioned
> dhamma (and
> > the latter is not impermanent).
> >
> > As the Samyutta Commentary states:
> >
> > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe
> tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
> aniccaa.
> >
> > 'All formations are impermanent' means all
> formations on the
> three levels
> > are impermanent.
> >
> > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe
> catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
> >
> > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on
> the four levels
> are not
> > self.
> > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
> >
> > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi),
> the refined
> material
> > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi).
> "Four levels"
> means the
> > three already mentioned together with the
> supramundane level
> > (lokuttarabhuumi)]
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Robert Eddison
> >
> > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the
> e-mails sent to me by
> > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was
> sick for about a
> > fortnight and am just beginning to read and
> prepare replies to a
> backlog of letters.
>
8294 From: Larry
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 11:56am
Subject: Re: conditionality
Hello Sarah,
I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an
"answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What
self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?"
Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that
actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or
perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like
that ;)
This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned,
another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la
mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned...
[sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence].
Getting in way over my head. Nice to meet you, and you too Ken.
Larry
8295 From: Binh A
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:28pm
Subject: Question on Arahant
G'day all,
I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the
definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope
you could assist in answering his enquiry .
Metta,
Binh
PS. I also posted this message to the <> list.
************************************
[...]
During my studies I came up with a question that I am not
able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone
nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism,
besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana,
how it came about and the issues around it.
Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara
I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I
inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs
like:
'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but
does not strive to perfect virtue in another'...
(the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release
(vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release).
Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in
Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali
emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself
and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of
Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of
searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages
I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the
both.
Now, this particular passage in particular different from the
others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those
factors, including release, while, at the same time does not
strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular
passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be
saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in
release) and at the same time not strive for the release of
others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of
Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that
there was a kind of Arahant.
(...)
Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so
that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha
really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds
of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another
*more complete*?
--------------
Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12)
17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave,
bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya
sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½
sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½
paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½
vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno
hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho,
bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½.
*******************************************
8296 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:35pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Howard
Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a
couple of the areas where we differ.
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
>
> In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
> > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks
> about
> > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
> > effort.
> >
> > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the
> letting
> > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that
> we
> > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
> > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an
> unwelcome
> > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
> > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it
> showed
> > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
> > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
> > akusala could not be 'right effort'.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that
> there be)
> no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of
> the
> event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until
> that
> object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for
> attention to
> return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter
> of
> *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing
> it
> or tearing the mind away.
I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular
object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object
is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the
akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to
return to the chosen object.
I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in
passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is
in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see
the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is
it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana?
Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying
attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of
control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard?
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger,
> or of
> > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
> > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional
> sense*.
> > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever
> (including
> > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
> > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Yep!
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Or there might
> > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for
> example,
> > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different
> reality
> > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation
> in
> > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
> > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible
> object
> > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the
> mind
> > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and
> are
> > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
> >
> > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
> > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously
> 'letting go
> > of' the akusala.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard.
I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have
effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain.
I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the
Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while
'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense
that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not
given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment.
I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable
thought you have put into these matters, Howard.
Jon
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it
> is
> > easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational'
> light
> > -- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had
> less
> > anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of
> the
> > anger so it must be kusala.
> >
> > Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we
> > need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there
> need
> > not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of
> some
> > level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is
> > 'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those
> > moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments
> of
> > kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of
> whatever
> > level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed
> on
> > kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by
> > natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that
> sense of
> > the word).
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever,
> neither
> pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction,
> merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation,
> diminution,
> and cessation.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to
> have*
> > kusala.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying
> mindfulness,
> focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather
> automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the
> conscious application of volition and constant remembering.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
8297 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
>
> --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
>
> > > I suppose saññaa
> > > is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't
> > > recognition of everything experienced be occurring
> > > all
> > > the time?
> >
> > I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent'
> > is the right word for
> > sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with
> > every citta.
>
> Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the
> characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has
> been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's
> 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the
> latent ability to recognize what is not being noted
> (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small
> part of what it can recognize from having noted it in
> the past...(?)
I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential there!
Thanks, Mike.
Jon
> > > So that this 'history' is the condition
> > > that makes it possible for latent perception, or
> > > kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when
> > > conditions
> > > are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot
> > > of
> > > 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe
> > > someday...
> >
> > Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is
> > concerned, it is all
> > accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise
> > when, as you say,
> > conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp,
>
> Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation
> I'm aware of...
>
> > but we can see in our
> > lives how the kilesas do pop up without the
> > slightest provocation and
> > despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for
> > no reason other than
> > that we have that particular accumulation of
> > unwholesomeness (this is
> > easier to see in others than in ourselves, of
> > course!).
>
> To be sure.
>
> mike
>
8298 From: KennethOng
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:10am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant
Hi Binh,
"Now, this particular passage in particular different from the
others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those
factors, including release, while, at the same time does not
strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular
passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be
saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in
release) and at the same time not strive for the release of
others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of
Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that
there was a kind of Arahant."
I could only answer this paragrah only
These are my humble opinions. Mahayana principle is to follow the Bodhisattva path to Buddha accomplishment of enlightment. The most difficult part for Theravadas is the difference of Mahayana view of enlightment between Arahat and Buddha. The enlightment of Arahant in Mahayana views is not the same as Buddha's enlightment because to attain Arahat enlightment, it is to let go of a self. In Mahayana teachings, Arahat still attached to an idea of a non self as a self is condition by a non self. In order to reach Buddha enlightment there is a need to let go of a non self which is much harder than letting go of a self. That is, I think partly the reasons why there are ten stages of a Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in Mahayana view, to accomplish the Buddha's enlightment, there is a need to accomplished their vows they made when they are Bodhisattvas. Most of the vows are of compassionate grounds. Only when the vows are accomplished, and they reach emptiness, then would a Bodhisttva become a Buddha.
This means we need to liberate ourselves before we need to liberate others. But the problem with most Mahayanist now are that they forget that in order to be Bodhisattva, there is a need to liberate oneself first. Please excuse my bluntness, if we do not know how to swim, how do we teach pple to swim. To be frank and honest and not against anyone here, Mahayanist practises only the spirit of Bodhisattva not the actual Bodhisattva first. Why? Because in the first place in order to be Bodhisattva we first got to let go of our self ego . A Bodhisattva has a mind that is not dwell anywhere or anything. In Mahayana word, it is emptiness. I am also practise Mahayanist path, but my humble conclusions is that most of us are following the spirit and not the actual Bodhisattva path. This is not a self defeating thought because unless we are able to cross the wheel of cycle of life, then we could really help beings on their liberation. In addition, in order to show boundless compassion towards others, we must first learn to shed our attachment to a self. Or not our compassion will still be cling on to a self. But please do not misunderstood that compassion is not impt practise, it is definitely impt even if we still have many self ego views as it help us to lessen the attach to a self.
Furthermore, it is a misconception of present day Mahayanists that Thervadas only liberate themselves. Buddhas ten highly accomplished human disciples are all thervadas practitioners. They teach Buddhism to other monks, to other layman who ask them, who other pple who happen to chance on them. We could see in the Pali Cannon that there are many stories about these Nobles ones conversations with layman and others. The first council of Buddha teachings (which mostly comprises of Thervadas) is convene partly due to have a proper recollection of Buddha teachings so that future generations like us able to benefit it.
Please forgive me if I am too direct and hurt anyone feeling here.
With kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
Binh A wrote:
G'day all,
I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the
definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope
you could assist in answering his enquiry .
Metta,
Binh
[...]
During my studies I came up with a question that I am not
able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone
nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism,
besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana,
how it came about and the issues around it.
Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara
I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I
inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs
like:
'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but
does not strive to perfect virtue in another'...
(the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release
(vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release).
Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in
Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali
emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself
and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of
Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of
searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages
I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the
both.
Now, this particular passage in particular different from the
others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those
factors, including release, while, at the same time does not
strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular
passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be
saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in
release) and at the same time not strive for the release of
others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of
Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that
there was a kind of Arahant.
(...)
Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so
that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha
really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds
of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another
*more complete*?
--------------
Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12)
17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave,
bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya
sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½
sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½
paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½
vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno
hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho,
bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½.
*******************************************
8299 From: Howard
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:24pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
> Howard
>
> Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a
> couple of the areas where we differ.
>
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> >
> > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
> > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks
> > about
> > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
> > > effort.
> > >
> > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the
> > letting
> > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that
> > we
> > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
> > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an
> > unwelcome
> > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
> > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it
> > showed
> > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
> > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
> > > akusala could not be 'right effort'.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that
> > there be)
> > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of
> > the
> > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until
> > that
> > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for
> > attention to
> > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter
> > of
> > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing
> > it
> > or tearing the mind away.
>
> I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular
> object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object
> is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the
> akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to
> return to the chosen object.
>
> I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in
> passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is
> in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see
> the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is
> it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which
concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, say
the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus is
on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this is
to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly",
without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting
their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor.
At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become stronger
and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the
principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is no
returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the
awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of
awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of
mindfulness.
----------------------------------------------------
> Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying
> attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of
> control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard?
>
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger,
> > or of
> > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
> > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional
> > sense*.
> > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever
> > (including
> > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
> > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Yep!
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Or there might
> > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for
> > example,
> > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different
> > reality
> > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation
> > in
> > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
> > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible
> > object
> > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the
> > mind
> > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and
> > are
> > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
> > >
> > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
> > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously
> > 'letting go
> > > of' the akusala.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard.
>
> I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have
> effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain.
> I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the
> Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while
> 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense
> that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not
> given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage,
intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* that
way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen
meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in
the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early
stages.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable
> thought you have put into these matters, Howard.
>
> 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)
8300 From: m. nease
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:51am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Dear Jon and Howard,
This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of
way for some time:
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> > When it comes down to it, effort can only be
'right' if the citta is
> > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are
consciously
> 'letting go
> > of' the akusala.
> > Howard:
> > Well, I would suppose that intention looms
> > large in this regard.
>
> I think you are saying that effort is preceded by
> the intention to have
> effort, so that there is a sort of intention,
> effort, kusala citta chain.
> I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally
> conceived of, but the
> Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions
> for things. So while
> 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of
> kusala, in the sense
> that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala
> moment, it is not
> given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala
> moment.
If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that
right effort is a co-arising factor but not a
precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which
concurs with my understanding.
What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a
path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with
every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in
kusala and akusala moments. We all know
(theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's
impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a
moment of right effort, as well as a present factor?
I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right
effort will occur when the conditions for it are
present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for
example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of
understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala
cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). If so,
then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?)
might arise sequentially, but without each being
dependent on the previous.
Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think
of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and
subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there
a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'?
Thanks in advance,
mike
8301 From: m. nease
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:02am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Jon,
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
[mike]:
> > When I spectulated that
> it[saññaa]'s
> > 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having
> the
> > latent ability to recognize what is not being
> noted
> > (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally
> small
> > part of what it can recognize from having noted it
> in
> > the past...(?)
>
> I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential
> there!
So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common
with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one
object at a time, of all the objects it could
understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into
abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or
'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across
either of these before).
mike
8302 From: Howard
Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 10:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi again, Jon -
I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One
thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing
satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the "anchor"
there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during
meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it is
the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds? The
answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one did
not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it.
With metta,
Howard
In a message dated 9/27/01 1:29:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard
writes:
> Hi, Jon -
>
> In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
>
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a
> > couple of the areas where we differ.
> >
> > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > >
> > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > Jonothan Abbott writes:
> >
> > > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks
> > > about
> > > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right'
> > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the
> > > letting
> > > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that
> > > we
> > > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also
> > > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an
> > > unwelcome
> > > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
> > > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it
> > > showed
> > > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons
> > > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious
> > > > akusala could not be 'right effort'.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that
> > > there be)
> > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of
> > > the
> > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until
> > > that
> > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for
> > > attention to
> > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter
> > > of
> > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing
> > > it
> > > or tearing the mind away.
> >
> > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular
> > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object
> > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the
> > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to
> > return to the chosen object.
> >
> > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in
> > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is
> > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see
> > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is
> > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana?
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which
> concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object,
> say
> the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus
> is
> on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this
> is
> to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly",
> without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting
> their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor.
> At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become
> stronger
> and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the
> principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is
> no
> returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the
> awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of
> awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of
> mindfulness.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying
> > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of
> > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard?
> >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger,
> > > or of
> > > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it
> > > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional
> > > sense*.
> > > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever
> > > (including
> > > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can
> > > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Yep!
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Or there might
> > > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for
> > > example,
> > > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different
> > > reality
> > > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation
> > > in
> > > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this
> > > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible
> > > object
> > > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the
> > > mind
> > > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and
> > > are
> > > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
> > > >
> > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is
> > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously
> > > 'letting go
> > > > of' the akusala.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard.
> >
> > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have
> > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain.
> > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the
> > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while
> > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense
> > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not
> > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage,
> intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak*
> that
> way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen
> meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in
> the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early
> stages.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable
> > thought you have put into these matters, Howard.
> >
> > 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)
8303 From: m. nease
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:48am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Dear Howard,
Hope you don't mind my butting in again.
--- Howard wrote:
> The other point is with regard to intentional
> effort during
> meditation. When sitting for meditation on the
> breath, why is it that it is
> the *breath* that one is attending to rather than,
> for example, sounds? The
> answer is that one intentionally directs attention
> to the breath.
I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've
done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I
think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing
of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and
understanding of them in a particular way (among other
things) conditions attention to the breath. No one
attending or directing.
> If one did
> not, then, most likely, one would not be attending
> to it.
If this hearing, recollection and understanding had
not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not
occur.
I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit
to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing
notes. In this context, I think the distinction
between conventional and technical(?) speech is
important.
mike
8304 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 5:13am
Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
--
On behalf of all us Roberts,
Thanks very much Kenneth
robert K.
- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of
views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert.
> Three cheers for the three Roberts :)
> Warmest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> robertkirkpatrick wrote: --
>
> Welcome Robert ED.,
> Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here.
> best wishes
> robert
> - Robert Eddison wrote:
> > Anders:
> >
> > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4"
I
> have no
> > idea of where to look.
> >
> > Anders:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have
read
> the
> > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
> Nipata,
> > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to
come
> across
> > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I
> think
> > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things:
(1)
> Nibbana
> > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first
is
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > Robert:
> >
> > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is
> predicated of
> > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some
term
> or
> > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For
example,
> the
> > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are
> impermanent"
> > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
> Pi.taka
> > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the
> context
> > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that
> are being
> > referred to.
> >
> > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or
> phrases
> > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of
them.
> The
> > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas"
in
> such
> > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned
> dhamma (and
> > the latter is not impermanent).
> >
> > As the Samyutta Commentary states:
> >
> > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
> aniccaa.
> >
> > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the
> three levels
> > are impermanent.
> >
> > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
> >
> > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels
> are not
> > self.
> > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
> >
> > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined
> material
> > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels"
> means the
> > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> > (lokuttarabhuumi)]
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Robert Eddison
> >
> > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by
> > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about
a
> > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a
> backlog of letters.
>
8305 From: KennethOng
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:03am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant
Dear Binh,
Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and Thervada is that both has different emphasis. The Mahayana is more interested in bigger goals whereas in Thervada, the emphasis was liberation of self first. But by all means, such liberation of a self first should not be construed as selfish which proponent of Mahayanists claim is because, as I said earlier, we got to learn how to swim before we teach others. Hence Buddha was enlighted before he teach others about the Middle path.
This misconceptions of Thervada is selfish mainly lies on the problem with the way it was put in the Sutra. In many Mahayana sutras, Buddha always emphasis on Bodhisattva path as they are the true sons of Buddha. They are the ones who labour long and hard for the benefits for all beings, hence resulting a mistaken view that therevada is selfish. From another perspective, the sutras has actually exhorting those Noble ones (Thervadas) to reach for bigger goals (i.e. vows esp compassion vows). In addition, mostly the emphasis of Mahayana sutras, its targetted audience are those accomplished ones. There may be layman and laywoman but all these have already certain level of accomplishment. In one Mahayana Sutra, Buddha would have to wait for those not ready to listen to leave the assembly before he speaks. This also indicated that Buddha knows that he could only help those whose mind is ripe for certain level of teachings. Hence he could convince a blood thirsty butcher to become a monk. The butcher mind is just happen to be ripe at that time for this certain teachings.
I hope this should not view as putting down Thervada, this is to explain the Mahayana mindset. In Mahayana, Arahats are considered from the smaller vehicle. But Mahayanist got to firstly understand that to be a Bodhisattvas, we need to be an Arahat first. (there are shortcuts but this are very rare or very difficult to believe and to accept). In one Mahayana sutra, it was stated clearly that both Thervada and Mahayana are of the same vehicle. the separation of the vehicle is because due to the different accomplishment of beings. That is why Buddha teaches the Thervada before the Mahayana, this is to slowly prepare the beings for more bigger goals (to be a Buddha). To reach Buddhahood is different from reaching Arahat, we could get the hint from the Jakata stories where Buddha was accomplishing a lot of great deeds as a Bodhisattvas. To me, we cannot totally brush off the Mahayana path because there is evidence of this path or not there would not be so many sutras about it also. The Mahayanist concept of enlightment is different from Thervada as Mahayanist view enlightment of an Arahat is not the final liberation but a stepping stone to the bigger goal, to be a Bodhisattvas and reach Buddhahood.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
Binh A wrote:
G'day all,
I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the
definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope
you could assist in answering his enquiry .
Metta,
Binh
PS. I also posted this message to the <>
list.
************************************
[...]
During my studies I came up with a question that I am not
able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone
nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism,
besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana,
how it came about and the issues around it.
Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara
I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I
inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs
like:
'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but
does not strive to perfect virtue in another'...
(the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release
(vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release).
Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in
Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali
emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself
and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of
Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of
searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages
I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the
both.
Now, this particular passage in particular different from the
others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those
factors, including release, while, at the same time does not
strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular
passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be
saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in
release) and at the same time not strive for the release of
others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of
Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that
there was a kind of Arahant.
(...)
Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so
that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha
really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds
of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another
*more complete*?
--------------
Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12)
17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave,
bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya
sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½
sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½
paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½
vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno
hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho,
bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya
paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½.
*******************************************
8306 From: Binh A
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:52am
Subject: (2) Question on Arahant - Pali sources?
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Dear Binh,
> Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and
Thervada is that both has different emphasis.
[...]
==================================================================
BA: G'day Kenneth,
Thanks for your informative comments. Much appreciated. In my humble
opinion, concepts of Bodhisatva's ideal in Mahayana and its relation
to original Buddhism (Theravada) were well explained in the book:
Nalinaksha Dutt,
"Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana",
London, 1930
Here, regarding to my original question (from the message of my
Dhamma friend), I'm looking for answers based on the Pali sources, on
possible types (or grades) of Arahant. I remember (very vaguely) that
I did come across some passages in the Pali Suttas which gave
classification of different types of Arahant. However, due to my busy
work lately, I haven't been able to locate the sources.
