8400 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:10pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman

 
  Dear Christine,
I read the whole article and found it very interesting and worthwhile.  Deep
listening to the world is most certainly something that Americans have been
lacking, as well as many citizens from other countries....perhaps everywhere.

A very potent Buddhist message from one of my favorite teachers....

Best,
Robert Ep.

=============

--- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> 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
> 
> 



 
8401 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha

 
  Hi Howard,

I've really appreciated some of your responses recently, including this very
neat summary to Herman and your other responses to him and others as well.

I think it's clear in the Tipitaka that all Buddhas are male, but someone like
Rob K is much better on these details than I am. 

I've also greatly appreciated your correspondence with Jon on effort and
intention and your careful consideration as always. Please continue to
'challenge' him before he jets off to India.....;-))

Sarah

 --- Howard wrote
> ============================
>        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)                   
> 


 
8402 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavangacitta - Nina

 
  Dear Nina,

Thank you for this helpful translation 'in one piece'. There is a lot of
interest in these 2 Ang Nik suttas and it's very helpful to be able to refer to
the commentary and sub-commentary. 

I know that you and Lodevick (yr husband) will be leaving in just a few days,
so may I wish you  safe flights and many opportunities in India for wise
reflection and sati.

We'll look forward to welcoming you back on your return.

Best wishes as always,

Sarah

 --- Nina van Gorkom  wrote: > 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.



 
8403 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:55pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth

 
  Dear Kenneth,

 --- KennethOng  wrote: > 

> 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
....................

I understand all the suttas to be talking about bhavana (mental development),
either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both. Vipassana means insight
and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So whenever we read about the
development of understanding or about the realities which are to be known, we
are considering about vipassana. 

With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many details, these can be read in
the Visuddhimagga.

If you want specific references mentioning vipassana (as opposed to similar
words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I can think of in the Samyutta
Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure that it's vipassana referred
to in this Sutta description at SN 1V, Salayatanavagga, 194:

'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and
arches, and with six gates.  The gatekeeper posted there would be wise,
competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits
acquaintances.  A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and ask the
gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this city?' He would reply: 'He is
sitting in the central square.'  Then the swift pair of messengers would
deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city and leave by the route by
which they had arrived.  Similarly, messengers would come from the west, from
the north, from the south, deliver their message, and leave by the route by
which they had arrived.

“I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to convey a meaning.  This is
the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this body consisting of
the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is a designation for the six
internal bases.  “The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness.  ‘The
swift pair of messengers’:  this is a designation for serenity and insight
(vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a designation for consciousness.
‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the four great elements .....’A
message of reality’: this is a designation for Nibbana.  ‘The route by which
they had arrived’:   this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path;  that
is, right view....right concentration.”

Hope this helps and thanks for your helpful questions and comments.

Sarah





 
8404 From: KennethOng   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 3:19pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard,
Thanks.  How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana meditation.  What criterias are used to differentiate them?   Are the criteria set up by us or by Buddha.  To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would have spoken about it and will not keep in confidential.  Since Vipassana is a major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and mindfullness.  Sorry no offence here.  I really like to know the origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to everybody as in a sutra.
Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not develop this?  To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very conceptual.  In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra.  I think the best is the Four Noble Truth, simple yet full of wisdom.  
When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one interpretation, it all surrounds a self.  All these are just different segregation of self.  Another interpretation that I read about citta, is that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types.  Assuming we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw puzzles pieces.  If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we.  
Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward our karma to our next life.  Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma in our next life.  Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since bhavanga citta is also momentary.  
Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta is a series of cittas.  Then how does citta going to decide our future karma since citta is momentary.
There must be something all this depend on.  It cannot be citta as defined above.  It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
Kind regards.
Kenneth Ong






 
8405 From: m. nease   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations

 
  Dear Nina,

--- Nina van Gorkom  wrote

> Understanding
> of the level of
> patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do
> not get stuck at the
> level of theory. 

Thanks again for Ven. Nyanaponika's words and your own
comments.  Thanks also for the reminder not to get too
caught up in theory.  The little bit that's sunk in
from this exchange is that saññaa and what it 'marks'
are not the same thing--interesting.  More puzzle
pieces to come yet, I guess.  

> 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. 

Thanks--this is an important distintion I've
continually failed to make (by misinterpreting
'anusaya' AS accumulation, I think).

> 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. 

Another valuable reminder, thanks--I probably can't
hear this one often enough.

> 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. 

Yes!