Any help from my Pali scholars and/or Sutta readers?
Metta,
Binh
8307 From: Howard
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:17am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi, Mike -
In a message dated 9/27/01 2:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mike writes:
> Dear Howard,
>
> Hope you don't mind my butting in again.
>
> --- Howard wrote:
>
> > The other point is with regard to intentional
> > effort during
> > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the
> > breath, why is it that it is
> > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than,
> > for example, sounds? The
> > answer is that one intentionally directs attention
> > to the breath.
>
> I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've
> done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I
> think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing
> of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and
> understanding of them in a particular way (among other
> things) conditions attention to the breath. No one
> attending or directing.
>
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
If what you mean by this is that I would be unlikely to sit for
mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that being useful, I would
agree.
--------------------------------------------------
> > If one did
> > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending
> > to it.
>
> If this hearing, recollection and understanding had
> not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not
> occur.
>
> I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit
> to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing
> notes. In this context, I think the distinction
> between conventional and technical(?) speech is
> important.
>
> mike
>
===========================
I am not such an advanced practitioner as to be directly in touch with
most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that being the case, I
personally find most technical speech to constitute little more than a morass
of views in which I would best not become ensnared. I'm afraid that for a
long, long time I shall have to depend on the somewhat conventional speech of
the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin (and Mahayana) teachers,
along with whatever fruits can be directly derived from my practice.
Again, with regard to your intentions, I have nothing but good will
towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming from you, my friend.
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)
8308 From: Sarah
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality
Hi Larry,
--- Larry wrote: >
> Hello Sarah,
>
> I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an
> "answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What
> self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?"
>
> Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that
> actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or
> perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like
> that ;)
I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘action’, especially in the 2nd ‘conditions
or perpetuates action’. I understand the general idea to be that there is no
self in the 5khandhas ‘affected’ by ‘action’, just as there isn’t any self in
the 5khanhdhas ‘performing action’ or anything else. For example, seeing
consciousness now is the result of kamma and is not self. Both the cetana
(intention) that produced the kamma and the result of kamma, seeing, and all
other (conditioned) realities are inherently unsatisfactory because of their
conditioned and impermanent nature. Hence the quote:
> > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in
> > all things."
>
>
> This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned,
> another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la
> mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned...
> [sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence].
>
> Getting in way over my head.
Actually I’d be glad if you would get in ‘way over your head’ as the rest of us
do;-))
>Nice to meet you, and you too Ken.
You too and thanks Ken (or Ken’s khandhas;-))for conditioning so much lively
discussion. Ken, very glad to read about the significance of dsg in your
life....sorry, we were all too impatient to wait for you - a day or two can
seem like a long time here;-))
Sarah
8309 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:47pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Thanks, Rob.
Interesting and useful discussion.
Robert E.
=======
--- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Dear Robert E.,
> If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had
> practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just
> some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the
> difficulties one may face and how one might confuse
> miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right
> concentration).
>
> In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40
> objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation
> It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the
> meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets
> colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have
> developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him
> to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina.
> If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do
> this..
> Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this
> time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what
> suits us.
> Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati..
> A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in
> chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga.
> How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways.
> Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind )
> about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are
> doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the
> dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so
> brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for
> the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of
> contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of
> feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and
> understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.."
>
> So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding
> and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are
> also teaching ourself and making conditions for future
> reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that
> breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at
> any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the
> Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha
> is.
> For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in
> sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in
> sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the
> feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as
> "my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self
> view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only
> phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding
> is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature.
>
> I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level)
> can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think
> too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it
> works for me.
> robert
8310 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:59pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
--- Sarah wrote:
> > > Howard:
> > > No, I think it was a reference something to
> > > the effect of the mind
> > > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > > adventitious defilements that is
> > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > Mike
> > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what
> > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be
> > very interested in finding this idea (an originally
> > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements)
> > anywhere in the Pali canon.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com
> notes on AN1 10):
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from
> intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s 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’.
> ..............................................
Dear Sarah,
Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain
the original statement about the luminous mind.
If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by
defilements, the sutra would not say:
"...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> (aagantukehi) defilements."
The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains
in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the
sutra.
It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and
says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and
becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity.
Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is
kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult
to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would
still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered,
uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not?
Robert E.
8311 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Rob E,
>
> We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread
> and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful
> feedback.
I agree. Thanks for your help in this area. I also like your 'map' analogy. We
can certainly agree that with *no* map it is awfully difficult to find one's way!
Having several maps is probably also a useful thing to have, as long as you don't
try to read all of them at once!
Robert E.
===================
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah,
> > That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of
> > these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different
> > angles
> > this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the
> > extent
> > one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in
> > life.
> > If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not
> > as
> > important.
>
> Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to
> express very well.
>
> >They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at
> > real
> > experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm
> > happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha
> > breaks
> > down these realities.
>
> Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our
> destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us
> different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have
> a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we
> will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move
> along.
>
> However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may
> be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no
> maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way.
> >
> > Thanks again.
>
> Likewise,
>
> Sarah
8312 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
I guess I'll go with your 'Rob Ep' idea. Seems like the easiest. Hmnnn.....
Rob Ep.
[sounds like a name from a superman comic].
===============
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep)
>
> Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I
> look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone
> when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look
> forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-)
>
> I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd
> all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your
> serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane
> such as where you live and so on).
>
> We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I
> think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other
> ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less ..
>
> Welcome again,
>
> Sarah
>
> --- Robert Eddison wrote:
>
> > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of
> > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or
> > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the
> > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent"
> > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka
> > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context
> > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being
> > referred to.
> >
> > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases
> > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The
> > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such
> > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and
> > the latter is not impermanent).
> >
> > As the Samyutta Commentary states:
> >
> > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa.
> >
> > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels
> > are impermanent.
> >
> > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
> >
> > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not
> > self.
> > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
> >
> > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material
> > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the
> > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> > (lokuttarabhuumi)]
8313 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:11pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment
Dear Jon,
I think my question is basically answered.
The way I interpret your answer is that, one may have an effect on the outcome of
kusala by intending it, but only if the complete balance of pre-existing factors
leans in that direction. That makes sense.
I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual movement
towards kusala and wisdom.
Robert E.
==============================
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Rob E
>
> Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to
> respond in kind.
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your
> > description that
> > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of
> > pre-existing
> > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition
> > involved
> > in whether a kusala or akusala moments.
>
> I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the
> intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say
> that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the
> desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but
> principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various
> forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the
> occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond
> better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding
> and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen.
>
> The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity,
> similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other
> kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may
> *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to
> discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other
> than by inference.
>
> > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of
> > the kusala
> > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an
> > effect on
> > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent
> > or effort
> > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just
> > the outcome
> > of arising conditions and causes?
>
> Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the
> cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the
> development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then
> understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently
> arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time.
>
> There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the
> understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching
> that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it
> is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and
> understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the
> reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object
> may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door;
> but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of
> the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less
> interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be
> developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's
> awareness of it.
>
> > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely
> > passive to this
> > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting
> > conditions of the
> > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices
> > the
> > arisings.
>
> I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please
> let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but
> perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be
> appropriate.
>
> Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects.
>
> Jon
>
>
> > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> >
> > > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path.
> >
> > > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time,
> > > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort
> > is
> > > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the
> > > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila.
> > >
> > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of
> > greatest
> > > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala.
> > >
> > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise
> > in
> > > our lives, just as we should also know more about the
> > non-kusala/akusala
> > > moments, too.
>
>
8314 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:20pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the
translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which
is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the
mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not
luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes
it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements.
I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous
mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very
similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical
basis for those sutras.
Robert Ep.
================
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Mike (and Sarah) -
>
> In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mike writes:
>
>
> >
> > Dear Sarah,
> >
> > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely
> > mistaken, on all counts.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I second your thanks for Sarah's post.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise.
> > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as
> > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence
> > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but
> > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction.
> > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this
> > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no
> > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At
> > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent
> > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
> > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not
> unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using
> it.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all,
> > even theoretically. But it does remind me of
> > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA
> > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like
> > the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
> > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense
> > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of
> > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
> > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
> > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be
> > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
> > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements'
> > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those
> > who know.
> >
> > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my
> > inane comments, Howard.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative
> characterization of your comments.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I should have backtracked
> > more before posting my response. Even when we
> > disagree I value your correspondence very highly.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Thanks, Mike. Likewise.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Thanks again, Sarah.
> >
> > mike
> >
> =============================
> 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)
>
>
>
8315 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS
ha ha, thanks Kenneth.
Well I'm happy to be a Robert at this time, even if I have to be an 'Ep'.
Robert Ep.
==============
--- KennethOng wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views.
> Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert.
> Three cheers for the three Roberts :)
> Warmest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> robertkirkpatrick wrote: --
>
> Welcome Robert ED.,
> Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here.
> best wishes
> robert
> - Robert Eddison wrote:
> > Anders:
> >
> > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá."
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I
> have no
> > idea of where to look.
> >
> > Anders:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
> >
> > Howard:
> >
> > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read
> the
> > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta
> Nipata,
> > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come
> across
> > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I
> think
> > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1)
> Nibbana
> > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is
> > unacceptable.
> >
> > Robert:
> >
> > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is
> predicated of
> > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term
> or
> > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example,
> the
> > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are
> impermanent"
> > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
> Pi.taka
> > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the
> context
> > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that
> are being
> > referred to.
> >
> > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or
> phrases
> > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them.
> The
> > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in
> such
> > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned
> dhamma (and
> > the latter is not impermanent).
> >
> > As the Samyutta Commentary states:
> >
> > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
> aniccaa.
> >
> > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the
> three levels
> > are impermanent.
> >
> > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.
> >
> > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels
> are not
> > self.
> > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)
> >
> > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined
> material
> > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels"
> means the
> > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
> > (lokuttarabhuumi)]
> >
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Robert Eddison
> >
> > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by
> > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a
> > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a
> backlog of letters.
>
>
8316 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:27pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
So while
> 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense
> that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not
> given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment.
Dear Jon,
I'd like to challenge the above a bit, although I'm not sure if I have any secure
footing to do it.
If right effort is the property of a kusala moment, then what is it an effort
towards?
It would not make sense to speak of effort unless it was intending to do
something, not merely accompanying something already accomplished. If it is an
accompaniment of a kusala moment, then it would have to be aiding the
accomplishment of that which the kusala moment is trying to accomplish. What is
the accomplishment of a kusala moment? Panna? Would 'right effort' then be the
correct effort of a kusala factor to accomplish panna? Or does this not make
sense?
Best,
Robert Ep.
8317 From: Howard
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:46pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Hi, Robert -
In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Robert E writes:
> well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the
> translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind'
> which
> is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say
> that the
> mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not
> luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that
> sometimes
> it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements.
>
> I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the
> luminous
> mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to
> be very
> similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a
> canonical
> basis for those sutras.
>
> Robert Ep.
>
==============================
Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the
Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold
with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With
the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the
"defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there
all the time!
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)
8318 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:56pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui
Howard
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
> > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can
> > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental
> state,
> > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any
> moment.
> But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice
> laid
> out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about
> what
> the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom
> can
> arise at any time - or, it may not.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and
thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by
the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom
is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is
awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of
'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these
attributes.
> > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do
> with
> > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the
> > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of
> > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > So
> > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general
> > mindfulness.
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice
> to be
> that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually
> lead
> to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to
>
> exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or
> not,
> independent of "personal" effort?
> ------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that
to the experience of the present moment.
As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being
so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other
words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the
path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of
enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
developed the factor of effort.
> > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I
am finding it a very interesting exchange.
Jon
8319 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:36pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui
Sorry about the confusing sentence in my post of a few minutes ago. I
meant to say--
As to "personal" effort, is this the effort that the Buddha described as
being so essential to the development of the path? I do not believe it
is.
Apologies to Howard and all.
Jon
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard
>
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Jonothan Abbott writes:
> > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality
> can
> > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental
> > state,
> > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation.
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any
> > moment.
> > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the
> practice
> > laid
> > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking
> about
> > what
> > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom
> > can
> > arise at any time - or, it may not.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and
> thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught
> by
> the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom
> is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is
> awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of
> 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these
> attributes.
>
> > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do
> > with
> > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the
> > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development
> of
> > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general
> mindfulness.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > So
> > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a
> general
> > > mindfulness.
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your
> practice
> > to be
> > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually
> > lead
> > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort
> to
> >
> > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or
> > not,
> > independent of "personal" effort?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> that
> to the experience of the present moment.
>
> As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> being
> so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
>
> Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> other
> words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> the
> path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> of
> enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> developed the factor of effort.
>
> > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I
> am finding it a very interesting exchange.
>
> Jon
>
8320 From: Howard
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:51am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui
Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/28/01 8:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
> Howard
>
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Jonothan Abbott writes:
> > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can
> > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental
> > state,
> > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation.
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any
> > moment.
> > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice
> > laid
> > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about
> > what
> > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom
> > can
> > arise at any time - or, it may not.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and
> thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by
> the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom
> is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is
> awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of
> 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these
> attributes.
>
> > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do
> > with
> > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the
> > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of
> > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > So
> > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general
> > > mindfulness.
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice
> > to be
> > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually
> > lead
> > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to
> >
> > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or
> > not,
> > independent of "personal" effort?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that
> to the experience of the present moment.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But what
I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort must
be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being
> so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other
> words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the
> path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of
> enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> developed the factor of effort.
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I expressed
in a recent on-list post to Mike.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I
> am finding it a very interesting exchange.
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I as well!
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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)
8321 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:19am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
>
> In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Robert E writes:
>
>
> > well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the
> > translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind'
> > which
> > is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say
> > that the
> > mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not
> > luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that
> > sometimes
> > it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements.
> >
> > I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the
> > luminous
> > mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to
> > be very
> > similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a
> > canonical
> > basis for those sutras.
> >
> > Robert Ep.
> >
> ==============================
> Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the
> Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold
> with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With
> the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the
> "defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there
> all the time!
>
> With metta,
> Howard
I think the reason Buddha was a little circumspect about this, is because of the
danger of taking 'luminous mind' and turning it into a thing, like an image of a
shining brain up in the sky somewhere [the Godhead revisited] or as a goal to be
attained, as if there is this thing or state to be grasped.
Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of Awareness that exists in Nibbana
after the defilements are gone, it is neither a possession or a self. We can
still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if we disagree on the 'original
mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are talking about something that
being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would not show up as a new possessions
or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' by the self's standards. The
transparent ground of being could not be personal or objectified. Anyway, we can
still disagree, but at least it can be clear that we are not trying to create a
soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an original state or status...very
difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
Robert Ep.
8322 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui)
Howard
I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous
post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise.
When I said ...
> Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
other
> words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
the
> path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
of
> enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> developed the factor of effort.
... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for
conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for
understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would
need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I
was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for
conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less
as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort
described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and
stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one
attaining to enlightenment.
Coming to your post to me--
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> that
> > to the experience of the present moment.
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But
> what
> I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort
> must
> be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
> heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
> -----------------------------------------------------------
My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional
volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate
what I mean.
Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the
course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? Surely not – yet
such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees
someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to
appreciate that act? Surely not. When someone asks for our assistance
and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. When
dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute,
they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise
without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are
not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is
an experience common to everyone.
You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in
more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not
necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what
I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more
often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with
me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of
wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for
what it is).
This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced
effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class
known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala
moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’).
The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) --
"When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or
recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such
merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when
... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or
urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this
sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or
others."[ends]
All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following
prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2,
the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker.
The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is
for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more
developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know
more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of
kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie.
without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t
learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it
won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior
effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so.
Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are
accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then,
as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the
‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala
citta of the prompted (weaker) kind.
I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things.
Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier.
Jon
> > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> being
> > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> other
> > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> the
> > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> of
> > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > developed the factor of effort.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I
> expressed
> in a recent on-list post to Mike.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard.
> I
> > am finding it a very interesting exchange.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I as well!
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> ===========================
> With metta,
> Howard
8323 From: KennethOng
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
HI all,
I think the luminious mind is the what we call attainment of Buddhahood mind. Buddha mind is definitely luminious. This is illustrated by Chan Master Hui Neng said that the difference between our mind and Buddha mind is that we have right and wrong, good and evil (chinese literal translation).
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
Robert Epstein wrote:
--- Sarah wrote:
> > > Howard:
> > > No, I think it was a reference something to
> > > the effect of the mind
> > > being originally luminous, but covered by
> > > adventitious defilements that is
> > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > Mike
> > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what
> > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be
> > very interested in finding this idea (an originally
> > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements)
> > anywhere in the Pali canon.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com
> notes on AN1 10):
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from
> intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s 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’.
> ..............................................
Dear Sarah,
Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain
the original statement about the luminous mind.
If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by
defilements, the sutra would not say:
"...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> (aagantukehi) defilements."
The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains
in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the
sutra.
It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and
says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and
becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity.
Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is
kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult
to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would
still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered,
uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not?
Robert E.
8324 From: KennethOng
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Rober Ep.
I believe this is why Buddha said that we all have Buddha nature. I think in my opinion he is referring to our luminious mind. But now we are clouded by our defilements
Kenneth Ong
Robert Epstein wrote: well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the
translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which
is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the
mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not
luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes
it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements.
I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous
mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very
similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical
basis for those sutras.
Robert Ep.
================
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Mike (and Sarah) -
>
> In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mike writes:
>
>
> >
> > Dear Sarah,
> >
> > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely
> > mistaken, on all counts.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I second your thanks for Sarah's post.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise.
> > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as
> > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence
> > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but
> > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction.
> > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this
> > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no
> > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At
> > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent
> > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
> > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not
> unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using
> it.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all,
> > even theoretically. But it does remind me of
> > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA
> > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like
> > the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
> > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense
> > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of
> > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
> > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
> > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be
> > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
> > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements'
> > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those
> > who know.
> >
> > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my
> > inane comments, Howard.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative
> characterization of your comments.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I should have backtracked
> > more before posting my response. Even when we
> > disagree I value your correspondence very highly.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Thanks, Mike. Likewise.
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Thanks again, Sarah.
> >
> > mike
> >
> =============================
> 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)
>
>
>
8325 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:18pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma
Nina,
Many thanks for this detailed and helpful explanation which really puts
the earlier translated passage in its context.
>Dear Jon and all,
>
> The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma
> is
> different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the
> development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of
> defilements.
> Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always
> implied.
> Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by
> these
> three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since
> we
> are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of
> different aspects of the teachings.
> The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have
> Patimokkha
> samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six
> doors.
> There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest
> is
> satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded,
> there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude
> speech,
> or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad
> speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from
> satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules
> of
> the Vinaya in their own situation.
> In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the
> loss of
> family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the
> streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready
> for
> it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to
> change,
> and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five
> khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post
> about
> the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about
> khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual
> teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala,
> and
> if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then
> people
> could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should
> have
> as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities
> appearing
> now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study
> should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge.
> As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous
> with
> understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment,
> aversion,
> feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in
> the
> Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in
> that
> way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the
> other
> defilements.
> Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same
> goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment.
>
> Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a
> word
> that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental
> development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for
> vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so
> glad
> the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing
> them
> from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores
> with
> mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be
> forgetful
> either, but I am most of the time forgetful.
> The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as
> meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of
> the
> Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in
> detail
> as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with
> these
> kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects
> of
> mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of
> the
> nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained.
> Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in
> Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas.
> Best wishes, Nina.
Two other instances of reference to 'dhammas' as being not-self, in
apposition to 'sankharas' as being impermanent and suffering, are at A. I,
xv and A. III, 134 (apologies if these references have already been given
by others).
Jon
8326 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:37pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
> > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka
> > Atthakatha (published
> > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the
> > Brahmajala Sutta) it is
> > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the
> > practice of the other
> > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all
> > the paramis". It is
> > also described as being to the other paramis as life
> > is to the bodily
> > organism. I think that gives it a certain
> > pre-eminence.
>
> Definitely (and thanks for correcting my
> 'pre-immminence').
Hadn't noticed it, to be honest!
> > Another passage from the same section is of
> > relevance to one of the other
> > current threads on our list. In dealing with the
> > role of wisdom in the
> > perfection of energy parami, it says:
> >
> > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the
> > purpose desired, since it
> > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse
> > energy at all than to
> > arouse it in the wrong way."
> >
> > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than
> > wrongly aroused.
> > Strong words indeed.
>
> Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be
> true of the other paramis, too. Without
> understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can
> be dangerous I think.
Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near
enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I
think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function
in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and
performs its function in a kusala manner.
> > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one
> > that we probably
> > associate with wisdom, is this:
> >
> > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the
> > wrongs of others, not
> > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the
> > wrongs of others only
> > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his
> > patience into play
> > and make it grow even stronger."
> >
> > It might be interesting to consider the connection
> > being made here.
>
> Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening
> patience.
Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the
wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just
happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if
any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on
this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others?
Jon
8327 From: m. nease
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:09am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Jon,
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> > Without
> > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g.
> > can
> > be dangerous I think.
>
> Although not for true actual patience and
> friendliness, but for their near
> enemies, perhaps you mean?
I probably did mean this, without realizing it (have
to refresh my memory on these). I meant e.g.
friendliness with bad friends (as described by the
Buddha) and patience--well, patience is different,
maybe. Even with wrong view, nivaranas etc. it's hard
to see danger in it.
> Energy is in a slightly
> different category, I
> think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and
> performs its function
> in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every
> kusala citta and
> performs its function in a kusala manner.
Yes, point taken (finally!)
> > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not
> one
> > > that we probably
> > > associate with wisdom, is this:
> > >
> > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate
> the
> > > wrongs of others, not
> > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom,
> the
> > > wrongs of others only
> > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call
> his
> > > patience into play
> > > and make it grow even stronger."
> > >
> > > It might be interesting to consider the
> connection
> > > being made here.
> >
> > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening
> > patience.
>
> Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being
> able to tolerate the
> wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had
> said, Mike.
No, I didn't take it personally--just paraphrasing it
(and depersonalizing it, as is my habit) to be sure I
wasn't missing anything.
> I just
> happened to come across it when answering your post.
> I am wondering if
> any of our long-time lurking members would like to
> make a reappearance on
> this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others?
Good point--besides simply missing them, I at least
could surely use their help.
mike
8328 From: Howard
Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
> Howard
>
> I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous
> post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise.
>
> When I said ...
>
> > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> other
> > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> the
> > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> of
> > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > developed the factor of effort.
>
> ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for
> conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for
> understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would
> need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I
> was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for
> conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less
> as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort
> described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and
> stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one
> attaining to enlightenment.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised
me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to
understand your position to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Coming to your post to me--
>
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
>
> > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> > that
> > > to the experience of the present moment.
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But
> > what
> > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort
> > must
> > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
> > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional
> volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate
> what I mean.
>
> Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the
> course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required?
>
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times
there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen
despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the
one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some
criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions
- it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily
*teeth-gritting* volition.
----------------------------------------------------
Surely not – yet
>
> such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees
> someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to
> appreciate that act? Surely not.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Agreed. Automatic response there.
--------------------------------------------------
When someone asks for our assistance
> and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of
volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions.
---------------------------------------------------
When
> dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute,
> they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise
> without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are
> not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is
> an experience common to everyone.
>
> You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in
> more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not
> necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what
> I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more
> often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with
> me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of
> wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for
> what it is).
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort
involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less
useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's
actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more
true the "further along" one is, I believe.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced
> effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class
> known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala
> moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’).
>
> The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) --
>
> "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or
> recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such
> merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when
> ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or
> urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this
> sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or
> others."[ends]
>
> All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following
> prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2,
> the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker.
>
> The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is
> for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more
> developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know
> more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of
> kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie.
> without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t
> learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it
> won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior
> effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so.
>
> Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are
> accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then,
> as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the
> ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala
> citta of the prompted (weaker) kind.
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I think you make good points here, Jon.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things.
> Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier.
>
> Jon
>
> > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> > being
> > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > other
> > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > the
> > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > of
> > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > developed the factor of effort.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I
> > expressed
> > in a recent on-list post to Mike.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Howard:
> > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard.
> > I
> > > am finding it a very interesting exchange.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I as well!
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > ===========================
> > With metta,
> > Howard
>
=================================
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)
8329 From: claudia harris
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:57am
Subject: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
North America's response to terrorism--
metta for Bin Laden
Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
>
How big is your heart?
Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut
down in pain or fear or anger?
Will you be a vehicle for peace?
>
> We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A
moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of
peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for
just one moment the cycle
> of violence? Because in that one moment of peace,
> something may shift in the human experience. And
> the
> world can be a safer place for all of us.
Please help to spread the word about
metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2,
9pm eastern, 8pm central,
7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
>
Blessings,
Claudia
"The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate;
hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield
is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want
peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all
do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to
deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and
disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das
8330 From: m. nease
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 1:52am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi, Howard,
--- Howard wrote:
> mike writes:
> > I
> > think it's much more accurate to say that the
> > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the
> > recollection and understanding of them in a
> > particular way (among other things) conditions
> > attention to the breath. No one attending or
> > directing.
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> If what you mean by this is that I would be
> unlikely to sit for
> mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that
> being useful, I would
> agree.
> --------------------------------------------------
I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without
hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma
having occurred first, and that the effort attending
it (or any other moment) is impersonal.
> > > If one did
> > > not, then, most likely, one would not be
> attending
> > > to it.
> >
> > If this hearing, recollection and understanding
> had
> > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also
> not
> > occur.
> >
> > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way
> fit
> > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing
> > notes. In this context, I think the distinction
> > between conventional and technical(?) speech is
> > important.
> >
> > mike
> >
> ===========================
> I am not such an advanced practitioner as to
> be directly in touch with
> most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that
> being the case, I
> personally find most technical speech to constitute
> little more than a morass
> of views in which I would best not become ensnared.
> I'm afraid that for a
> long, long time I shall have to depend on the
> somewhat conventional speech of
> the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin
> (and Mahayana) teachers,
> along with whatever fruits can be directly derived
> from my practice.
I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong
to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms.
The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms
sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g.
occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he
speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for
example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's
contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter
manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it
was out of place in the context of our discussion--my
apologies.
As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be
supported as well by conventional language as by
'technical' language--or by refraining from either,
for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding
(or lack thereof), I think, that determines the
rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or
abstinence from speech) more than anything else. I'm
glad to have your company in the pursuit of that
understanding.
> Again, with regard to your intentions, I have
> nothing but good will
> towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming
> from you, my friend.
Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard,
mike
8331 From: Howard
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:17am
Subject: Volition and Self [To Jon]
Hi, Jon -
With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of view in
which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I think
of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" extreme,
with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view.
It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, when
wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' or
'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising
automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when that
intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the
intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is active and
growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against.
As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see
intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost illusory,
as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it appears
that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs being
either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, in
either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack of
control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to guard
against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, far
away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to the
"truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies to be
closely watched.
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)
8332 From: Howard
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:57am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Hi, Mike -
In a message dated 9/29/01 1:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mike writes:
> Hi, Howard,
>
> --- Howard wrote:
>
> > mike writes:
>
> > > I
> > > think it's much more accurate to say that the
> > > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the
> > > recollection and understanding of them in a
> > > particular way (among other things) conditions
> > > attention to the breath. No one attending or
> > > directing.
> > >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > If what you mean by this is that I would be
> > unlikely to sit for
> > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that
> > being useful, I would
> > agree.
> > --------------------------------------------------
>
> I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without
> hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma
> having occurred first, and that the effort attending
> it (or any other moment) is impersonal.
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't think we are disagreeing here.
---------------------------------------------------------
> > > > If one did
> > > > not, then, most likely, one would not be
> > attending
> > > > to it.
> > >
> > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding
> > had
> > > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also
> > not
> > > occur.
> > >
> > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way
> > fit
> > > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing
> > > notes. In this context, I think the distinction
> > > between conventional and technical(?) speech is
> > > important.
> > >
> > > mike
> > >
> > ===========================
> > I am not such an advanced practitioner as to
> > be directly in touch with
> > most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that
> > being the case, I
> > personally find most technical speech to constitute
> > little more than a morass
> > of views in which I would best not become ensnared.
> > I'm afraid that for a
> > long, long time I shall have to depend on the
> > somewhat conventional speech of
> > the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin
> > (and Mahayana) teachers,
> > along with whatever fruits can be directly derived
> > from my practice.
>
> I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong
> to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms.
> The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms
> sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g.
> occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he
> speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for
> example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's
> contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter
> manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it
> was out of place in the context of our discussion--my
> apologies.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Don't give it a thought, Mike!
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be
> supported as well by conventional language as by
> 'technical' language--or by refraining from either,
> for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding
> (or lack thereof), I think, that determines the
> rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or
> abstinence from speech) more than anything else.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
For sure!
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm
> glad to have your company in the pursuit of that
> understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Likewise!!
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Again, with regard to your intentions, I have
> > nothing but good will
> > towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming
> > from you, my friend.
>
> Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard,
>
> mike
>
>
==================================
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)
8333 From: Sarah
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (ERIK)
Hi Erik,
I'm not really intending to start another big debate, but would just like to
ask one or two (or three:-)) questions and make one or two comments on your
post to Dan as he's on leave.
--- rikpa21 wrote:
> > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber-
> > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of
> > inquiry.
>
> Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be
> obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a
> very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system,
> of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan
> recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross-
> examination a witness on the stand.
Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like dosa
(aversion) is pretty apparent. My question is this: if one has the intention
(whether one is a good cyber-dhamma friend or an LA lawyer) to 'shake and
rattle the 'witness' ' and thus be a condition for dosa, is this intention
kusala or akusala? I'm not referring here to any tradition or system, but to
your experience, Erik.
> This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because
> it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not
> taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the
> course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent
> opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self
> in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion.
Of course any aversion, discomfort or taking any points 'personally' have many
conditions, most of all the accumulations and wrong views at play. However,
again I wonder whether hoping to cause discomfort can be skilful. Surely a good
friend wishes to put others at ease and in comfort rather than the reverse.
>
> The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to
> stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about
> turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only
> one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure.
What about skilful mental states and wisdom?
>
> In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan
> within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :)
Herman once asked if it was OK to agree here (he was brought up in his family
never to admit it if he agreed, or something like that). I think it's very OK
to agree (and certainly not an admission of defeat;-)) and it's good to see
some 'common sharing'.
> > Sati
> > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible
> > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an
> > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the
> > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly.
>
>
> There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for
> panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a
> massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was
> deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The
> degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the
> panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years
> ago, for example, so this was excellent training.
I was glad to read about the value of satipatthana during your panic attacks. I
do wonder, however, Eric, whether you don't have some idea that there have to
be extremely unpleasant and diffcult experiences, as in this example, for
satipatthana to develop. I don't wish to re-open old threads but just to
question whether there is any idea of experiencing more unpleasant feelings and
dosa (isn’t that what panic is?) in order to learn or develop wisdom.
>
> In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any
> unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile
> through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former
> Khmer Rouge stronghold recently........
It's good to hear about your appreciation of the Teachings in your daily life
experiences. I fully appreciate that in this example you were not going out of
your way to have fearful experiences but that your daily life just happens to
be a little different..;-))
>
> That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training
> (though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There
> was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding
> that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and
> that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of
> these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of
> understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how
> this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the-
> by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman
> I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most
> incredible moments of this short life!)
there are some useful reflections and understanding here, Erik, and we're glad
you came out alive. Of course a development of understanding doesn't mean one
shouldn't take care and precautions, but as you've said, vipaka is
uncontrollable and we never have any idea what is in store for us from moment
to tmoment.
> That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts.
> Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the
> mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without
> training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around.
Not unless there was a lot of careful listening and considering over and over
and more importantly not unless there was the full development of wisdom.
>But in practical
> terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the
> noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice
> (even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and
> ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to
> cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what:
Let's say the plot of land has to be cultivated...no 'we' to do it, of course.
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html
> There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one
> occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source
> of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there
> is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha?
Perhaps we tend to be more 'conscious' or concerned about the unpleasantness
(or dukkha) because it is accompanied by unpleasant feeling. What about the
clinging now? It may not be ‘serious’ lobha and it may not be mistaken for
kusala (though I think this is very common), but i think that as panna and sati
grow, they begin to know and be aware of more and more subtle shades of lobha.
What seems subtle now will seem like ‘serious lobha’ with more wisdom.
This is already much more than I planned to say, so I'll rest my case;-))
Sarah
8334 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:02am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
A good suggestion here: please go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ and read
the two works here on the proper practice of Metta.
It seems there may be some confusion concerning Metta (Maitri) and Tonglen.
Tonglen is a bit different a practice then Metta. It has some other
requirements.
This is a Theravada study group, and though many members are eclectic about
Dhamma study, one thing is essential, and that is the practice of Metta does
have a technique that should be respected and well followed.
Asking everyone to practice Metta for Osama Bin Laden sounds easy enough,
but if there is any anger or resentment and one tries to practice Metta
without first removing such obscurations, then either frustration could
ensue or the practice may not be potent and do what it is supposed to do.
The other problem, of course, would be that the technique is not practiced
correctly.
May this be of help to many...
With Karuna,
Ven. Dr. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo
----- Original Message -----
From: "claudia harris"
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:57 PM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
> North America's response to terrorism--
> metta for Bin Laden
> Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> >
> How big is your heart?
>
> Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut
> down in pain or fear or anger?
>
> Will you be a vehicle for peace?
> >
> > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A
> moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of
> peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for
> just one moment the cycle
> > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace,
> > something may shift in the human experience. And
> > the
> > world can be a safer place for all of us.
>
> Please help to spread the word about
> metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2,
> 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> >
> Blessings,
> Claudia
>
> "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate;
> hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield
> is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want
> peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all
> do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to
> deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and
> disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das
>
>
8335 From: Sukinderpal Narula
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Dear Jon,
I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the
'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post
expressing my appreciation.
I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone or
the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can.
But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to appreciate
your own contributions more and more, I will say something.
My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only
when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience.
When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from
fear of repercussions to cold indifference.
And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it
to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing
purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual
level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop
until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime
there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example,
knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements,
and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient
towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise.
Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other
paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience
to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of
wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not
the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'.
A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard
to development of wisdom.
I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from
anybody.
Metta,
Sukin.
Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Mike
>
> --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
>
> > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka
> > > Atthakatha (published
> > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the
> > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is
> > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the
> > > practice of the other
> > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all
> > > the paramis". It is
> > > also described as being to the other paramis as life
> > > is to the bodily
> > > organism. I think that gives it a certain
> > > pre-eminence.
> >
> > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my
> > 'pre-immminence').
>
> Hadn't noticed it, to be honest!
>
> > > Another passage from the same section is of
> > > relevance to one of the other
> > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the
> > > role of wisdom in the
> > > perfection of energy parami, it says:
> > >
> > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the
> > > purpose desired, since it
> > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse
> > > energy at all than to
> > > arouse it in the wrong way."
> > >
> > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than
> > > wrongly aroused.
> > > Strong words indeed.
> >
> > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be
> > true of the other paramis, too. Without
> > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can
> > be dangerous I think.
>
> Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near
> enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I
> think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function
> in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and
> performs its function in a kusala manner.
>
> > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one
> > > that we probably
> > > associate with wisdom, is this:
> > >
> > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the
> > > wrongs of others, not
> > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the
> > > wrongs of others only
> > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his
> > > patience into play
> > > and make it grow even stronger."
> > >
> > > It might be interesting to consider the connection
> > > being made here.
> >
> > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening
> > patience.
>
> Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the
> wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just
> happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if
> any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on
> this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others?
>
> Jon
8336 From: Sarah
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 4:11pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Dear Mike,
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely
> mistaken, on all counts.
I didn't consider it that way at all, Mike. your posts are always a condition
for useful reflection for me.
> Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise.
> What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as
> though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence
> which was subsequently covered by defilements (but
> continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction.
> I admit that Jim's translation might be read this
> way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no
> sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At
> these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent
> defilements?)
Yes, there are latent defilements and all other ‘accumulated tendencies’ with
each citta (moment of conciousness), including bhavanga cittas (life-continuum
consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta, including each bhavanga
citta is very fast and there is no continuous ‘luminous’ or any other
existence.
> > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it
> > is defiled by intrusive
> > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous,
> > and it is freed from
> > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.)
As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in this case to bhavanga cittas
the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says;
“Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of ‘exceedingly pure,’ with
reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So the Buddha has said;-
‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by adventitious corruptions.’
Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it issues (from subconscious vital
conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is like the Ganges and a
tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed)
>.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
To be even more precise, the defilements only manifest with the akusala cittas
during the javana process, there are the other cittas in the processes when
there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements manifesting. If we’re
lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-)
I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) for bhavanga cittas in the
above Atth. translation is rather confusing because it suggests bhavanga cittas
are present all the time beneath the surface which of course is not correct.
(but then I come from a psychology background so I may be particularly
sensitive to these connotations;-)
> > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all,
> even theoretically. But it does remind me of
> something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA
> Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like
> the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
> citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense
> citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of
> the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
> 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
> cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be
> pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
> something like 'luminous but covered by defilements'
> maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those
> who know.
I can’t pretend to understand some of these details well myself. I haven’t
heard this theory of citta as a pure slate, tarnished by defilements before
(except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the contrary, I understand
kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta and kusala vipaka citta to
be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so on. To give a couple of
examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or akusala vipaka citta. The
actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other mental factors accompanying
it, is inherently good or bad result and of a different nature from any other
moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as time. In the same way, a moment
of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite different from a moment of
unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its inherent nature as well as
because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental factors accompanying each.