> 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.

Yes--this sounds like memory, of a kind.  It is
clearly accumulated, but is not either saññaa or
anusaya, correct?

Thanks again, Nina,

mike


 
8406 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor?

 
  Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> --- 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?

I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with.  I
will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I
understand them.

When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings,
we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do
not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their
conventional counterparts.  We have to learn about each reality pretty
much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it.

And there is much to be learnt.  Every mental factor (cetasika) that
arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic,
performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a
particular manifestation and proximate cause.  (These of course should be
taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of
consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a
situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to
'state' in the description below.)

In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these
attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)--

Description:  Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira).
Characteristic:  Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). 
Function:  Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the
accompanying citta and cetasikas). 
Manifestation:  It is manifested as non-collapse. 
Proximate cause:  Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency;  or its
proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. 

We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta
and cetasikas that it arises together with.  So it is not energy 'towards
something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the
conventional concept of energy.

Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'.  This refers, in the case of
kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala.  If we see
the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the
arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta.

This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various
mental factors needs to be considered.  Without this sort of detailed
study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our
conventional knowledge, that are not accurate.  There is of course much
more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend
Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading.  The section on viriya is quite
short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework
as you to catch up on, Rob (!).  This can be found in the second half of
Chapter 9, at the following link--
http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html

This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am
delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible,
too.  But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the
ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than
I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week,
and will have limited time before then to spend on the list.  (Looking
ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give
you some references to previous posts where these topics have been
discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each
point as far as I am able.  It's in the queue!)

Jon




 
8407 From: Sarah   
Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:40pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Dear Mike,

 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Dear Sarah,
> 
> Some great citations here!

Hope they were helpful.
> 
> > 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.

Rob Ep, please note;-))
> 
> 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.

So very many different conditions which help 'form up' the present citta -
accumulations, objects, preceding cittas, repetition, supports and so on and so
on.....It's useful to read and consider more about conditions because it helps
one understand how citta now could not be any other way and how very anatta it
is. Most valuable is a moment of awareness of this conditioned reality,
awareness of seeing or thinking or like or dislike, for example.

Anyway, I know you know all this, Mike. If there is something else in your
question I'm missing, please ask again and someone else (like Rob K or Kom )
may give a 'meatier' response or I'll try  a less meaty one if they're too
busy;-))

Best wishes for all your arrangements too.....seems like many dsg key members
are on the move these days....just hope I don't end up talking to myself;-(( 

Sarah




8408 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:14am
Subject: luminous mind

 
  Dear Sarah and Rob Ep and all, I gave the co. to the AN but not the sutta
and what I added, since Sarah had posted this before. In case you need it
again, I shall paste it now.
First a correction to be made on what I wrote about jhaayati, pajjhaayati, I
interpreted this as reflecting in a positive sense, but just now Jim gave me
the references so that I could look up the text, and it is used in a
negative sense, as brooding over, here: over methuna dhamma. It shows again
how careful we have to be, and I can imagine the sutta on the luminous mind
can mislead us if we are not careful. As Suan said: read the sutta, read the
commentary, read the subcommentary.
I cannot add anything more now, since I am busy before my departure to
India. The bhavanga-citta is compared to the moments of javana-cittas
experiencing objects that impinge on the six doors. We get so entangled as
soon as we experience objects. Only the arahat is no longer entangled. The
sutta shows actually the extent we are entangled in the objects that impinge
on the doorways. 

> 1. 6. 1.
> pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi
> upakkili.t.tha.m.
N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed corrupted by
oncoming defilements.

>ta.m assutavaa puthujjano yathaabhuuta.m nappajaanaati.
N:The ordinary person who has not learned (the Dhamma, not listened to it)
does not understand it as it really is.
> tasmaa assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhaavanaa natthiiti vadaamiiti.
N:Therefore I say that for the ordinary person who has not listened there is
no mental development (literally. free: the ordinary person who has not
listened to the Dhamma has not developed the mind.)
 
> 1. 6. 2.
> pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi
> vippamutta.m. 
N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed released from
oncoming defilements.
>ta.m sutavaa ariyasaavako yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati.
N: The learned noble disciple understand it as it really is.
>tasma sutavato ariyasaavakassa cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti.
N: Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind.