There are many references to the variegated nature of the mind such as these
ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation):
“Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living beings so diversified as
those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the animal realm have been
diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is even more diverse than those
beings in the animal realm.”
`"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring On'?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Even that picture called `Faring On' has been designed in its
diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more diverse than that picture
called `Faring On'. …"
The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth (68), p.91 ) also make it clear, I think, that the mind (citta) doesn’t just
follow the mental states, but is instead the ‘leader’:
‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but also in some other lay
discourses has he shown mind to be the principal. Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus,
whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral, take sides with the
immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind arises first.
‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind.
And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind,
Him evil follows as the wheel the ox.
Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind,
And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind,
Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him.
By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn:
And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’
> Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my
> inane comments, Howard...
Like Howard, I never find any of your comments in the slightest bit inane,
Mike. Indeed they are a condition for some deep and useful reflection on my
part. No need to apologise or backtrack at all, as far as I’m concerned. I
think we all learn from your kind, modest and sincere contemplations here as
elsewhere.
Sarah
8337 From: Sarah
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:23pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Dear Rob Ep,
More on the ‘luminous mind' ;-)
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> --- Sarah wrote:
> > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to
> com
> > notes on AN1 10):
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from
> > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s 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’.
> > ..............................................
>
> Dear Sarah,
> Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to
> explain
> the original statement about the luminous mind.
>
> If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by
> defilements, the sutra would not say:
>
> "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive
> > (aagantukehi) defilements."
>
> The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus
> remains
> in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of
> the
> sutra.
Dear Rob Ep, you’re never presumptuous and I think these are tricky but
important points, especially as this one sentence holds such significance for
many and is so often referred to on dsg.
I don’t know if my post just sent to Mike clarified or clouded the issue
further for you (and others....be sure that many share your ‘concerns’).
As I mentioned, mind refers to cittas - zillions of them ‘triggering’ each
other off without any self or permanence from one to the next. As I suggested,
I think ‘sub-conscious’ is very mis-leading when referring to the bhavanga
cittas (life-continuum cittas) Literally, they mean ‘factors of life’ and they
have the task of ensuring continuity of life when there are no
sense-impressions or experiences, no thinking and no wholesome or unwholesome
moments of consciousness. They are compared to the current of a river which is
interrupted from time to time..They are considered ‘luminous’ or ‘pristine’
just in the sense that there are no defilements arising with them for those
moments as I understand it. There is no sense of mind or citta remaining in
this state for more than the instant that the bhavanga citta lasts.
> It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind
> itself, and
> says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature,
> and
> becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent
> luminosity.
I don’t think there are any references to ‘true nature’ in this context. As Jon
and Sukin would say, it’s a descriptive passage explaining the
inter-relationship between different cittas.
> Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which
> is
> kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be
> difficult
> to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which
> would
> still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered,
> uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not?
The bhavanga cittas are the ‘flow of life’ or part of it anyway. They are not
‘kept pristine’ but this is their nature. They are vipaka cittas, the results
of kamma (from the previous life), so nothing will change or affect their
nature or characteristic. They have nothing to do with nibbana or realizing
nibbana (except very indirectly) and I don’t believe their sabhava or nature
can be known to us. Of course it was known in very precise detail to the Buddha
who cared to share a ‘handful of leaves’ to help us understand how biref and
anatta all moments of consciousness are. Nina writes in detail about bhavanga
cittas in ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’, but I know that’s more homework,
Rob;-))....
When it mentions (in Jim’s translation above) about the mind being ‘freed from
intrusive defilements’, again I understand this to be descriptive and not a
‘thing-to-do’. It helps to understand that the defilements are also impermanent
and not self. It may seem that attachment or anger last for a while but in fact
they last for a split-second only and in between moments of defilements are
many, many ‘undefiled’ or ‘luminous’ bhavanga cittas.
In the 2 suttas in AN, reference is made to the speed of changing cittas and
the importance of seeing the danger or unwholesome states and the value of
skilful states even ‘if for just the lasting of a finger-snap’.I think it’s
important to appreciate the context when we read the following:
“Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change as the mind:
insomuch that it is no easy thing to illustrate how quick to change it is.
This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from
without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come
from without.’
I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still
understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary
notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by
the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their
authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka
references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or
awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well.
Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so
carefully.
Sarah
8338 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Robert Ep
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> Dear Jon,
> Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus
> quite a bit,
> as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but
> on the
> other hand, it is possible that it does.
>
> While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the
> fact that
> he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get
> into, it has
> to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult
> posture
> if it had no significance?
>
> Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans
> consider
> the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies
> to align
> properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation
> when
> meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things,
> it may be
> that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely
> his. But it
> may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a
> proper way
> of sitting for meditation or contemplation.
>
> I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to
> sit, but
> should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not?
I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being
closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based
partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special
significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my
reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be
developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I
think you would be familiar with the passage in question).
I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything
forward. ;-))
Jon
8339 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:28pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Howard
In your post below you mention, I think, 2 different stages of
development. In the first one relies on an 'anchor' as a focus for one's
attention and on intentional effort, while the second can be developed
without reliance on, or at least with reduced reliance on, these 2
factors.
While I would of course question such an interpretation of the path, I am
prepared to accept it for the purpose of this post, because I would like
to focus on the nature of right effort vs. deliberate/intentional effort.
There are I believe significant differences between the sort of
intentional effort you refer to and the 'right effort' in the suttas.
First, intentional effort as you describe it is exerted when the citta is
not kusala in order to spur kusala to arise, and it is not itself kusala,
or not necessarily so, (otherwise one wouldn't need to exert it!). Right
effort, on the other hand, is kusala and arises only with a kusala citta.
Secondly, under your description intentional effort is needed less and
less, and therefore arises less and less, as understanding is developed,
whereas right effort increases in strength as wisdom is developed, and is
at its strongest as one of the factors present at the moment of
enlightenment.
Howard, I think you may have agreed with this analysis in a previous post,
but I didn't follow up on it at the time.
What I am suggesting is simply that conventional 'intentional effort',
even if followed by moments of kusala, is not the same as right effort.
Intentional effort is something that precedes the arising of kusala.
Right effort is a co-arising factor associated with a kusala citta (or, as
a mundane path factor, with the mundane path citta), and is developed by
the development of the kusala (or path) citta it arises with.
Just seeking to clarify.
Jon
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
>
> In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
>
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective
> on a
> > couple of the areas where we differ.
> >
> > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > >
> > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > Jonothan Abbott writes:
> >
> > > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks
> > > about
> > > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily
> 'right'
> > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the
> > > letting
> > > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice
> that
> > > we
> > > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could
> also
> > > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an
> > > unwelcome
> > > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make
> > > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it
> > > showed
> > > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other
> reasons
> > > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of
> obvious
> > > > akusala could not be 'right effort'.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that
> > > there be)
> > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing
> of
> > > the
> > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained
> until
> > > that
> > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for
> > > attention to
> > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a
> matter
> > > of
> > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in
> removing
> > > it
> > > or tearing the mind away.
> >
> > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular
> > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the
> object
> > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing')
> the
> > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to
> > return to the chosen object.
> >
> > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana
> in
> > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking
> is
> > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you
> see
> > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or
> is
> > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana?
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in
> which
> concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object,
> say
> the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage,
> focus is
> on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and
> this is
> to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly",
> without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely
> noting
> their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor.
> At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become
> stronger
> and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point,
> the
> principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there
> is no
> returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the
>
> awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of
> awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up
> of
> mindfulness.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of
> applying
> > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of
> > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way,
> Howard?
> >
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just
> anger,
> > > or of
> > > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if
> it
> > > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional
> > > sense*.
> > > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever
> > > (including
> > > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness
> can
> > > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture.
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Yep!
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Or there might
> > > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for
> > > example,
> > > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different
> > > reality
> > > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different
> Foundation
> > > in
> > > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of
> this
> > > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or
> visible
> > > object
> > > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from
> the
> > > mind
> > > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time
> (and
> > > are
> > > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger).
> > > >
> > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta
> is
> > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously
> > > 'letting go
> > > > of' the akusala.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this
> regard.
> >
> > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to
> have
> > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta
> chain.
> > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but
> the
> > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So
> while
> > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense
> > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not
> > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage,
> intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak*
> that
> way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen
> meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation
> in
> the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the
> early
> stages.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable
> > thought you have put into these matters, Howard.
> >
> > 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)
8340 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Mike
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
> So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common
> with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one
> object at a time, of all the objects it could
> understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into
> abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or
> 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across
> either of these before).
I suppose we could say that anything that has been accumulated but is not
manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I have only come across
latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be able to add more on
this.
Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with them, I'm afraid. Where
did you get them from? I'd be interested to know more.
Jon
8341 From: KennethOng
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:46pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort still surrounds it.
When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme?
Please forgive me for the strong wording
Kind regards.
Kenneth Ong
Howard wrote: Hi, Jon -
In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jonothan Abbott writes:
> Howard
>
> I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous
> post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise.
>
> When I said ...
>
> > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> other
> > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> the
> > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> of
> > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > developed the factor of effort.
>
> ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for
> conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for
> understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would
> need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I
> was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for
> conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less
> as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort
> described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and
> stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one
> attaining to enlightenment.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised
me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to
understand your position to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> Coming to your post to me--
>
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
>
> > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> > that
> > > to the experience of the present moment.
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But
> > what
> > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort
> > must
> > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
> > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional
> volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate
> what I mean.
>
> Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the
> course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required?
>
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times
there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen
despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the
one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some
criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions
- it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily
*teeth-gritting* volition.
----------------------------------------------------
Surely not – yet
>
> such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees
> someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to
> appreciate that act? Surely not.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Agreed. Automatic response there.
--------------------------------------------------
When someone asks for our assistance
> and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of
volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions.
---------------------------------------------------
When
> dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute,
> they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise
> without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are
> not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is
> an experience common to everyone.
>
> You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in
> more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not
> necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what
> I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more
> often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with
> me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of
> wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for
> what it is).
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort
involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less
useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's
actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more
true the "further along" one is, I believe.
-----------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced
> effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class
> known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala
> moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’).
>
> The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) --
>
> "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or
> recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such
> merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when
> ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or
> urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this
> sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or
> others."[ends]
>
> All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following
> prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2,
> the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker.
>
> The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is
> for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more
> developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know
> more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of
> kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie.
> without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t
> learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it
> won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior
> effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so.
>
> Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are
> accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then,
> as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the
> ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala
> citta of the prompted (weaker) kind.
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I think you make good points here, Jon.
----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things.
> Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier.
>
> Jon
>
> > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> > being
> > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > other
> > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > the
> > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > of
> > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > developed the factor of effort.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I
> > expressed
> > in a recent on-list post to Mike.
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Howard:
> > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard.
> > I
> > > am finding it a very interesting exchange.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > I as well!
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > ===========================
> > With metta,
> > Howard
>
=================================
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)
8342 From: Howard
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Hi, Kenneth -
In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
> In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do
> kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right
> extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not
> attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let
> go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the
> self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we
> give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self
> effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort
> still surrounds it.
> When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not
> attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall
> into the two extreme?
> Please forgive me for the strong wording
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding
the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part
makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is
that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me.
The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we
give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine.
================================
With metta,
Howard
>
>
> Howard wrote: Hi, Jon -
>
> In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
>
> > Howard
> >
> > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous
> > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise.
> >
> > When I said ...
> >
> > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > other
> > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > the
> > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > of
> > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > developed the factor of effort.
> >
> > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’
> for
> > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for
> > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would
> > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I
> > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for
> > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes
> less and less
> > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort
> > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and
> > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one
> > attaining to enlightenment.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised
> me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to
> understand your position to be.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Coming to your post to me--
> >
> > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> >
> > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> > > that
> > > > to the experience of the present moment.
> > > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But
> > > what
> > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort
> > > must
> > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
> > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional
> > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate
> > what I mean.
> >
> > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the
> > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required?
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times
> there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be
> chosen
> despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the
> one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some
> criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and
> conditions
> - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily
> *teeth-gritting* volition.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Surely not – yet
> >
> > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees
> > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to
> > appreciate that act? Surely not.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Agreed. Automatic response there.
> --------------------------------------------------
> When someone asks for our assistance
> > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of
> volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> When
> > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute,
> > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise
> > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of
> kusala are
> > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala –
> this is
> > an experience common to everyone.
> >
> > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in
> > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not
> > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what
> > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations
> is, more
> > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with
> > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of
> > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for
> > what it is).
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort
> involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be
> less
> useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's
> actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more
> true the "further along" one is, I believe.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced
> > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class
> > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala
> > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’).
> >
> > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) --
> >
> > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or
> > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such
> > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when
> > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or
> > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this
> > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or
> > others."[ends]
> >
> > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following
> > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2,
> > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker.
> >
> > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the
> aim is
> > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more
> > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know
> > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of
> > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie.
> > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we
> don’t
> > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it
> > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior
> > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so.
> >
> > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are
> > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right
> effort’, then,
> > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the
> > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a
> kusala
> > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I think you make good points here, Jon.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things.
> > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> > > being
> > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > > other
> > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > > the
> > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > > of
> > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > > developed the factor of effort.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I
> > > expressed
> > > in a recent on-list post to Mike.
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Howard:
> > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard.
> > > I
> > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I as well!
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ===========================
> > > With metta,
> > > Howard
> >
> =================================
> 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)
8343 From: rikpa21
Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Clinging (ERIK)
--- Sarah wrote:
> > Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be
> > obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is
also a
> > very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system,
> > of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan
> > recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer
cross-
> > examination a witness on the stand.
>
> Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like
dosa
> (aversion) is pretty apparent.
Right, therefore, when one notes aversion arising, one should know it
for what it is and let it go.
8344 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 1:48am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard
Dear Sarah,
Some great citations here!
--- Sarah wrote:
> > However, bhavanga only occurs when there are
> no
> > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it.
> At
> > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or
> latent
> > defilements?)
>
> Yes, there are latent defilements and all other
> ‘accumulated tendencies’ with
> each citta (moment of conciousness), including
> bhavanga cittas (life-continuum
> consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta,
> including each bhavanga
> citta is very fast and there is no continuous
> ‘luminous’ or any other
> existence.
Understood...
> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but
> it
> > > is defiled by intrusive
> > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is
> luminous,
> > > and it is freed from
> > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.)
>
> As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in
> this case to bhavanga cittas
> the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says;
>
> “Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of
> ‘exceedingly pure,’ with
> reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So
> the Buddha has said;-
> ‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by
> adventitious corruptions.’
> Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it
> issues (from subconscious vital
> conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is
> like the Ganges and a
> tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the
> Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed)
My project for the day is to be sure to order a copy
of Atthasaalinii.
> >.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga
>
> To be even more precise, the defilements only
> manifest with the akusala cittas
> during the javana process, there are the other
> cittas in the processes when
> there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements
> manifesting. If we’re
> lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-)
Yes--thanks for filling in these details.
> I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum)
> for bhavanga cittas in the
> above Atth. translation is rather confusing because
> it suggests bhavanga cittas
> are present all the time beneath the surface which
> of course is not correct.
> (but then I come from a psychology background so I
> may be particularly
> sensitive to these connotations;-)
Maybe not--I feel the same way and, as you know, find
this particular point to be hugely important.
> > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at
> all,
> > even theoretically. But it does remind me of
> > something about citta in general. Don't I
> remember TA
> > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure,
> like
> > the purest water? If I understand this correctly,
> > citta and cetasika arise together and in that
> sense
> > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by
> virtue of
> > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't
> > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala
> > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to
> be
> > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems
> > something like 'luminous but covered by
> defilements'
> > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from
> those
> > who know.
>
> I can’t pretend to understand some of these details
> well myself. I haven’t
> heard this theory of citta as a pure slate,
> tarnished by defilements before
> (except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the
> contrary, I understand
> kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta
> and kusala vipaka citta to
> be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so
> on. To give a couple of
> examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or
> akusala vipaka citta. The
> actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other
> mental factors accompanying
> it, is inherently good or bad result and of a
> different nature from any other
> moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as
> time. In the same way, a moment
> of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite
> different from a moment of
> unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its
> inherent nature as well as
> because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental
> factors accompanying each.
>
> There are many references to the variegated nature
> of the mind such as these
> ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation):
>
> “Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living
> beings so diversified as
> those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the
> animal realm have been
> diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is
> even more diverse than those
> beings in the animal realm.”
>
> `"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring
> On'?"
> "Yes, venerable sir."
> "Even that picture called `Faring On' has been
> designed in its
> diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more
> diverse than that picture
> called `Faring On'. …"
>
> The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth
> (68), p.91 ver1,2; Si,39>) also make it clear, I think, that
> the mind (citta) doesn’t just
> follow the mental states, but is instead the
> ‘leader’:
>
> ‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but
> also in some other lay
> discourses has he shown mind to be the principal.
> Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus,
> whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral,
> take sides with the
> immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind
> arises first.
>
> ‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind.
> And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind,
> Him evil follows as the wheel the ox.
> Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind,
> And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind,
> Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him.
>
> By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn:
> And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’
These are good points and great quotes. I must be
mistaken in remembering citta as being essentially
pure. I know that kusala and akusala cittas are the
result of many conditions, but still don't understand
what makes a citta kusala or akusala (in the moment)
other than cetasikas, so must study some more--a lot
more.
Thanks again,
mike
8345 From: m. nease
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 2:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike
Jon,
Thanks--the pali came from Ven. Buddhadatta's English
- Pali Dictionary.
mike
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Mike
>
> --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
>
> > So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common
> > with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one
> > object at a time, of all the objects it could
> > understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit
> into
> > abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa'
> or
> > 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across
> > either of these before).
>
>
> I suppose we could say that anything that has been
> accumulated but is not
> manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I
> have only come across
> latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be
> able to add more on
> this.
>
> Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with
> them, I'm afraid. Where
> did you get them from? I'd be interested to know
> more.
>
> Jon
>
8346 From: Jinavamsa
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:02am
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
hello Claudia and the Ven. Dr. Dhammapiyo, and all,
I thought it was an most unusual and inspiring idea, this
proposal in the USA for a general time for sending out
metta to Osama Bin Laden. That is hardly the approach
that was heard after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This
to me a (slight) indication of some (slight) shift in
consciousness going on in the world, perhaps.
In a way (a Buddhist way) of thinking about such things,
the conditions here are allowing for this more careful
understanding of violence to arise. What I mean is that
here, unlike the situation back in December of '41, the
attack was not done by the regular Armed Forces of a
nation state. Had the highjackers pulled off their civilian
clothing and changed into the military uniform of some
recognized governmental army, I suspect the US would have
declared war immediately (as it did the day after Pearl
Harbor).