Remarks:The
upakilesas, defilements arising with the citta (different from the anusayas,
latent tendencies who do not arise with the akusala citta but can condition
akusala), are like visitors from outside. It seems disturbing, but we have
to note: the ariyan knows the citta as it really is: yathaabutta. One has to
know also akusala citta as it is, otherwise one cannot become an ariyan,
this is stressed in this short sutta.
Yathaabhuuta: bhuuta: that which has grown, is, exists, the truth.
yathaabhuuta: in its real essence, according to the truth.
vippamutta: pamu~ncati: to release.
  
The Atthasalini speaks about the bhavangacitta as being pure, using the word
pa.n.dara (I, Book I, Part IV, Ch II, 140) : "Mind also is said to be clear
in the sense of exceedingly pure with reference to the Bhavanga-citta." Now
I like to quote from Acharn's Survey of Paramattha dhammas where she
explains about the bhavanga-citta which is different from the cittas
experiencing objects impinging on the six doors. She explains that when one
is fast asleep one does not know who one is or where one is, one does not
experience the world. When one wakes up the world appears, one experiences
all the objects impinging on the six doors and then these objects give rise
to defilements. The bhavanga-citta, life-continuum, that has the function of
keeping continuity in the life of an individual, arises when fast asleep and
also in between the processes of cittas. Thus our life, consisting of an
uninterrupted series of cittas, goes on. The bhavanga-citta experiences the
same object as the rebirth-consciousness, and this object is like an echo of
the object experienced shortly before the dying-consciousness of the
previous life. This citta is pure, but it does not mean that there are no
latent tendencies of defilements, anusayas, which lie dormant in the citta.
It is called pure or luminous, because at that moment no defilements arise.
I quote:  
< The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an object
through the doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense or mind. Everybody
who is fast asleep looks innocent, pure, he does not experience like or
dislike, he is not jealous, stingy, conceited, he has no lovingkindness nor
compassion; thus, unwholesome or wholesome qualities do not arise because he
does not see, hear, experience tangible object or think. However, it should
be known that whenever the citta which arises experiences an object through
one of the six doors, citta is not pure. The reason is that many different
defilements have been accumulated in the citta and these condition the
arising of pleasure and attachment when one sees something pleasant, and the
arising of displeasure and annoyance when one sees something unpleasant.>

The person who is enlightened, the ariyasaavako, has eradicated anusayas by
the development of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path. It is pa~n~naa which
knows realities as they are, yathaabhuuta, no other way. Anusayas are
eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment, and only the arahat is
freed from all defilements, he has no more latent tendencies of defilements,
no conditions for their arising. Nina.

 
8409 From: Sarah   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep

 
  Dear Rob Ep,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> 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.  

I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-))

 > 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?  

I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at
all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or
there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-)

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?

When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it
provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had
failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so,
everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on,
has been gleened from Buddhism. 

As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems,
teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if
that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say,
psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my
work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about
mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words,
lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn
about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective
and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job
a lot better.  I  also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any
aspect of our lives simpler and easier. 

> 
> 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.....

Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more
carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that,
there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries,
like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more
readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail
is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical
details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin
and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The
details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning,
as we all agree here. 

If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking
questions or sharing your insights along the way.

> 
> 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.

I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs
of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana,
luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status.   I have the greatest
respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question,
challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most
useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here.

 But I will look over your very interesting responses and
> see
> what I can come up with in the way of understanding.

Take your time...I’ll be around....;-))

this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me).

Sarah




 
8410 From: Howard 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 6:05am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> 
> Howard,
> Thanks.  How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana 
> meditation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and  especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
-----------------------------------------------------
>  What criterias are used to differentiate them?   Are the criteria set up 
by us or by 
>   Buddha.  To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would 
have  
    > about it and will not keep in confidential.  Since Vipassana is a 
> major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a 
> sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and 
> mindfullness.  Sorry no offence here.  I really like to know the 
> origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to 
> everybody as in a sutra.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the 
Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a 
general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha 
and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the 
best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot 
adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra.
----------------------------------------------------------

> Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not 
> develop this?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a 
creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. 
Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on 
this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
   To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very 
> conceptual.  In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg 
> breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra.  I think the best is the Four Noble 
> Truth, simple yet full of wisdom.  
> When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one 
> interpretation, it all surrounds a self.  All these are just different 
> segregation of self.  Another interpretation that I read about citta, is 
> that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we 
> cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types.  Assuming 
> we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw 
> puzzles pieces.  If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. 
>  
> Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward 
> our karma to our next life.  Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal 
> or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma 
> in our next life.  Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta 
> going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since 
> bhavanga citta is also momentary.  
> Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to 
> carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta 
> is a series of cittas.  Then how does citta going to decide our future 
> karma since citta is momentary.
> There must be something all this depend on.  It cannot be citta as defined 
> above.  It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
> These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=============================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8411 From: KennethOng   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:04am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard,
Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and kindness in replying my difficult questions.  
===================================================
Howard:
I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
=================================================
Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a vipassana meditation.  This means  Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate.  
Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal observe another temporal.  
Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on.  We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment.  Hence we could say that  meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice it thats all.
To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to just meditation.  it should be practise in every moments of our lifes.  
The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious practise is that we  learn to be detach from such reflections.  We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less.  My interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things as it is.  With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is no longer a you or me.  
But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email about citta.  Thanks
 
 
  Howard wrote: Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> 
> Howard,
> Thanks. How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana 
> meditation.
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental 
one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details 
of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all 
aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye 
to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, 
impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) 
phenomena.
-----------------------------------------------------
> What criterias are used to differentiate them? Are the criteria set up 
by us or by 
> Buddha. To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would 
have 
> about it and will not keep in confidential. Since Vipassana is a 
> major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a 
> sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and 
> mindfullness. Sorry no offence here. I really like to know the 
> origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to 
> everybody as in a sutra.
> 
------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the 
Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a 
general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha 
and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the 
best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot 
adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra.
----------------------------------------------------------

> Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not 
> develop this?
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a 
creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. 
Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on 
this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------
To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very 
> conceptual. In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg 
> breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra. I think the best is the Four Noble 
> Truth, simple yet full of wisdom. 
> When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one 
> interpretation, it all surrounds a self. All these are just different 
> segregation of self. Another interpretation that I read about citta, is 
> that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we 
> cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types. Assuming 
> we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw 
> puzzles pieces. If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. 
> 
> Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward 
> our karma to our next life. Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal 
> or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma 
> in our next life. Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta 
> going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since 
> bhavanga citta is also momentary. 
> Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to 
> carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta 
> is a series of cittas. Then how does citta going to decide our future 
> karma since citta is momentary.
> There must be something all this depend on. It cannot be citta as defined 
> above. It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. 
> These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence.
> Kind regards.
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=============================
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) 







 
8412 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:57am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor?

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Rob Ep
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> > --- 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?
> 
> I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with.  I
> will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I
> understand them.
> 
> When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings,
> we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do
> not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their
> conventional counterparts.  We have to learn about each reality pretty
> much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it.
> 
> And there is much to be learnt.  Every mental factor (cetasika) that
> arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic,
> performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a
> particular manifestation and proximate cause.  (These of course should be
> taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of
> consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a
> situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to
> 'state' in the description below.)
> 
> In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these
> attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)--
> 
> Description:  Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira).
> Characteristic:  Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). 
> Function:  Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the
> accompanying citta and cetasikas). 
> Manifestation:  It is manifested as non-collapse. 
> Proximate cause:  Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency;  or its
> proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. 
> 
> We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta
> and cetasikas that it arises together with.  So it is not energy 'towards
> something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the
> conventional concept of energy.
> 
> Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'.  This refers, in the case of
> kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala.  If we see
> the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the
> arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta.
> 
> This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various
> mental factors needs to be considered.  Without this sort of detailed
> study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our
> conventional knowledge, that are not accurate.  There is of course much
> more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend
> Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading.  The section on viriya is quite
> short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework
> as you to catch up on, Rob (!).  This can be found in the second half of
> Chapter 9, at the following link--
> http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html
> 
> This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am
> delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible,
> too.  But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the
> ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than
> I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week,
> and will have limited time before then to spend on the list.  (Looking
> ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give
> you some references to previous posts where these topics have been
> discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each
> point as far as I am able.  It's in the queue!)
> 
> Jon

Thanks for the link, Jon, and your detailed example of 'Energy'. I hope you have a
great trip.  If you do have a chance to respond to my other post, that will be
great.  If not, well, I have to admit I will be slightly relieved!  <g>  But of
course, I am looking forward to your comments.

Robert Ep

 


 
8413 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 0:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep

 
  --- Sarah  wrote:
> Dear Rob Ep,
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-))
> 
>  > 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?  
> 
> I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at
> all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or
> there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-)
> 
> 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?
> 
> When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it
> provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had
> failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so,
> everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on,
> has been gleened from Buddhism. 
> 
> As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems,
> teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if
> that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say,
> psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my
> work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about
> mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words,
> lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn
> about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective
> and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job
> a lot better.  I  also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any
> aspect of our lives simpler and easier. 
> 
> > 
> > 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.....
> 
> Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more
> carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that,
> there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries,
> like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more
> readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail
> is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical
> details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin
> and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The
> details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning,
> as we all agree here. 
> 
> If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking
> questions or sharing your insights along the way.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs
> of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana,
> luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status.   I have the greatest
> respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question,
> challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most
> useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here.
> 
>  But I will look over your very interesting responses and
> > see
> > what I can come up with in the way of understanding.
> 
> Take your time...I’ll be around....;-))
> 
> this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me).
> 
> Sarah

Dear Sarah,
Thanks for your reply.  I have admire those of you have settled in for the long
haul and made this your 'vehicle'.  It is a long trip, is it not?  But it must be
nice to feel that you have set out in the right direction and can keep enjoying
the unfolding of understanding.

It is certainly fascinating looking at how realities unfold.  Whatever part of
Buddhism we are most drawn to, the essential teachings of anatta, anicca and
dukkha really give one a perspective that gradually allows the letting go of the
idea that there is a self or an object to hold onto.  That in itself is a bit of a
relief, after all the clinging and disappointment when treasured objects are
relinquished, as they must be.  To know that this is the true nature of things
erases a lot of regret, and points one in a different direction.

Thanks for your kind personal notes.  I have been enjoying this exchange very
much, and I learn a little bit more about how things are put together every time. 
Your response to my questions was quite clear and helpful.  The idea that bhavanga
cittas are also momentary and do not form an underlying continuum, but arise when
they do as part of the pattern of arising cittas and cetasikas is consistent and
makes sense.  Although I was secretly hoping for a subconscious field of awareness
somewhere in there, it would have been contradictory if it had turned out to be
that way.  It is a science in a way, isn't it?  And gradually becomes a little
clearer. 

I have bookmarked Nina's Cetasikas book and will try to look at it soon.  If I get
in trouble by not completing my homeworks, I'm sure you'll forgive me, but I will
try to do it.  I've been very bad about my reading list.  I think my wife is going
to make it a choice between me and my unread books any day now.  Or perhaps she'll
throw out my computer.   

Anyway, that's enough frivolity for now.  Again, I appreciate the exchanges and
I'm very glad that you find them worthwhile as well.   That is very kind of you.  

Take care,
Robert Ep.
   


8415 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 2:03pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --- I
dear kenneth,
I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It 
is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears.
There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate 
nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a 
few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a 
technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say 
this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects 
for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which 
are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). 
Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, 
woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of 
vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, 
conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - 
by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these 
dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. 
When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is 
appopriate. As insight increases we see more. 
Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even 
the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal 
themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and 
support vipassana insight.
The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, 
all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain 
ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those 
ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example
(174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated 
[eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well 
instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the 
mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied 
with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the 
Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the 
foundations of mindfulness (in this example). 
The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be 
had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts 
or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it 
is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my 
thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are 
(that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena).
Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be 
genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next 
series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling 
may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or 
subtle wrongview. 
if you would like to follow this up more I will reply.
best wishes
robert


 KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Howard,
> Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and 
kindness in replying my difficult questions.  
> ===================================================
> Howard:
> I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
> bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, 
often a mental 
> one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various 
details 
> of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly 
examine all 
> aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, 
with an eye 
> to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, 
unworthiness, 
> impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and 
ceasing) 
> phenomena.
> =================================================
> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is 
actually a vipassana meditation.  This means  Vipassana should be 
practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or 
sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate.  
> Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta 
involved during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could 
a temporal observe another temporal.  
> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  
Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies 
that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What 
happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge 
on.  We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In 
my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or 
objects for discernment.  Hence we could say that  meditation on the 
breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and 
breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice 
it thats all.
> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation 
but to me just because we have been practise this for many 
generations, we take it as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just 
our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to 
just meditation.  it should be practise in every moments of our 
lifes.  
> The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and 
other religious practise is that we  learn to be detach from such 
reflections.  We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as 
consciouness, no more or no less.  My interpretation in mindfullness 
sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand 
feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the 
sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things as it is.  
With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is 
no longer a you or me.  
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on 
its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands 
years and benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many 
thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous 
email about citta.  Thanks
>  
>  