Anyway, Dr. Dhammapiyo, thank you for pointing out that
metta practice requires a certain clearing of the consciousness
so to speak before it can be smooth flowing as a process.
I would sense that if there is resentment or anger that arises
in the process of doing a metta practice, that that would
in a way replace the metta practice, or at least suspend
it for a while, while the anger or pain or whatever would
be investigated.....
Would you be willing to give a guideline or two of what
people might be alert to if they are to decide to go along
with the Metta for Bin Laden suggestion? or point out the
distinctions between metta and tonglen practice? (Do you
think that tonglen practice would be more powerful here,
for example, or more relevant?)
in peace,
jinavamsa
======
8347 From: KennethOng
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:16am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon,
I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired"
Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or unprompted.
When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme?
Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong
as long as self ego is not let
> go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the
> self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we
> give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self
> effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort
> still surrounds it.
Howard wrote: Hi, Kenneth -
In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
> In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do
> kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right
> extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not
> attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let
> go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the
> self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we
> give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self
> effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort
> still surrounds it.
> When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not
> attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall
> into the two extreme?
> Please forgive me for the strong wording
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding
the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part
makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is
that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me.
The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we
give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine.
================================
With metta,
Howard
>
>
> Howard wrote: Hi, Jon -
>
> In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
>
>
> > Howard
> >
> > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous
> > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise.
> >
> > When I said ...
> >
> > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > other
> > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > the
> > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > of
> > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > developed the factor of effort.
> >
> > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’
> for
> > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for
> > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would
> > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I
> > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for
> > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes
> less and less
> > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort
> > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and
> > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one
> > attaining to enlightenment.
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised
> me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to
> understand your position to be.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Coming to your post to me--
> >
> > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> >
> > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and
> > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the
> > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying
> > > that
> > > > to the experience of the present moment.
> > > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But
> > > what
> > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort
> > > must
> > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been
> > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment".
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional
> > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate
> > what I mean.
> >
> > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the
> > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required?
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times
> there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be
> chosen
> despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the
> one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some
> criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and
> conditions
> - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily
> *teeth-gritting* volition.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Surely not – yet
> >
> > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees
> > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to
> > appreciate that act? Surely not.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Agreed. Automatic response there.
> --------------------------------------------------
> When someone asks for our assistance
> > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of
> volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> When
> > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute,
> > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise
> > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of
> kusala are
> > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala –
> this is
> > an experience common to everyone.
> >
> > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in
> > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not
> > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what
> > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations
> is, more
> > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with
> > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of
> > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for
> > what it is).
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort
> involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be
> less
> useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's
> actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more
> true the "further along" one is, I believe.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> >
> > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced
> > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class
> > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala
> > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’).
> >
> > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) --
> >
> > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or
> > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such
> > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when
> > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or
> > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this
> > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or
> > others."[ends]
> >
> > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following
> > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2,
> > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker.
> >
> > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the
> aim is
> > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more
> > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know
> > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of
> > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie.
> > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we
> don’t
> > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it
> > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior
> > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so.
> >
> > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are
> > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right
> effort’, then,
> > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the
> > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a
> kusala
> > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I think you make good points here, Jon.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things.
> > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as
> > > being
> > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is.
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine?
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the
> > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly
> > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In
> > > other
> > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on
> > > the
> > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that
> > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment
> > > of
> > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly
> > > > developed the factor of effort.
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I
> > > expressed
> > > in a recent on-list post to Mike.
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Howard:
> > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly.
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard.
> > > I
> > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > > I as well!
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ===========================
> > > With metta,
> > > Howard
> >
> =================================
> 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)
8348 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:05pm
Subject: More on the Luminosity of Mind (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard)
--- Sarah wrote:
> This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from
> without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come
> from without.’
Hi Sarah!
Thanks for your answers. I find this very interesting and I appreciate you going
through these points with me.
Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really says
'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it would
point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some undefiled,
and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying
'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them.
However, I still have some questions:
If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from defilements, why
are they spoken of as being defiled?
The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow of
life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it is the
luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' Why
would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because it is
the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'?
It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please forgive
me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of
this. Hope you don't mind!
Then the mind which is said to be 'cleansed' of taints from without, sounds like
it is saying that it was previously defiled but is no longer defiled, as it has
been 'cleansed', a process that takes place in time. If it was merely a momentary
'citta' rather than talking about a general structure of 'mind', how could it be
defiled and then be cleansed of defilements.
But it says: "that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that
come
from without.
It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't say
'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I don't
see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but it has
been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to
something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other words,
either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a moment or
two.
Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that they
are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently
luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process of
purification.
If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question
would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with Abdhidhamma?
Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with this
area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'.
The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that the
perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is indeed
more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight into
the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated [both?]
and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually
eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying
defilements.
What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and passing
of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, the
statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every
establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. What
is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of 'defilements'
from outside?
As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more
panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is luminous, in
the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your
explanation?
If so, one can look at the luminosity of mind as the luminosity of panna. Every
arising citta contains the seed of panna. It only needs to be looked at properly
for vipassana and then panna to arise on any given occasion. Of course, it may
not, but this potential for panna is inherent in every arising moment.
I don't know if all this is going too far, from your point of view, but I think it
may make more sense of the original statement in the sutra, if someone can fill in
some of the holes for me.
> I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still
> understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary
> notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by
> the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their
> authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka
> references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or
> awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well.
>
> Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so
> carefully.
Thank you for being so patient! As you can see, I do still have a few ideas and
questions that aren't quite settled yet! I would love to have a look at the
commentaries on this particular passage. I am anxious to further confuse myself
on this passage , which seems particularly ripe to me.
I'll be very interested in what you think about this.
Best Regards,
Robert Ep.
============================
8349 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being
> closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based
> partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special
> significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my
> reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be
> developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I
> think you would be familiar with the passage in question).
>
> I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything
> forward. ;-))
>
> Jon
Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I think you
are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being
particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was prescribed
for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm remembering
wrong [which is very possible].
I think it must be true in any case, that awareness should be developed in all of
the positions one finds oneself in. This is a little different from 'meditation
practice', but that doesn't assume tbat meditation is the only way to practice,
either.
Best Regards,
Robert Ep.
8350 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:37pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS)
Robert Ep
--- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon,
> A few possible points for your consideration:
>
> If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries,
> and why
> the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn
> Chah or K.
> Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their
> application, then we
> can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put
> the sutras
> into practice.
>
> In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many
> cases by the
> Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional
> commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of
> understandings
> and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets
> of wisdom
> that come off the main stream, do we not?
We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas
do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our
ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally
addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to
rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better
understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the
suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the
commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A
good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views.
I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of
understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge
about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will
continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated
by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable
detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings
over the centuries/millennia.
> Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I
> have to
> consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may
> start out, in
> order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there
> anything
> inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely
> unqualified to
> discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through
> cultivation and
> referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very
> different
> view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of
> discerning
> anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be
> incorporated
> and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom.
>
> As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that
> panna is
> passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even
> though they
> arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing
> an ability
> to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one
> progresses, I
> would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to
> increase as
> well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as
> nothing and
> the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in
> training.
> Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own
> understanding,
> we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of
> interest or
> investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth.
>
> So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should
> engage with
> them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves,
> rather
> than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a
> living document
> and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a
> human being
> and turned into their way of seeing and understanding.
>
> I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know
> what they
> mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and
> even
> re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning
> over time
> and going through our own process of discovery.
Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we
are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and
contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some
wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions
to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity
of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount
of wisdom similarly accumulated.)
The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further
wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries.
Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge
they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death).
So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of
wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and
commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether
our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view.
I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that
the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to
'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be
interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying.
> Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to
> me.
> Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm
> talking
> about.
Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone
coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here
(without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to
be asked to back up any assertion made!
Jon
8351 From: Sukinderpal Narula
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:27pm
Subject: [Fwd: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis]
8352 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Thanks, Sukin, for coming in here.
Since you invite comments from anybody, I would like to see if some of our
(recently) more silent members would like to join this thread.
Let's hear it, Kom, Num, Betty, Tadao, Alex ... or anyone else, of course.
;-))
--- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Jon,
> I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the
> 'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post
> expressing my appreciation.
> I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone
> or
> the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can.
> But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to
> appreciate
> your own contributions more and more, I will say something.
> My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises
> only
> when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience.
> When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from
> fear of repercussions to cold indifference.
> And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it
> to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are
> dealing
> purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the
> conceptual
> level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop
> until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that
> everytime
> there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example,
> knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements,
> and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be
> patient
> towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can
> arise.
> Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other
> paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience
> to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the
> development of
> wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not
> the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'.
> A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard
> to development of wisdom.
> I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from
> anybody.
>
> Metta,
> Sukin.
>
> Jonothan Abbott wrote:
>
> > Mike
> >
> > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon,
> >
> > > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka
> > > > Atthakatha (published
> > > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the
> > > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is
> > > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the
> > > > practice of the other
> > > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all
> > > > the paramis". It is
> > > > also described as being to the other paramis as life
> > > > is to the bodily
> > > > organism. I think that gives it a certain
> > > > pre-eminence.
> > >
> > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my
> > > 'pre-immminence').
> >
> > Hadn't noticed it, to be honest!
> >
> > > > Another passage from the same section is of
> > > > relevance to one of the other
> > > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the
> > > > role of wisdom in the
> > > > perfection of energy parami, it says:
> > > >
> > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the
> > > > purpose desired, since it
> > > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse
> > > > energy at all than to
> > > > arouse it in the wrong way."
> > > >
> > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than
> > > > wrongly aroused.
> > > > Strong words indeed.
> > >
> > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be
> > > true of the other paramis, too. Without
> > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can
> > > be dangerous I think.
> >
> > Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their
> near
> > enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different
> category, I
> > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its
> function
> > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and
> > performs its function in a kusala manner.
> >
> > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one
> > > > that we probably
> > > > associate with wisdom, is this:
> > > >
> > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the
> > > > wrongs of others, not
> > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the
> > > > wrongs of others only
> > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his
> > > > patience into play
> > > > and make it grow even stronger."
> > > >
> > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection
> > > > being made here.
> > >
> > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening
> > > patience.
> >
> > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate
> the
> > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I
> just
> > happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering
> if
> > any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance
> on
> > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
>
8353 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:48pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Kenneth
Hi! First, a belated welcome to the group from me, and my thanks for your
many recent posts
--- KennethOng wrote: >
> Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon,
> I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the
> night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired"
> Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the
> attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is
> umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions
> whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self
> is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted
> or unprompted.
>
> When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it
> not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we
> fall into the two extreme?
Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that
developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an
idea of a self. Have I got it right?
I think this is a very perceptive comment, and one I would entirely agree
with.
Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or,
as you put it, 'let go of')?
By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala
cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned
nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by
ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this
distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the
Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to
relate it to your own experience?
Jon
8354 From: Howard
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Thanks, Kenneth.
With metta,
Howard
In a message dated 9/30/01 11:17:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
>
> Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon,
> I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the
> night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired"
> Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the
> attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is
> umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions
> whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is
> not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or
> unprompted.
>
> When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not
> attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall
> into the two extreme?
>
> Kindest regards
>
> Kenneth Ong
>
>
/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)
8355 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS)
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Robert Ep
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon,
> > A few possible points for your consideration:
> >
> > If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries,
> > and why
> > the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn
> > Chah or K.
> > Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their
> > application, then we
> > can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put
> > the sutras
> > into practice.
> >
> > In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many
> > cases by the
> > Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional
> > commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of
> > understandings
> > and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets
> > of wisdom
> > that come off the main stream, do we not?
>
> We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas
> do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our
> ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally
> addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to
> rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better
> understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the
> suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the
> commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A
> good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views.
Hi Jon!
My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us because of
ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning for us is giving
us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' and is the
original view of the Sutta? We have to trust our 'good friend' to have access to
the original view, since we can't verify it ourselves.
That's fine, as long as you feel that you can know with some certainty that the
interpreters you are relying upon understand the original meaning. It is not,
however, the same thing, as hearing the words of the Buddha directly. It is an
explanation or interpretation that you are relying upon, one way or the other.
This is only to say that if I rely on the wisdom of a Zen Master who also seeks to
relay the true meaning of the Buddha's words to me, I don't believe that is very
different from what you are relying on in the commentaries, or via the teachers
who explain the Suttas. Or is it?
> I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of
> understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge
> about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will
> continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated
> by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable
> detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings
> over the centuries/millennia.
If people are still using the Buddha's teachings to move towards enlightenment and
if some are realizing Nibbana and carrying on the teachings, I don't understand
how they can continue to devolve. Why would this be? Isn't the eventual
destination that the Buddha laid out more and more people reaching Nibbana? Or is
restricted to a very few in your understanding?
> > Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I
> > have to
> > consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may
> > start out, in
> > order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there
> > anything
> > inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely
> > unqualified to
> > discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through
> > cultivation and
> > referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very
> > different
> > view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of
> > discerning
> > anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be
> > incorporated
> > and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom.
> >
> > As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that
> > panna is
> > passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even
> > though they
> > arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing
> > an ability
> > to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one
> > progresses, I
> > would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to
> > increase as
> > well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as
> > nothing and
> > the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in
> > training.
> > Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own
> > understanding,
> > we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of
> > interest or
> > investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth.
> >
> > So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should
> > engage with
> > them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves,
> > rather
> > than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a
> > living document
> > and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a
> > human being
> > and turned into their way of seeing and understanding.
> >
> > I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know
> > what they
> > mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and
> > even
> > re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning
> > over time
> > and going through our own process of discovery.
>
> Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we
> are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and
> contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some
> wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions
> to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity
> of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount
> of wisdom similarly accumulated.)
We still have to develop the wisdom ourselves, do we not? We can't take a
photocopy of the Buddha's wisdom and make it our own. Even if there is no 'self',
we still have to have generated the cittas that will carry panna [if I'm using
these ideas correctly...]...?
> The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further
> wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries.
> Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge
> they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death).
I still don't understand how the Tipitaka will disappear. It seems to be
available quite freely. Have parts already been lost? How would this occur? I
don't mean to be dense, but it seems a lot of people have copies..... Or do you
mean it in another way, that our understanding will diminish, even though the
texts will continue to be there....?
> So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of
> wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and
> commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether
> our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view.
I only question whether our reading of the Tipitaka is correct. If we compare our
view to a wrong view of the Suttas, which are not always easy to understand, then
we will have a wrong view to compare our view to. We have to have panna to
understand the Suttas and we have to have the Suttas to develop panna, this is a
vicious cycle. Which is why I think that the direct seeing into realities, which
all must practice in any case, must be a basis for reading the Suttas as well.
The Suttas, read from the point of view of Ignorance, can be misleading, may they
not? So we must have some independent insight through our own process of
mindfulness and understanding, no?
> I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that
> the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to
> 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be
> interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying.
My understanding, perhaps from the studies of philosophy I have done in the past,
is that we never read anything directly. Our understanding of what we read is
colored by our presuppositions and understandings that we bring to it. I see
understanding Suttas as a process rather than a given. We may look back at a
Sutta ten years from now, with more panna, and say 'Oh my God, I didn't understand
this at all, it really meant *this*.' Without insight, reading in itself has no
certainty. It is part of a process of growth in understanding in knowledge, which
is the case in studying anything, not just the Suttas. We are human beings, and
our pre-existing kandhas shape the impressions we get of everything. So the
Suttas come in not seen directly, but distorted by defilements as well. So one
has to come to wisdom in regard to the suttas just as much as regards any dharma.
In my view, anyway.
> > Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to
> > me.
> > Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm
> > talking
> > about.
>
> Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone
> coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here
> (without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to
> be asked to back up any assertion made!
Oh well, if I weren't challenged in turn, it wouldn't be any fun, would it? I
hope my answers above at least clarify my view a bit more. I'll be happy to hear
your response. Shall I brace myself?? :]
Regards,
Robert Ep.
8356 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:27am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef Sukinderpal Narula op :
> My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only
> when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience.
> When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from
> fear of repercussions to cold indifference.
> And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it
> to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing
> purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual
> level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop
> until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime
> there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example,
> knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements,
> and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient
> towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise.
> Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other
> paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience
> to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of
> wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not
> the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'.
> A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard
> to development of wisdom.
> I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from
> anybody.
>
Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and
non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this
is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin
encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana.
Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be
reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing,
visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six
doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of
the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine
realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously.
Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We
also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged
them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element,
because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why
don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as
attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is
not a self who develops.
Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the
Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again,
Nina.
8357 From: Herman
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:40am
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Hi there,
While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps
also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for
whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in
the newspaper, radio and tv.
And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of
US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil,
with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
really quite absurd.
With metta
Herman
--- claudia harris
wrote:
> North America's response to terrorism--
> metta for Bin Laden
> Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> >
> How big is your heart?
>
> Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut
> down in pain or fear or anger?
>
> Will you be a vehicle for peace?
> >
> > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A
> moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of
> peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for
> just one moment the cycle
> > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace,
> > something may shift in the human experience. And
> > the
> > world can be a safer place for all of us.
>
> Please help to spread the word about
> metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2,
> 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> >
> Blessings,
> Claudia
>
> "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate;
> hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield
> is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want
> peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all
> do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to
> deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and
> disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das
>
8358 From: Jinavamsa
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:46am
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
hello Herman and all,
yes, may all living beings in all worlds be happy,
healthy, secure, and at peace. all. indeed.
I have been thinking about some of the issues you raise
in your suggestion about metta practice of US Gov't
Foreign Policy (there is one?). Please give me one
example of a country which does not see itself in the
right in its thinking. I think that would be terrific
to have to get us all clearer about what the alternative
could be for governments. And may that example be an
inspiration to all gov't types, so to speak.
Still, to continue, I am not sure that this sort of issue
is going to be solved on a nationalistic level of process/
consciousness.
just a hunch. what do you think?
in peace,
jinavamsa
=============
--- Herman wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps
> also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for
> whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so
in
> the newspaper, radio and tv.
>
> And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters
of
> US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus
evil,
> with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
>
> And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> really quite absurd.
>
> With metta
>
> Herman
>
> --- claudia harris
> wrote:
> > North America's response to terrorism--
> > metta for Bin Laden
> > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> > >
> > How big is your heart?
> >
> > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut
> > down in pain or fear or anger?
> >
> > Will you be a vehicle for peace?
> > >
> > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A
> > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of
> > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for
> > just one moment the cycle
> > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace,
> > > something may shift in the human experience. And
> > > the
> > > world can be a safer place for all of us.
> >
> > Please help to spread the word about
> > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2,
> > 9pm eastern, 8pm central,
> > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific
> > >
> > Blessings,
> > Claudia
> >
> > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate;
> > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield
> > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want
> > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all
> > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to
> > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and
> > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das
> >
> >
> >
> >
8359 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:58am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
--- Herman wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps
> also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for
> whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in
> the newspaper, radio and tv.
Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were killed in
one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants to
destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his
objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of course,
has some horrible aspects to it.
1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have U.S.
troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the Palestinians
to claim Palestine as their own.
He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and
intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from the
peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign policy by
killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that doesn't
mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to
countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies?
Please answer.
> And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of
> US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil,
> with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
>
> And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> really quite absurd.
>
> With metta
>
> Herman
Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone.
Robert
8360 From: Howard
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Hi, Rob -
In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Robert E writes:
> Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I
> think you
> are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being
> particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was
> prescribed
> for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm
> remembering
> wrong [which is very possible].
>
========================
I don't think it was I who said it.
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)
8361 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Rob -
>
> In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Robert E writes:
>
>
> > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I
> > think you
> > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being
> > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was
> > prescribed
> > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm
> > remembering
> > wrong [which is very possible].
> >
> ========================
> I don't think it was I who said it.
No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert.
Robert Ep.
8362 From: robertkirkpatrick
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:10am
Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach
Dear Rob Ep.,
Yep, it was me who said that anapanasati requires special conditions
including posture . This is indicated in the suttas and commentaries.
robert k.---
Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> --- Howard wrote:
> > Hi, Rob -
> >
> > In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > <> writes:
> >
> >
> > > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at
present, and I
> > > think you
> > > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus
posture being
> > > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that
it was
> > > prescribed
> > > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless
I'm
> > > remembering
> > > wrong [which is very possible].
> > >
> > ========================
> > I don't think it was I who said it.
>
> No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert.
>
> Robert Ep.
>
8363 From: Howard
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-))
With metta,
Howard
In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Robert E writes:
>
> --- Herman wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps
> > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for
> > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in
> > the newspaper, radio and tv.
>
> Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
> Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were
> killed in
> one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
>
> bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants
> to
> destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his
> objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of
> course,
> has some horrible aspects to it.
>
> 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have
> U.S.
> troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
>
> 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the
> Palestinians
> to claim Palestine as their own.
>
> He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and
> intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from
> the
> peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign
> policy by
> killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that
> doesn't
> mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to
> countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies?
> Please answer.
>
> > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of
> > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil,
> > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
> >
> > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> > really quite absurd.
> >
> > With metta
> >
> > Herman
>
> Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone.
>
> Robert
>
/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)
8364 From: Herman
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:26am
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Robert,
So Mr bin Laden is guilty then?
I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media
does, obviously.
I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping
statements, Robert.
The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is
built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as
well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant
world power by being very nice to everybody.
Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go
without consequences.
Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of
7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not
selective about where I see these things happening.
While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are
murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these
systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as
tacit approval?
All the best
Herman
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> --- Herman wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should
perhaps
> > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty
for
> > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said
so in
> > the newspaper, radio and tv.
>
> Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
> Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who
were killed in
> one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
>
> bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts
and wants to
> destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has
stated his
> objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy,
which of course,
> has some horrible aspects to it.
>
> 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land
to have U.S.
> troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
>
> 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow
the Palestinians
> to claim Palestine as their own.
>
> He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of
terrorism and
> intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and
withdraw from the
> peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S.
foreign policy by
> killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta,
but that doesn't
> mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing
suffering to
> countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S.
policies?
> Please answer.
>
> > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters
of
> > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus
evil,
> > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
> >
> > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> > really quite absurd.
> >
> > With metta
> >
> > Herman
>
> Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as
anyone.
>
> Robert
>
8365 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:38am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
--- Howard wrote:
> Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-))
>
> With metta,
> Howard
I doubt it! We're obviously in touch with the truth!!!
:]
Robert Ep.
====================
> In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Robert E writes:
>
>
> >
> > --- Herman wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps
> > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for
> > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in
> > > the newspaper, radio and tv.
> >
> > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
> > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were
> > killed in
> > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
> >
> > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants
> > to
> > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his
> > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of
> > course,
> > has some horrible aspects to it.
> >
> > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have
> > U.S.
> > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
> >
> > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the
> > Palestinians
> > to claim Palestine as their own.
> >
> > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and
> > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from
> > the
> > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign
> > policy by
> > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that
> > doesn't
> > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to
> > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies?
> > Please answer.
> >
> > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of
> > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil,
> > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
> > >
> > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> > > really quite absurd.
> > >
> > > With metta
> > >
> > > Herman
> >
> > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
>
>
> /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)
>
8366 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:03am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
--- Herman wrote:
> Robert,
>
> So Mr bin Laden is guilty then?
>
> I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media
> does, obviously.
>
> I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping
> statements, Robert.
>
> The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is
> built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as
> well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant
> world power by being very nice to everybody.
>
> Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go
> without consequences.
>
> Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of
> 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not
> selective about where I see these things happening.
>
> While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are
> murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these
> systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as
> tacit approval?
>
> All the best
>
>
> Herman
Dear Herman,
I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. I care about
the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin America and all
around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in Guatemala, and I
care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their husbands legally
under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment for women, or a
widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat or kill
someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their beard. I also care
at this particular moment about something that happened just the other day: 7,000
people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left 7,000 families
from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific grief. I don't
just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care about all of
them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and policemen who willingly
ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives.
Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the hundreds who jumped
out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in superheated
airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical hijackers who slit
passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, in fact I do
care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on the path? If
so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into a mechanical
path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things are the same
and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong path and gone
too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are inherently empty and
fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty in our lives.
There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is appropriate when
something horrifying is done to innocent people, without speculating on their
karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this horror has
taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the reasons why the U.S.
is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you express your
compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into a mass of body
parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of real
compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, which is
allowable and also necessary.
As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel about all the
people who were killed, but just go straight into a political speech, I have no
way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need to say it, and
express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they didn't represent a
poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered horribly and left
behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to them first. Let
them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently-departed
kandhas.
Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted it. There is
also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World Trade Center
bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But that is
besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist camps in
Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the Taliban has committed
thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own people. There
is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin Laden, who
personally gave them three million to jump start them at their inception, and has
supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt that Sudan and
Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both now severed ties
in the wake of this tragedy.
To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to U.S. auto
accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is represented by
automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally I would rather
die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat cut in the
public square, as happens in Afganistan every day.
Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an idea of how I
feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that Americans have a
right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been writing to all
my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are expressed, saying that
anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several times, because of
their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I mean that. I
have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace-loving people.
I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the million Rwandans
killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western countries, and I
have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I will shed my
tears for the victims first, and then the killers second.
Robert Ep.
===============================
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> >
> > --- Herman wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should
> perhaps
> > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty
> for
> > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said
> so in
> > > the newspaper, radio and tv.
> >
> > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
> > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who
> were killed in
> > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
> >
> > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts
> and wants to
> > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has
> stated his
> > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy,
> which of course,
> > has some horrible aspects to it.
> >
> > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land
> to have U.S.
> > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
> >
> > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow
> the Palestinians
> > to claim Palestine as their own.
> >
> > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of
> terrorism and
> > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and
> withdraw from the
> > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S.
> foreign policy by
> > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta,
> but that doesn't
> > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing
> suffering to
> > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S.
> policies?
> > Please answer.
> >
> > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters
> of
> > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus
> evil,
> > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory.
> > >
> > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is
> > > really quite absurd.
> > >
> > > With metta
> > >
> > > Herman
> >
> > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as
> anyone.
> >
> > Robert
> >
>
8367 From: Howard
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:25am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Hi, Herman -
In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Herman writes:
> The laws of karma apply to the US as
>
=========================
It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as are the
fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, then they may
have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a Buddhist notion
to the best of my knowledge.
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)
8368 From: Moderators
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:17pm
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Dear All,
May we ask everyone to keep comments on dsg to strictly
dhamma ones rather than political ones.
If you find it difficult to discuss this topic without getting political,
may we suggest you continue the discussion off-list.
Jon & Sarah
--- Herman wrote:
> Robert,
>
> So Mr bin Laden is guilty then?
>
> I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US
media
> does, obviously.
8371 From: Herman
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:29am
Subject: Samma-sambuddha
Hi all,
In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever
seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they
become so by their own efforts.
And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that
means :-)
How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist?
All the best
Herman
8372 From: Herman
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:46pm
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Howard,
There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and
so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know.
Happy to be corrected, of course :-)
All the best
Herman
--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Herman -
>
> In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Herman writes:
>
>
> > The laws of karma apply to the US as
> >
> =========================
> It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as
are the
> fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners,
then they may
> have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a
Buddhist notion
> to the best of my knowledge.
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
8373 From: Herman
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:55pm
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Robert,
I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written
some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a
projection of yours.
So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it
looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing,
then we can perhaps keep communicating.
All the best
Herman
--- Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> --- Herman wrote:
> > Robert,
> >
> > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then?
> >
> > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US
media
> > does, obviously.
> >
> > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your
sweeping
> > statements, Robert.
> >
> > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It
is
> > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US
as
> > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the
dominant
> > world power by being very nice to everybody.
> >
> > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not
go
> > without consequences.
> >
> > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of
> > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am
not
> > selective about where I see these things happening.
> >
> > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are
> > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on
these
> > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed
as
> > tacit approval?
> >
> > All the best
> >
> >
> > Herman
>
> Dear Herman,
> I am one of the people who care about people all around the world.
I care about
> the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin
America and all
> around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in
Guatemala, and I
> care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their
husbands legally
> under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment
for women, or a
> widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat
or kill
> someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their
beard. I also care
> at this particular moment about something that happened just the
other day: 7,000
> people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left
7,000 families
> from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific
grief. I don't
> just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care
about all of
> them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and
policemen who willingly
> ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives.
>
> Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the
hundreds who jumped
> out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in
superheated
> airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical
hijackers who slit
> passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes,
in fact I do
> care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on
the path? If
> so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into
a mechanical
> path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things
are the same
> and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong
path and gone
> too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are
inherently empty and
> fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty
in our lives.
>
> There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is
appropriate when
> something horrifying is done to innocent people, without
speculating on their
> karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this
horror has
> taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the
reasons why the U.S.
> is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you
express your
> compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into
a mass of body
> parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of
real
> compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human,
which is
> allowable and also necessary.
>
> As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel
about all the
> people who were killed, but just go straight into a political
speech, I have no
> way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need
to say it, and
> express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they
didn't represent a
> poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered
horribly and left
> behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to
them first. Let
> them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently-
departed
> kandhas.
>
> Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted
it. There is
> also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World
Trade Center
> bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But
that is
> besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist
camps in
> Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the
Taliban has committed
> thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own
people. There
> is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin
Laden, who
> personally gave them three million to jump start them at their
inception, and has
> supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt
that Sudan and
> Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both
now severed ties
> in the wake of this tragedy.
>
> To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to
U.S. auto
> accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is
represented by
> automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally
I would rather
> die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat
cut in the
> public square, as happens in Afganistan every day.
>
> Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an
idea of how I
> feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that
Americans have a
> right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been
writing to all
> my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are
expressed, saying that
> anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several
times, because of
> their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I
mean that. I
> have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace-
loving people.
>
> I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the
million Rwandans
> killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western
countries, and I
> have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I
will shed my
> tears for the victims first, and then the killers second.
>
> Robert Ep.
>
> ===============================
>
>
> > --- Robert Epstein
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- Herman wrote:
> > > > Hi there,
> > > >
> > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should
> > perhaps
> > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him
guilty
> > for
> > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it
said
> > so in
> > > > the newspaper, radio and tv.
> > >
> > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break!
> > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people
who
> > were killed in
> > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that.
> > >
> > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist
acts
> > and wants to
> > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He
has
> > stated his
> > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy,
> > which of course,
> > > has some horrible aspects to it.
> > >
> > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy
land
> > to have U.S.
> > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca.
> > >
> > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and
allow
> > the Palestinians
> > > to claim Palestine as their own.
> > >
> > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of
> > terrorism and
> > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and
> > withdraw from the
> > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate
U.S.
> > foreign policy by
> > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of
metta,
> > but that doesn't
> > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing
> > suffering to
> > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of
U.S.
> > policies?
> > > Please answer.
> > >
> > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and
supporters
> > of
> > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good
versus
> > evil,
> > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite
illusory.
> > > >
> > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective
metta is
> > > > really quite absurd.
> > > >
> > > > With metta
> > > >
> > > > Herman
> > >
> > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as
> > anyone.
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> >
8374 From: Sarah
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:16pm
Subject: Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep
Dear Rob Ep,
Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it
interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth.
--- Robert Epstein wrote: >
> > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from
> > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that
> come
> > from without.’
>
> Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really
> says
> 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it
> would
> point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some
> undefiled,
> and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying
> 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them.
>
> However, I still have some questions:
>
> If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from
> defilements, why
> are they spoken of as being defiled?
--------------------
Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are
luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there
are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e.
akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana
process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or
pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie
dormant with each citta).
This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this
extract from the Commentary to the Sutta:
--------------------
'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m
bhava"ngacitta.m.
Jim: "It is also pure because it is
unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a
state of without defilement(s)'. '
'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi.
Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at
the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.'
'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati
vuccati.
Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called
defiled.'
---------------------
Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and
don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been
working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy
here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please
note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time
as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the
sense door or mind door ‘activity’.
--------------------
>
> The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow
> of
> life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it
> is the
> luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.'
> Why
> would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because
> it is
> the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'?
--------------------
This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma
perspective:
The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door
process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2)
sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4)
investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas
which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2
registering consciousness
When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the
Com notes to the javana cittas.
--------------------
>
> It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please
> forgive
> me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of
> this. Hope you don't mind!
--------------------
If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested
in trying to clarify (and learn).
--------------------
>.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't
say
> 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I
> don't
> see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but
> it has
> been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to
> something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other
> words,
> either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a
> moment or
> two.
--------------------
Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which
arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I
believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of
unwholsesome states and of skilful states:
‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it
really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has
developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’
The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know
cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that
as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense
and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other
defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories
about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We
can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very
little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind.
--------------------
>
> Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that
> they
> are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently
> luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process
> of
> purification.
> If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question
> would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with
> Abdhidhamma?
> Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with
> this
> area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'.
>
> The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that
> the
> perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is
> indeed
> more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight
> into
> the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated
> [both?]
> and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually
> eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying
> defilements.
-------------------
I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na
is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the
cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual
elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that
there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana
processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can
never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a
process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see
the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna
that can lead to enlightenment.
--------------------
>
> What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and
> passing
> of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so,
> the
> statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every
> establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same.
> What
> is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of
> 'defilements'
> from outside?
>
> As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more
> panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is
> luminous, in
> the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your
> explanation?
--------------------
It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not
sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember
panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the
Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of
understanding’ and so on.
Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not
to further sidetrack now.
The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and
not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are:
1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the
ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)?
2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this.
3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the
Abhidhamma
4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of
defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as
I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is
rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not
necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for
example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may
be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but
not necessarily at all with panna.
--------------------
I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing
back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be
following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in
far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes.
Sarah
8375 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:57pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon]
Howard
Many thanks for this interesting overview of our discussions to date on
this very important aspect of the teachings. I appreciate your sincere
and constructive comments.
At last I know where I stand on the subject! (And I am relieved to know
you think, as I do, that we are not at opposite extremes.)
Your post is in the queue for a reply, and hope to get back to you a bit
later with a proper response.
Jon
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
>
> With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of
> view in
> which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I
> think
> of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right"
> extreme,
> with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view.
> It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which,
> when
> wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person'
> or
> 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising
>
> automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when
> that
> intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the
> intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is
> active and
> growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against.
>
> As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see
> intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost
> illusory,
> as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it
> appears
> that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs
> being
> either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but,
> in
> either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack
> of
> control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to
> guard
> against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far,
> far
> away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to
> the
> "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies
> to be
> closely watched.
>
> 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)
>
>
>
8376 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:36pm
Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Mike (and Howard)
(This is a re-post of a message I sent before but which has not
shown up on the list. Apologies if it results in any duplication.)
--- "m. nease"
wrote:
> Dear Jon and Howard,
>
> This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of
> way for some time:
>
> --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Howard
> > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by
> > the intention to have
> > effort, so that there is a sort of intention,
> > effort, kusala citta chain.
> > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally
> > conceived of, but the
> > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions
> > for things. So while
> > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of
> > kusala, in the sense
> > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala
> > moment, it is not
> > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala
> > moment.
>
> If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that
> right effort is a co-arising factor but not a
> precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which
> concurs with my understanding.
Yes, that is my reading of the texts.
> What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a
> path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with
> every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in
> kusala and akusala moments. We all know
> (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's
> impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a
> moment of right effort, as well as a present factor?
>
> I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right
> effort will occur when the conditions for it are
> present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for
> example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of
> understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala
> cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately).
This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring
to mind from our own experience instances when kusala has
arisen spontaneously and without any 'intention' on our part, or
when kusala and akusala moments have arisen intermingled
(eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to help/hesitating to do so,
gladness for another's success/envy at that person)
> If so,
> then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?)
> might arise sequentially, but without each being
> dependent on the previous.
The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an
earlier post was meant to be a summary, in conventional terms,
of one particular view of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said
that if the mind-state is, for example, akusala then by means of
deliberate intention and effort the mind-state can become
kusala. It seems to me that, in terms of moments of
consciousness, any such intention and effort are simply aspects
of thinking of one kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be
motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. Certainly they
could not themselves necessarily be kusala moments, since
that would mean that kusala was simply a matter of being 'willed'
up. Nor does the context suggest that they are particularly likely
to be kusala (as has been noted before, sincerity of intentions
does not a kusala citta make).
When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his
listeners to exert effort, he must be taken as referring to
moments of kusala citta -- it would make a mockery of the
teachings to read these passages as otherwise. As we have
seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself
necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here
purely from my own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice.
That's why I have been at some pains lately to stress the
difference between the two.
> Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think
> of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and
> subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there
> a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'?
You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice'
that could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that
direct the mind to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen
object etc are, in terms of individual mind-moments, by no
means single moments or anything like it but in fact substantial
periods of thinking.
I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to
be a reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala.
This of course is true but, to my understanding, the idea that
such reminders will make any real difference in this respect is
misconceived.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> mike
And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up.
Jon
PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite
direct (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I
should expect some pretty direct responses from others …..
8377 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Howard
--- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon -
>
> I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One
>
> thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing
> satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the
> "anchor"
> there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during
> meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it
> is
> the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds?
> The
> answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one
> did
> not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it.
I'd like to suggest a somewhat different perspective on suttas that deal
with mindfulness of breathing.
Breath is an aspect of our body. As with everything else about the body
it is, in the ultimate analysis, an assemblage of different rupas. For
this reason breathing is given in the Body section of the Satipatthana
Sutta as one of the possible objects of attention. Whenever there is a
moment of awareness of a rupa that we take for breath, this is a moment of
awareness of breathing (anapanasati -- satipatthana with breath as
object).