 
8416 From: KennethOng   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 5:16pm
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Robert,
I definitely agreed with Dhamma is profound and there are many methods.  And by no means I am not here to discourage anyone to stop any method of practise or say any method of practise is wrong.  I just here to point my reservation and I ever willing to be corrected by anyone.  Sincerely I am very glad that I got this opportunity to ask here, as pple here are objective and more willingly to accept radical ideas. If it is on another list, i would have not ask such questions. Really thanks for this opportunity and I promise not to misuse it (the scout salute, iIi )
In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont  sound  racial here).  there are 84, 000 methods.  The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity.  If you understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation).  Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method.
Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras.  I more incline to believe, it is us that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana.    This is why I ask, why  Buddha did not say about Vipassana meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, impermanent and mindfullness.  I more incline to believe again that it is us who infer and interpreted it.

(absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality)),  On what ground are we saying these are absolute realities.  As I said before, just because it was written for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very willingly to be corrected.

As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method.  to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is the middle way.  It is not nihilist because it knows there is an existence, hence the words, there is feeling.  it is not eternalist, because it understands there is feeling as feeling.  No more and no less.  Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly.   When we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates.  To aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject existence.  We can never reject existence because we are infact exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being clouded.  Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. .  Seeing things as it is.  this is my understanding of mindfullness.  Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp subtle thoughts.  
What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to minutes details. Such is also attachments.  it could lead to attachment to investigation.  We are no longer detach.  There is desire to investigate as we investigate more and more.  Furthermore, in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy.

When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also temporal.  If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to our next life.  how is this cittas going to determine the other cittas next time in our next rebirth.  If cittas is temporal, how we are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal.
Robert honestly thanks for the explaining.  I sincerely welcome you or anyone in the list to correct me and I feel good to be corrected.   Sometimes, I think I am a radical. :) Cheers.

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong  

 
  <> wrote: --- I
dear kenneth,
I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It 
is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears.
There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate 
nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a 
few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a 
technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say 
this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects 
for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which 
are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). 
Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, 
woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of 
vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, 
conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - 
by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these 
dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. 
When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is 
appopriate. As insight increases we see more. 
Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even 
the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal 
themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and 
support vipassana insight.
The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, 
all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain 
ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those 
ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example
(174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated 
[eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well 
instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the 
mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied 
with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the 
Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the 
foundations of mindfulness (in this example). 
The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be 
had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts 
or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it 
is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my 
thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are 
(that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena).
Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be 
genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next 
series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling 
may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or 
subtle wrongview. 
if you would like to follow this up more I will reply.
best wishes
robert


 KennethOng wrote:
> 
> Howard,
> Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and 
kindness in replying my difficult questions. 
> ===================================================
> Howard:
> I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha 
> bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, 
often a mental 
> one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various 
details 
> of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly 
examine all 
> aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, 
with an eye 
> to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, 
unworthiness, 
> impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and 
ceasing) 
> phenomena.
> =================================================
> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is 
actually a vipassana meditation. This means Vipassana should be 
practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or 
sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate. 
> Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta 
involved during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could 
a temporal observe another temporal. 
> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. 
Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies 
that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation. What 
happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge 
on. We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In 
my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or 
objects for discernment. Hence we could say that meditation on the 
breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and 
breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice 
it thats all.
> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation 
but to me just because we have been practise this for many 
generations, we take it as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just 
our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to 
just meditation. it should be practise in every moments of our 
lifes. 
> The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and 
other religious practise is that we learn to be detach from such 
reflections. We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as 
consciouness, no more or no less. My interpretation in mindfullness 
sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand 
feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the 
sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things as it is. 
With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is 
no longer a you or me. 
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on 
its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands 
years and benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many 
thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous 
email about citta. Thanks
> 
> 



 
8417 From: Sukinderpal Narula   
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:54pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Dear Jonothan,

> Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
> positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)?  Thanks.

I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not
understand
the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my
experience
of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment.
This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance.
I was
lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the
teachings
in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I
have very little
knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and
this made
things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all
realities arise
because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems
like a long
stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed
that
thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting
go'.
I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I
have about
my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the
situation, but I
was also  left with some  breathing space and this itself was condition for
some good cheer.
Hope I go it correct, if not let me know.

Sukin.