So anapanasati is, I would say, an *aspect of* satipatthana, rather than
being a *method of implementing* satipatthana.
Breath can also be an object of samatha bhavana (samatha is the
development of tranquillity by suppression of akusala). Somewhat
confusingly, such development is also called anapanasati. Now at the
advanced levels of samatha bhavana, a single object (in this case, the
breath) becomes the object of citta for an extended period. This is not,
however, a particular feature of satipatthana.
The context of a sutta has of course a considerable bearing on it's true
meaning. If the audience of a particular sutta is a group of monks all of
whom have attained high levels of samatha with breath as object, then
there would be no particular significance for us in the fact that the
Buddha chose to talk about breath in particular as an object of
satipatthana.
Jon
8378 From: Sukinderpal Narula
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:24pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Dear Nina,
I am so happy that you appreciated my post, eventhough( was kindly reminded by
Mike in a private letter), I misquoted Jonothan in 'patience being "the chief cause
for
the practice of the other paramis"' when it should have been 'wisdom' and not
'patience'.
Regarding reminders from A. Sujin, I am one of those persons who never take notes
and
have a rather bad memory too. But in the future I will remember you and I hope this
will
condition more attentiveness and memory would function better. Personally I too
have
come to see the value of reminders more and more, infact I think being reminded of
the
teachings is key to patipatti. Than Acharn has a way of reminding us, I guess that
is
because she really *knows* what she is talking about, the rest of us are only
talking
*about* things. This is not to undervalue what I read here and your books, everyday
I look forward to opening my mailbox and I read the mails as if it was 'tonic'. I
think
I am gaining much from having you all as my kalyanamitr and I hope things remain
this way till the day my vipaka for this lifetime runs out.
Metta,
Sukin.
> Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and
> non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this
> is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin
> encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana.
> Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be
> reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing,
> visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six
> doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of
> the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine
> realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously.
> Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We
> also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged
> them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element,
> because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why
> don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as
> attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is
> not a self who develops.
> Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the
> Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again,
> Nina.
>
>
>
8379 From: Christine Forsyth
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:22pm
Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman
Hi Herman,
You may be interested in reading the article that this excerpt is
from:
http://www.buddhistnews.tv/
"If I were given the opportunity to be face to face with Osama bin
Laden, the first thing I would do is listen. I would try to
understand why he had acted in that cruel way. I would try to
understand all of the suffering that had led him to violence. It
might not be easy to listen in that way, so I would have to remain
calm and lucid. I would need several friends with me, who are strong
in the practice of deep listening, listening without reacting,
without judging and blaming. In this way, an atmosphere of support
would be created for this person and those connected so that they
could share completely, trust that they are really being heard." --
Thich Nhat Hahn
metta,
May all be safe and protected,
May all be healthy and strong,
May all be happy of heart and mind,
May all live with ease and wellbeing.
Christine
8380 From: KennethOng
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:11pm
Subject: Vipassanã
Hi all,
As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this.
Many thanks and kind regards
Kenneth Ong
8381 From: Howard
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha
Hi, Herman -
In a message dated 10/2/01 2:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Herman writes:
> Hi all,
>
> In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever
> seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they
> become so by their own efforts.
>
> And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that
> means :-)
>
> How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist?
>
> All the best
>
>
> Herman
>
============================
Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at
a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that
person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he
(or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the
Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a
Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense
that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment.
However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous
life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had*
learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is
a fact only in a limited sense.
Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As
far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is
none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and
ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion.
It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true.
It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to
become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement
"No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly
understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and
explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the
incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is,
from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in
that there is no self at all.
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)
8382 From: Howard
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
Hi, Herman -
In a message dated 10/2/01 3:47:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Herman writes:
> Howard,
>
> There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and
> so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know.
>
> Happy to be corrected, of course :-)
>
> All the best
>
> Herman
>
=============================
It seems you have answered your own question. Intention is a mental
concomitant arising along with cittas, and kammic fruit is passed along. No
real person involved at all, just a conditioned flow of discernment.
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)
8383 From: KennethOng
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...
Hi Jon
"Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that
developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an
idea of a self. Have I got it right?"
(In my personal experience we should be more aware of kusala because they make us feel good abt it and this is also attachment. Good attachments are harder to notice than aversive ones)
"Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or,
as you put it, 'let go of')?"
(let go could be equated to the opposite of attachment (to be detach). All dharmas are of the same essence and without difference. It is only our self view that thinks that all they are different. In Mahayana philisophy, there is nothing to destroy or created because if there is a creation, there will be a destruction as they are condition by each other. Since we cannot destroy anything, we could only let go. Similarly self cannot be eliminated, it can only be let go. In the Thervada tradition, when Buddha talk about the five aggregates and the mindfulness method, he was teaching us to be detach to a self or let go of our view of a self. That is why the last few remarks are "there is a body", "there is a feeling".... Personally, this method has assisted me to be more detach, less attached to a self. )
"By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala
cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned
nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by
ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this
distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the
Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to
relate it to your own experience?"
(The distinction between prompted and unprompted kusala is not the significance, it is the origination of such prompting action (or intentions) is the impt factor. It is definitely good to have such a difference and I personally think that unprompted kusala is better than prompted. Why? Because unprompted means that we have the habit inbuilt in us of doing kusala. It has become a "natural" process. There is no need to prompt. Kusala definitely needs prompted because only through continuous prompting, it will slowly becomes more and more unprompted)
Jon
With kind regards
Kenneth Ong
8384 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:59am
Subject: sanna and accumulations
Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's Abhdiamma Studies and read
about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write to you but I am so busy
finishing a wrok load before India. You are always interested in sa~n~naa, I
quote now.
Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it makes marks in order to
remember and recognizes. I quote:
End quote.
A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at that. This is theory,
pariyatti, it is important that there also be understanding of the level of
patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the understanding will be so
much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to remind myself, should
consider and investigate sa~n~naa now. It is translated by perception or
remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we should not cling to
words and terms. We should know the reality. When we close our eyes and then
open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs its function, we
recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and recognize. We listen to
Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not Beethoven. But, this is
important, we have to realize that it is not self who recognizes. Not a self
recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding of the level of
patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do not get stuck at the
level of theory. While typing letters, we remember immediately the different
letters and words, and the way of forming sentences, drawing conclusions.
Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or right, going somewhere,
not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to make it into an object of
awareness, but understanding more does help.
You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide
sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies
that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and
actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that
accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta
conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I
was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in
one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is
not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we
get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life.
We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular
object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been
accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is
more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In
Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was
not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a
golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a
goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects
are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life.
You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it
is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is
what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult
for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because
these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama
and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk
has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is
because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly
established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good
wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be
near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to
Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina.
8385 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:51pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
Mike (and Howard)
--- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard,
>
> This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of
> way for some time:
>
> --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
>
> > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be
> 'right' if the citta is
> > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are
>
> consciously
> > 'letting go
> > > of' the akusala.
>
> > > Howard:
> > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms
> > > large in this regard.
> >
> > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by
> > the intention to have
> > effort, so that there is a sort of intention,
> > effort, kusala citta chain.
> > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally
> > conceived of, but the
> > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions
> > for things. So while
> > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of
> > kusala, in the sense
> > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala
> > moment, it is not
> > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala
> > moment.
>
> If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that
> right effort is a co-arising factor but not a
> precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which
> concurs with my understanding.
Yes, that is my reading of the texts.
> What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a
> path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with
> every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in
> kusala and akusala moments. We all know
> (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's
> impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a
> moment of right effort, as well as a present factor?
>
> I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right
> effort will occur when the conditions for it are
> present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for
> example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of
> understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala
> cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately).
This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring to mind
from our own experience instances when kusala has arisen spontaneously and
without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala and akusala moments
have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to
help/wondering if we should, gladness for another's success/envy at that
person)
> If so,
> then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?)
> might arise sequentially, but without each being
> dependent on the previous.
The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an earlier
post was meant as a summary, in conventional terms, of one particular view
of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said that if, for example, the
mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate intention and effort the
mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments of consciousness, it
seems to me that any such moments of intention and effort are simply
aspects of thinking of some kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be
motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They certainly are not
necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted before, sincerity of
intentions does not a kusala citta make.
When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert
effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it
would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise.
As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself
necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my
own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be
exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor
-- viriya) that arises with kusala citta.
> Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think
> of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and
> subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there
> a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'?
You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that
could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind
to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of
individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it
but in fact substantial periods of thinking.
I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a
reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course
is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will
make any real difference in this respect is misconceived.
> Thanks in advance,
>
> mike
And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up.
Jon
PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct
(perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some
pretty direct responses from others …..
8386 From: Nina van Gorkom
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:42am
Subject: bhavangacitta
Dear Sarah and Robert Ep, I am translating the commentary about the
bhavangacitta with Jim, but I shall send part now, because the rest has not
been corrected.
49. navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti
bhava"ngacitta.m. ki.m pana cittassa va.n.no naama atthiiti? natthi.
N: As to the ninth (?),² luminous². Luminous is clear, pure. citta is the
life-continuum. But how does there exist indeed a colour of citta? No, it
does not.
niilaadiina~nhi a~n~natarava.n.na.m vaa hotu ava.n.na.m vaa ya.mki~nci
parisuddhataaya ``pabhassara''nti vuccati.
N: For anything which may be a certain colour, beginning with blue, or
without colour, is called luminous because of its purity.
idampi nirupakkilesataaya
parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m bhava"ngacitta.m.
N: It is also pure, because it is unsoiled (by defilements); thus luminous.
That indeed, meaning, that life-continuum.
aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi.
N: ³ by oncoming ³(defilements). by those that are not conascent with it,
but arise later at the moment of impulsion (javana).
upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati
vuccati.
N: ³by defilements². By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called
defiled.
katha.m? yathaa hi siilavantaa aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro
vaa aacariyupajjhaayaa vaa dussiilaana.m duraacaaraana.m
avattasampannaana.m puttaana~nceva antevaasikasaddhivihaarikaana~nca vasena
``attano putte vaa antevaasikasaddhivihaarike vaa na tajjenti na
sikkhaapenti na ovadanti naanusaasantii''ti ava.n.na.m akitti.m labhanti,
eva.msampadamida.m veditabba.m.
N: How is that so? For, as parents, teachers or preceptors, of good conduct,
possessed of good behaviour, because of the children, pupils or co-residents
of bad conduct, misbehhaved, disobedient, receive dispraise or disapproval
thus, ³ they neither instill awe to, nor discipline, admonish or exhort
their own children, their pupils, their co-residents², evenso should this
(bhavangacitta) having a similar consequence be understood.
aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro viya ca
aacariyupajjhaayaa viya ca bhava"ngacitta.m da.t.thabba.m,
N: Just as parents, teachers, preceptors, who are of good conduct, evenso
the life-continuum should be seen,
puttaadiina.m
vasena tesa.m akittilaabho viya javanakkha.ne
rajjanadussanamuyhanasabhaavaana.m lobhasahagataadiina.m cittaana.m vasena
uppannehi aagantukehi upakkilesehi pakatiparisuddhampi bhava"ngacitta.m
upakkili.t.tha.m naama hotiiti.
N: Just as the acquirement of a bad name for them, through the children
etc., evenso, because of the cittas that are of a nature of being
passionate, hateful, or deluded, accompanied by desire and so on, arising at
the moments of impulsion, evenso is also the life-continuum, that is by
nature pure, indeed soiled, by the oncoming defilements that have arisen.
*****
50. dasamepi bhava"ngacittameva citta.m.
N: With reference to the tenth, consciousness is also the life-continuum.
vippamuttanti javanakkha.ne
arajjamaana.m adussamaana.m amuyhamaana.m
tihetuka~naa.nasampayuttaadikusalavasena uppajjamaana.m
aagantukehi upakkilesehi vippamutta.m naama hoti.
N: ³Freed²: because of wholesomeness arising at the time of impulsion,
without being passionate, hateful or deluded, and because consciousness is
accompanied by three wholesome roots, accompanied by wisdom, and thus it is
indeed freed of the arising of oncoming defilements.
idhaapi yathaa
siilavantaana.m aacaarasampannaana.m puttaadiina.m vasena maataadayo
``sobhanaa eteyeva attano puttakaadayo sikkhaapenti ovadanti
anusaasantii''ti va.n.nakittilaabhino honti, eva.m javanakkha.ne
uppannakusalacittavasena ida.m bhava"ngacitta.m aagantukehi upakkilesehi
vippamuttanti vuccatiiti.
N: Here also, just as parents etc., with virtuous conduct, possessed with
good behaviour, because of their children, etc. , acquire praise and
approval, thus, ² they train, encourage, admonish their own children that
these things are indeed wholesome ³, evenso because of the arising of
wholesome consciousness at the time of impulsion, that life-continuum is
said to be freed of oncoming defilements.
******* The last two par. are not yet corrected by Jim.
Nina.
8387 From: Num
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations
Dear Nina, Mike and everyone,
First of all let me express my appreciation and anumodhana with Mike for
entering Bhikkhu life.
> You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide
> sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies
> that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and
> actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that
> accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta
> conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I
> was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in
> one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is
> not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we
> get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life.
> We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular
> object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been
> accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is
> more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In
> Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was
> not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a
> golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a
> goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects
> are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life.
> You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it
> is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is
> what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult
> for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because
> these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama
> and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk
> has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is
> because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly
> established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good
> wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be
> near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to
> Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina.
>
Nina, let me ask you about Pakatupanissaya paccaya a little bit. I have been
very busy lately. I listen to A.Santi CD. Couple things I would like to
clarify. If you can give some comments, I would be greatly appreciate.
1st. He mentioned about paccaya for seeing: 1.cakkhupasada, 2.ruparammana, 3.
light and 4.dvaravajjana-citta. He said that light is a pakatupanissaya
paccaya for cakkhu-vinnanna to being able to see rupa.
2nd. Someone asked him about how alcohol affects the mind and behavior as
well some people need to be on psychotropic medication for treatment of
psychiatric disorder otherwise they cannot acting or thinking right. He also
said that both are pakatupanissaya paccaya. We can do reckless and stupid
things under influence of alcohol. He also mentioned that if someone drinks
and then drives or rides a motorcycle, that will facilitate vipakka paccaya,
interesting.
As in your post, accumulation both good and bad, depends on multiple paccaya
e.g. sanna cetasika, anantara, asevana, pakatupanissaya, adhipati, kamma,
arammana paccaya..... and a whole lot more paccaya directly and indirectly.
Hope you and everyone on India trip have a good time and great opportunity to
study and discuss Dhamma.
Bon voyager,
Num
8388 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo
Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã
Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the
same in Skt. as well as Pali.
Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master
"concentration".
Check these out:
http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm
http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm
http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html
http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml
Good luck!
With Metta,
Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo
----- Original Message -----
From: "KennethOng"
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã
>
> Hi all,
> As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana
meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please
also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I
like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say
about this and to who did he say this.
> Many thanks and kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
>
>
>
8389 From: m. nease
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:04am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations
Dear Nina,
Thanks for taking the time out of your busy
preparations for this really useful response.
--- Nina van Gorkom wrote:
> Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's
> Abhdiamma Studies and read
> about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write
> to you but I am so busy
> finishing a wrok load before India. You are always
> interested in sa~n~naa, I
> quote now.
>
> Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it
> makes marks in order to
> remember and recognizes. I quote:
>
> is that some features of
> the object (sometimes only a single striking one)
> are selected. The mental
> note made of that perception is closely associated
> with those selected
> features, that is, we attach, as it were, a tag to
> the object, or make a
> mark on it as woodcutters do on trees. So far, every
> perception is ³a making
> of marks² (nimitta-kara.na).
I had read about sa~n~naa 'marking' before, and had
sort of written it off as a synonym of 'remarking' (in
its transitive sense, 'to take notice of : OBSERVE'.
This was because I couldn't think what sa~n~naa could
be 'marking' in the sense of 'tagging'--obviously I
was wrong.
> In order to understand
> how ³remembering² or
> ³recognizing², too, is implied in every act of
> perception we should mention
> that according to the deeply penetrative analysis of
> the Abhidhamma the
> apparently simple act, for example, of seeing a
> rose, is in reality a very
> complex process composed of different phases, each
> consisting of numerous
> smaller combinations of conscious processes
> (citta-viithi) which again are
> made up of several single moments of consciousness
> (citta-kkha.na) following
> each other in a definite sequence of diverse
> functions. Among these phases
> there is one that connects the present perception of
> a rose with a previous
> one, and there is another that attaches to the
> present perception the name
> ³rose², remembered from previous experience. Not
> only in relation to similar
> experiences in a relatively distant past, but also
> in between those
> infinitesimal brief single phases and successive
> processes the connecting
> function of rudimentary ³memory² must be assumed to
> operate, because each
> phase and each lesser successive state has to
> ³remember² the previous one- a
> process called by the later Abhidhammikas ³grasping
> the past²
This I understand, though crudely no doubt.
> (atiita-gghahana). Finally, the individual
> contributions of all those
> different perceptual processes have to be remembered
> and co-cordinated in
> order to form the final and complete perception of a
> rose. >
Understood also.
> End quote.
> A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at
> that. This is theory,
> pariyatti, it is important that there also be
> understanding of the level of
> patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the
> understanding will be so
> much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to
> remind myself, should
> consider and investigate sa~n~naa now.
Yes, a kind of dhammanusati, I think? It does seem
possible to know that recognition doesn't always occur
immediately with a sense impression, or that some
aspects of a familiar concept are recognized more
quickly than others (a face before a name, e.g.). Not
satipatthaana, I suppose, but maybe leading in that
direction?
> It is
> translated by perception or
> remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we
> should not cling to
> words and terms. We should know the reality. When we
> close our eyes and then
> open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs
> its function, we
> recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and
> recognize. We listen to
> Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not
> Beethoven. But, this is
> important, we have to realize that it is not self
> who recognizes. Not a self
> recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding
> of the level of
> patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do
> not get stuck at the
> level of theory. While typing letters, we remember
> immediately the different
> letters and words, and the way of forming sentences,
> drawing conclusions.
> Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or
> right, going somewhere,
> not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to
> make it into an object of
> awareness, but understanding more does help.
I'm afraid I can't help it, nearly anything I can
remember the Buddha having described as an object of
awareness seems to condition this kind of effort, from
time to time, when it's present (or recently past). I
suppose trying NOT to wouldn't be much better. Anatta
seems natural to this kind of reflection, but I do
understand that it's key to remember that it's just
sa~n~naa, not your or me.
Thank you so much again, more later...mike
> You are also interested in accumulations. We can use
> it in a very wide
> sense, then we do not only think of the seven
> anusayas, latent tendencies
> that are akusala. Also good inclinations are
> accumulated in each citta, and
> actually all your experiences, but not all is
> remembered. It is not so that
> accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass
> on because each citta
> conditions the next one by way of
> contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I
> was also surprised when I heard about the endless
> amount of accumulations in
> one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is
> citta, mentality, it is
> not like a room that is limited in what it can
> contain. Now here also, if we
> get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should
> consider our own life.