 
8418 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 9:06pm
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --Dear kenneth,
I have no doubt about your sincerity to learn- that is why I find it 
worthwhile replying to your earlier posts and this one.
if you have time I'd like to exchange several posts on this. I am a 
still a little uncertain about your doubts and so, if you don't mind, 
I would ask some questions. 
 KennethOng  wrote:
> In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont  sound  racial here).  there 
are 84, 000 methods.  The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity.  If you 
understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation).  
Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing 
wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method.
_______
So this all agrees with Theravada.
______
> Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk 
abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is 
considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again 
by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras.  I more incline to believe, it is us 
that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana.  

  This is why I ask, why  Buddha did not say about Vipassana 
meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, 
impermanent and mindfullness.  I more incline to believe again that 
it is us who infer and interpreted it.

_________
Robert k.:Vipassana means nothing other than insight into nonself and 
impermanent (and dukkha). This is the way it is always explained in 
the texts. If you don't like the word "vipassana" we can 
say 'understanding anatta"- would that be more suitable? It really 
makes no difference. 
> ___________________________
> (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa 
(mentality and materiality)),  On what ground are we saying these are 
absolute realities.  As I said before, just because it was written 
for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. 
We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very 
willingly to be corrected.
______
Robert k.:Before I answer. Could you describe what these realities 
are? You have doubts about nama and rupa but I am not sure if you 
really know what it is you are doubting.
_______
> 
> As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method.  
to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is 
the middle way.  It is not nihilist because it knows there is an 
existence, hence the words, there is feeling.  it is not eternalist, 
because it understands there is feeling as feeling.  No more and no 
less.  Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. 
That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly.   When 
we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to 
realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it 
does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates.  To 
aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject 
existence.  We can never reject existence because we are infact 
exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being 
clouded.  Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to 
Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of 
our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. .  Seeing things as it is.  
this is my understanding of mindfullness. 

_______
Ok this sounds along the right lines. 
_______
 Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of 
our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp 
subtle thoughts.  
> What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller 
and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to 
minutes details. Such is also attachments.  it could lead to 
attachment to investigation.  We are no longer detach.  There is 
desire to investigate as we investigate more and more.  Furthermore, 
in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy.
_______
You are  pointing out an extreme that one can slip into. whenever 
there is attachment there is no mindfulness - it is as simple as 
that. Attachment can come in at any time. Thus we have to know , by 
experience, what sati (mindfulness) really is.
______
________
> 
> When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do 
citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also 
temporal.  If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to 
our next life.  how is this cittas going to determine the other 
cittas next time in our next rebirth.  If cittas is temporal, how we 
are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal.

--_______
We have written so much about these matters on dsg and you will find 
much in the archives. Start with these at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts

I feel you are defintely headed in the right direction kenneth. both 
you and Robert Ep. ask intelligent questions and make useful comments 
please keep it up.
best wishes
robert k.

 
8419 From: Howard 
Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:33pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/3/01 11:10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:

                                              <snip>

> Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a 
> vipassana meditation.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Some people use the terms 'vipassana meditation'/'insight meditation' 
and 'mindfulness meditation' interchangeably, but I think that to use 
'mindfulness' as a name for it isn't good. Mindfulness certainly is a leading 
factor in the cultivation of insight, but not the only one.
--------------------------------------------------------
  This means  Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be 
it 
> when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and 
> meditate. 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I think that what you mean here is correct. Literally, one shouldn't 
speak of vipassana being practiced, but of it being cultivated. It is a goal. 
And, yes, mindfulness, concentration, and clear comprehension should be in 
place, optimally, at all times and in all positions. As far as *this* list is 
concerned, I think that more important than pointing *this* out, which I 
think is well undrstood here, is to point out the importance of not excluding 
*formal* meditation (in the traditional walking and sitting positions) from 
one's practice, because in formal meditation, by restricting the range of 
observed phenomena, it is possible to increase the level and intensity of 
concentration and calm, as well as the other factors.
----------------------------------------------------
 