> We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there
> lobha for this particular
> object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past
> that have been
> accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not
> only sa~n~naa, it is
> more complex than that. But it is best to understand
> our life right now. In
> Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read
> about the bhikkhu who was
> not successful with the foulness meditation subject.
> The Buddha gave him a
> golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and
> enlightenment. He had been a
> goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how
> experiences of particular objects
> are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the
> past to the present life.
> You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by
> past accumulations, it
> is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very
> lonely life, and that is
> what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a
> bhikkhu. it was most difficult
> for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya
> and satipatthana, because
> these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But
> when there are only nama
> and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people
> around. Only when a monk
> has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the
> order anymore. That is
> because of satipatthana which has been developed and
> become firmly
> established, so that enlightenment could be
> attained. Finally, all my good
> wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I
> wish that you will be
> near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you,
> and also anumodana to
> Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes,
> Nina.
>
>
8390 From: KennethOng
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22am
Subject: Re:_[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã
Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
"Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the
same in Skt. as well as Pali.
Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master
"concentration".
Check these out:
http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm
http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm
http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html
http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml
Good luck!
With Metta,
Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo
----- Original Message -----
From: "KennethOng"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã
>
> Hi all,
> As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana
meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please
also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I
like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say
about this and to who did he say this.
> Many thanks and kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
>
>
8391 From: Howard
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 4:49am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã
Hi, Ken -
In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
> Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether
> Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has
> spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was
> interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a
> sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know.
> Kind regards
>
===========================
Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken
to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my
knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to
person.
With metta,
Howard
/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)
8392 From: KennethOng
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:07am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã
Howard,
thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these instructions.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
Howard wrote: Hi, Ken -
In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
> Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether
> Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has
> spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was
> interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a
> sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know.
> Kind regards
>
===========================
Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken
to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my
knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to
person.
With metta,
Howard
/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)
8393 From: Howard
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:48am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã
Hi, Ken -
In a message dated 10/2/01 10:09:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Kenneth Ong writes:
> Howard,
> thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and
> interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that
> detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it
> say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these
> instructions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
>
=========================
From my reading, what was recorded in the tipitaka with regard to
meditation instructions was somewhat general, even to some extent in the two
suttas I mentioned, although if one searches with sufficient effort, and
collects material from a wide varity of suttas, I suppose that a good deal of
information on the details of meditating, of both the samatha and vipassana
variety, can be obtained. I imagine that the reason that there are not
detailed meditation manuals to be found within the tipitaka is that the
suttas spoken by the Buddha and his chief disciples were, by in large, public
lectures on major topics, the detailed meditation instruction being given
directly and personally (by the Buddha and senior monks and nuns), and
tailored to the needs of the individual bhikkhus and bhikkhunis being
instructed. By the time the tipitaka was recorded, there were already well
established schools teaching various methods of meditative technique. These
techniques were described in some detail in the Theravadin commentaries, and
especially in the Vimuttimagga and the Visudhimagga. But even there only a
modicum of detail really had to be recorded, because the precise details were
still provided by direct person-to-person instruction tailored to the needs
of the student. Or so it seems to me.
Having said this, let me also say that there are others on this list
who could give a *far* more definitive response than I, and I welcome their
corrections.
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)
8394 From: Jonothan Abbott
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:58am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis
Nina (and Sukin)
I agree with your observations about discouragement. And there are other
kinds of aversion that may arise in connection with 'our practice' --
annoyance at our views being questioned, at being disturbed or interrupted
etc (in one who follows a formal practice) -- that likewise are indicators
of clinging in one aspect or another. If the practice is correct, it
should not be a condition for aversion to arise in any respect. Very
useful reminders, thank you.
Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks.
Jon
--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef
Sukinderpal Narula op :
>
> > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises
> only
> > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience.
> > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from
> > fear of repercussions to cold indifference.
> > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it
> > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are
> dealing
> > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the
> conceptual
> > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop
> > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that
> everytime
> > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for
> example,
> > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements,
> > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be
> patient
> > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can
> arise.
> > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the
> other
> > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for
> patience
> > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the
> development of
> > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not
> > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'.
> > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with
> regard
> > to development of wisdom.
> > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments
> from
> > anybody.
> >
> Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and
> non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and
> this
> is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin
> encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing
> satipatthana.
> Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to
> be
> reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of
> seeing,
> visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six
> doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a
> text of
> the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to
> examine
> realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously.
> Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice.
> We
> also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks,
> encouraged
> them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element,
> because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why
> don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as
> attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it
> is
> not a self who develops.
> Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the
> Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again,
> Nina.
8395 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:26pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...
--- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert
> effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it
> would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise.
> As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself
> necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my
> own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be
> exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor
> -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta.
Dear Jon,
I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct. I
have to state once again that I am not conversant enough with Abhidhamma to make
any claims about it at all, so I will be happy to have your corrections on that
score, if there are some factors I am not taking into account.
However, with that said, I want to recall that you said in recent posts that the
Suttas were complete and should not be subject to undue interpretation. Correct
me if I don't understand your point of view here adequately. Yet we see a number
of different types of interpretation taking place to give the Buddha's words an
appropriate context for understanding.
For instance, we are to take it that his words to ordinary people about developing
ethics and virtues and about the eightfold path were told in a way that was not
totally accurate, but was geared to their level of understanding. So the Buddha
leaves the impression that there is volition, that we should strive to do virtuous
and spiritual actions and efforts, and that we should avoid actions and internal
states that produce further negative kamma and suffering. But in truth, none of
these is volitional, they are dependent upon the concordance of favorable
conditions, which are accumulated in a snowball sort of effect from other positive
causes.
Next, although I do not understand it thoroughly, we have the view of the
Abhidhamma that the eightfold path is not a sequence of separate factors to be
practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana, but that there is
a mundane path leading to super-mundane path factors arising spontaneously and
simeoltaneously, and that this is the true meaning of the eightfold path. I have
heard some discussions of this on this list, but have not seen suttas in which the
Buddha explains it to be the case. Are there sections of the Abhidhamma in which
the Buddha himself makes clear that the eightfold path refers to an advanced state
in which these factors arise in quick succession just prior to Nibbana?
If not, I would propose that this interpretation of the eightfold path is not
based directly on the Buddha's words, and in fact contradicts his words in other
suttas. But I will be happy to see direct references to what the Buddha said on
this matter.
Finally, you interpret the Buddha's teachings on Right Effort and Letting Go as
factors that are not volitional and not dependent on any exertion of will. Are
there direct statements on the part of the Buddha which supports this
interpretation, or are you taking the Buddha's statements in the light of the
philosophy of Abhidhamma, and thus giving them a particular slant not obvious in
the words themselves? If this is the case, I would say that there is a particular
act of interpretation taking place to make the argument that these factors arise
merely as the result of the appropriate factors being in place.
It seems to me that the Buddha would not have used the term 'Right Effort' if in
fact there was no effort involved. He would not have used the word 'Intention' if
in fact no intention was necessary, and he would not have referred to 'Letting Go'
if no letting go was necessary.
You say that the idea of letting go is probably a 'reminder' that clinging is
akusala. In other words, it is not a call to a kind of action of letting go, but
is just another prompt to understanding. I am not aware of the Buddha saying
anything of this kind, and I assume this is your interpretation of the idea of
letting go, which the Buddha has placed at the very end of the path of liberation,
a most advanced factor.
To say that Right Effort is in fact not Right Effort but is non-Effort, seems to
me to flatly contradict the Buddha's teaching on Right Effort. Again, I apologize
for being so blunt, but I want to reach some understanding on this view. So I
would be grateful if you can quote the Buddha himself on this interpretation of
Right Effort. I can theoretically understand the possibility that Right Thinking
or Right Concentration could be the result of arising factors of insight and
wisdom, but I find it impossible to define Effort of any kind as a factor that
actually arises by itself, and actually involves no effort at all.
If this interpretation of Right Effort is not a contradiction of the Buddha's
words, I will be very happy to hear how this can be so.
> > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think
> > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and
> > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there
> > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'?
>
> You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that
> could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind
> to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of
> individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it
> but in fact substantial periods of thinking.
>
> I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a
> reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course
> is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will
> make any real difference in this respect is misconceived.
Buddha never referred to letting go as a reminder that grasping is akusala. He
referred to it as one of the advanced factors of awakening. After Liberation, one
lets go of all illusory objects to enter the state of Equanimity. This is I think
a fairly straightforward rendering of this idea from the Anapanasati Sutta.
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > mike
>
> And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up.
>
> Jon
>
> PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct
> (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some
> pretty direct responses from others …..
I think I've been even more direct than you, Jon. Considering my spotty knowledge
of the Suttas, I apologize for seeming like I'm more sure of my views than I am.
My intention is to confront some important issues, and if my ideas are refuted in
the process, that's okay with me. : )
Best Regards,
Robert Ep.
8396 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:30pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha
--- Herman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever
> seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they
> become so by their own efforts.
>
> And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that
> means :-)
>
> How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist?
>
> All the best
>
>
> Herman
That is a very good question Herman. I'd like to sign on to that one myself.
Robert
8397 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
--- Herman wrote:
> Howard,
>
> There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and
> so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know.
>
> Happy to be corrected, of course :-)
>
> All the best
>
> Herman
On the other hand, Buddha spoke of liberating 'sentient beings', not countries or
dharmas. Why would he speak of beings if there were no beings to liberate? Why
would he not grant equal status to 'dharmas' and living beings if these beings
were really nothing but 'kandhas' and of the same status as objects?
In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says something to the effect that the correct
understanding should be that 'when all sentient beings are thus liberated, no
beings have actually been liberated'. so how does this contradiction work?
My sense of this is that while there are no beings ultimately, the provisional
minds and bodies which engage the concepts of being an entity or self, do
experience suffering and various thoughts and feelings that impinge on that sense
of self. That sense of self is illusory, but while that illusion is being held it
is a source of suffering. So to 'liberate all sentient beings' is to remove the
illusion of self from these bodies and minds.
Countries don't exist. A country is a concept. It cannot entertain a concept of
self or experience suffering. Neither can objects. Cittas are the only thing
capable of experiencing suffering and while cittas are carrying the idea of self,
they carry experiences of fear, anxiety, anger and hatred, and the sense of
protecting and promoting the desires of that seeming self.
It is thus those cittas, the consciousness that is related to the body and mind,
that must be liberated from the false idea of self, and all the attendant akusala
experiences that accompany the concept of self-entity.
It is this sense, I think, that kamma applies to individuals. The body and mind
within which the cittas of self and suffering arise are the individuals that must
be liberated. No other factors of the manifest universe require awakening and
liberation. Only consciousness.
Robert Ep.
================================
> --- Howard wrote:
> > Hi, Herman -
> >
> > In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > Herman writes:
> >
> >
> > > The laws of karma apply to the US as
> > >
> > =========================
> > It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as
> are the
> > fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners,
> then they may
> > have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a
> Buddhist notion
> > to the best of my knowledge.
> >
> > 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)
> >
8398 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2
--- Herman wrote:
> Robert,
>
> I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written
> some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a
> projection of yours.
>
> So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it
> looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing,
> then we can perhaps keep communicating.
>
> All the best
>
> Herman
Dear Herman,
If you wish to respond to any of the specific things I said, I will be happy to
correspond with you on these subjects off-list. It took some effort to make all
of my points, so I don't really envision trying to start from scratch and revising
my statement. I don't see you as a monster by any means, and you are putting
words in my mouth by saying so. However, I do think some of what you said was
insensitive in light of current circumstances, but that's as far as I would go.
If you prefer not to continue the discussion in response to my answer, as mine was
in response to your statement, I will be happy to drop the subject and go back to
talking about the Dhamma as we know and understand it. Or in my case,
misunderstand it......just my feeble attempt at a joke.......
Regards,
Robert Ep.
==========================
> --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> >
> > --- Herman wrote:
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then?
> > >
> > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US
> media
> > > does, obviously.
> > >
> > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your
> sweeping
> > > statements, Robert.
> > >
> > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It
> is
> > > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US
> as
> > > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the
> dominant
> > > world power by being very nice to everybody.
> > >
> > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not
> go
> > > without consequences.
> > >
> > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of
> > > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am
> not
> > > selective about where I see these things happening.
> > >
> > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are
> > > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on
> these
> > > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed
> as
> > > tacit approval?
> > >
> > > All the best
> > >
> > >
> > > Herman
> >
> > Dear Herman,
> > I am one of the people who care about people all around the world.
> I care about
> > the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin
> America and all
> > around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in
> Guatemala, and I
> > care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their
> husbands legally
> > under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment
> for women, or a
> > widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat
> or kill
> > someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their
> beard. I also care
> > at this particular moment about something that happened just the
> other day: 7,000
> > people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left
> 7,000 families
> > from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific
> grief. I don't
> > just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care
> about all of
> > them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and
> policemen who willingly
> > ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives.
> >
> > Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the
> hundreds who jumped
> > out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in
> superheated
> > airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical
> hijackers who slit
> > passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes,
> in fact I do
> > care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on
> the path? If
> > so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into
> a mechanical
> > path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things
> are the same
> > and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong
> path and gone
> > too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are
> inherently empty and
> > fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty
> in our lives.
> >
> > There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is
> appropriate when
> > something horrifying is done to innocent people, without
> speculating on their
> > karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this
> horror has
> > taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the
> reasons why the U.S.
> > is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you
> express your
> > compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into
> a mass of body
> > parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of
> real
> > compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human,
> which is
> > allowable and also necessary.
> >
> > As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel
> about all the
> > people who were killed, but just go straight into a political
> speech, I have no
> > way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need
> to say it, and
> > express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they
> didn't represent a
> > poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered
> horribly and left
> > behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to
> them first. Let
> > them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently-
> departed
> > kandhas.
> >
> > Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted
> it. There is
> > also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World
> Trade Center
> > bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But
> that is
> > besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist
> camps in
> > Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the
> Taliban has committed
> > thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own
> people. There
> > is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin
> Laden, who
> > personally gave them three million to jump start them at their
> inception, and has
> > supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt
> that Sudan and
> > Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both
> now severed ties
> > in the wake of this tragedy.
> >
> > To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to
> U.S. auto
> > accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is
> represented by
> > automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally
> I would rather
> > die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat
> cut in the
> > public square, as happens in Afganistan every day.
> >
> > Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an
> idea of how I
> > feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that
> Americans have a
> > right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been
> writing to all
> > my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are
> expressed, saying that
> > anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several
> times, because of
> > their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I
> mean that. I
> > have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace-
> loving people.
> >
> > I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the
> million Rwandans
> > killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western
> countries, and I
> > have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I
> will shed my
> > tears for the victims first, and then the killers second.
> >
> > Robert Ep.
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> >
8399 From: Robert Epstein
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:59pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep
Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your responses. I will have to re-read some of this before I can
answer intelligently. It's very interesting in any case.
There are two areas where you might help my understanding along a little bit. I
am fascinated with the idea of the bhavanga cittas, and especially the idea that
these are 'subconscious'. Where and how does 'subconscious continuity' come into
the scheme of things? This seems quite modern in a way, and makes sense of the
statement I have often heard that Buddhism provided the earliest and most thorough
psychological science. I believe you have mentioned that you have a psychology
background and I wonder if you find this as fascinating as I do?
I was also fascinated by your quick list of the consciousnesses or mental factors
that intercede between a moment of contact with sense-object and its 'processing'
into a percept and concept. How those factors of consciousness arise and
coordinate would be very interesting, but I'm sure it's a complicated
discussion.....
It may be that I need to understand the nature and relative status of the bhavanga
cittas and the arising of kusala and panna before I can really add a lot more to
this discussion. But I will look over your very interesting responses and see
what I can come up with in the way of understanding.
Best Regards,
Robert
=========================
--- Sarah wrote:
> Dear Rob Ep,
>
> Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it
> interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth.
>
> --- Robert Epstein wrote: >
>
> > > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from
> > > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that
> > come
> > > from without.’
> >
> > Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really
> > says
> > 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it
> > would
> > point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some
> > undefiled,
> > and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying
> > 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them.
> >
> > However, I still have some questions:
> >
> > If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from
> > defilements, why
> > are they spoken of as being defiled?
> --------------------
>
> Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are
> luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there
> are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e.
> akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana
> process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or
> pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie
> dormant with each citta).
>
> This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this
> extract from the Commentary to the Sutta:
> --------------------
>
> 'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m
> bhava"ngacitta.m.
>
> Jim: "It is also pure because it is
> unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a
> state of without defilement(s)'. '
>
> 'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi.
>
> Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at
> the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.'
>
> 'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati
> vuccati.
>
> Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called
> defiled.'
> ---------------------
>
> Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and
> don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been
> working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy
> here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please
> note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time
> as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the
> sense door or mind door ‘activity’.
> --------------------
> >
> > The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow
> > of
> > life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it
> > is the
> > luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.'
> > Why
> > would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because
> > it is
> > the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'?
> --------------------
>
> This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma
> perspective:
>
> The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door
> process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2)
> sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4)
> investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas
> which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2
> registering consciousness
>
> When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the
> Com notes to the javana cittas.
> --------------------
> >
> > It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please
> > forgive
> > me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of
> > this. Hope you don't mind!
> --------------------
>
> If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested
> in trying to clarify (and learn).
> --------------------
>
> >.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't
> say
> > 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I
> > don't
> > see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but
> > it has
> > been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to
> > something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other
> > words,
> > either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a
> > moment or
> > two.
> --------------------
>
> Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which
> arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I
> believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of
> unwholsesome states and of skilful states:
>
> ‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it
> really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has
> developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’
>
> The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know
> cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that
> as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense
> and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other
> defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories
> about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We
> can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very
> little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind.
> --------------------
> >
> > Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that
> > they
> > are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently
> > luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process
> > of
> > purification.
>
> > If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question
> > would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with
> > Abdhidhamma?
> > Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with
> > this
> > area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'.
> >
> > The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that
> > the
> > perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is
> > indeed
> > more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight
> > into
> > the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated
> > [both?]
> > and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually
> > eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying
> > defilements.
> -------------------
>
> I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na
> is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the
> cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual
> elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that
> there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana
> processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can
> never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a
> process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see
> the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna
> that can lead to enlightenment.
> --------------------
> >
> > What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and
> > passing
> > of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so,
> > the
> > statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every
> > establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same.
> > What
> > is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of
> > 'defilements'
> > from outside?
> >
> > As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more
> > panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is
> > luminous, in
> > the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your
> > explanation?
> --------------------
>
> It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not
> sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember
> panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the
> Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of
> understanding’ and so on.
>
> Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not
> to further sidetrack now.
>
> The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and
> not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are:
>
> 1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the
> ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)?
>
> 2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this.
>
> 3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the
> Abhidhamma
>
> 4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of
> defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as
> I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is
> rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not
> necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for
> example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may
> be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but
> not necessarily at all with panna.
> --------------------
>
> I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing
> back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be
> following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in
> far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes.
>
> Sarah