> Another question, when we  observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved 
> during this observation.  Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal 
> observe another temporal.  
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a 
citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, 
auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large 
variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object 
co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there 
is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta 
and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I 
think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. 
If either bundle falls, so does the other. Likewise, with the advent of 
nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind is 
freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
illumination encountering no obstacles.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved.  Does this 
> means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts 
> are use as labels or objects of meditation.  What happens if there are no 
> thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on.  We cannot practise 
> meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is 
> hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment.  Hence we could 
> say that  meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is 
> use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we 
> seldom notice it thats all.
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Meditation on the breath can be used as samatha bhavana, as vipassana 
bhavana, or as both.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to 
> me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it 
> as it is.  Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts 
> and such practise should not confine to just meditation.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, this depends on what you mean by "thoughts". During vipassana 
meditation, attention is paid to all arising (and ceasing) dhammas. It 
primarily involves direct observation, not reflective contemplation, not 
engaging in "thinking about".
----------------------------------------------------------
>   it should be practise in every moments of our lifes.
>  The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other 
religious 
> practise is that we  learn to be detach from such reflections.  We reflect 
> feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less.  My 
> interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in 
> pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also 
> written in the sutra).  there is no differentiating thoughts.  See things 
> as it is.
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Yes. We agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------
  With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go.  there is no 
longer a 
> you or me.  
> But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own 
> right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and 
> benefitted countless human beings.  Once again Howard, many thanks for your 
> patience and kindness in answering my questions.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> P.S.  Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email 
> about citta.  Thanks
> 
> 
================================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8420 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am
Subject: cheerfulness of Dhamma

 
  Dear Jon, I meant to be lurking these days, but cannot resist this one:
adding something to the cheerful aspect of Dhamma. You always stimulate
others and bring up good points.
A. Sujin said that we have to be glad and courageous as regards
satipatthana. We begin to be mindful of nama and rupa, such as hardness,
visible object, sound. At that very short moment: no worry in the world,
there is no world, only that characteristic. There is no anxiety about the
weakness of panna, the lack of sati. But of course, the moments of sati are
brief, and rare, and then there can be worry about ourselves, this or that
person, this or that situation. The courage comes in when there is a sense
of urgency to be mindful again and again, because life is too short, and now
is the time that we still have the opportunity to hear Dhamma and practise
it. I am glad you brought this up, because I shall need to be reminded by
you of what I am saying now, during our trip. The endless busrides,
especially to Kosambi, the hardship, the very large group, and my worry:
will there be enough occasions to hear A.Sujin? But we can learn to accept
that whatever happens is conditioned, always and everywhere, see Ken's
mantra. Nina.

 
8421 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am
Subject: upanissaya paccaya

 
  Dear Num, I have to put off answering you until after India. I am always
glad to hear from you, missed you when you were so busy. Nina.

 
8422 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 6:59am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma

 
  Dear Nina,

I particularly liked this post and thought I might
wait till after India to respond.  Please don't feel
pressed to reply before your trip.

I was particularly interested in the phrase, 'indriya
samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors'.  Indriya
(controlling factor?), samvara (restraint) and sila
(moral practice).  I've often heard the phrase,
'guarding the sense doors' before and have always
taken it to refer to awareness of the six sixes as
explained in the Chachakka Sutta.  Is this correct
and, if so, how does it relate to the words indriya,
samvara and sila?

Thanks in advance and have a great trip (conditions
permitting).

mike  

--- Nina van Gorkom  wrote:
> 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 thd 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:  
> >> 
> >> <The purpose of listening to the Dhamma should
> not merely be theoretical
> >> 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.


 
8423 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 7:45am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Robert,

Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies.

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of
> Awareness that exists in Nibbana
> after the defilements are gone, 

Do you mean after parinibbaana?  I don't have a
problem with luminous cittas arising after
nibbaana--just after parinibbaana.

> it is neither a
> possession or a self.

Of course.

> 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.  

Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other
possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
elsewhere in the Pali canon?  I think this is true.  I
don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
with me.  The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and
found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
think you would have found it (or even looked for it)
in the Theravada?

> The
> transparent ground of being could not be personal or
> objectified.  

As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the
Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of
it.

> 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...

Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.

> very
> difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.

I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
it is an error (please pardon my bluntness).  The
Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
of Ch'an and Zen, and so on.  The idea isn't difficult
even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
we can't describe it.  Surely it would have been
child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
his understanding.

mike


 
8424 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 8:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hello Again, Howard,

--- Howard wrote:

>
-----------------------------------------------------
> > > 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.
>
---------------------------------------------------------

I don't think so either.  In fact, near as I can tell,
the main difference between us on the subject of
effort is our way of speaking of it.  You don't think
it's personal any more than I do.  I don't feel I'm
disagreeing either with you or with Jon--though maybe
I'm missing something.

Best wishes, sir...

mike


 
8425 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 9:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Dear Jon,

--- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:

> > 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)

> 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.

I do understand and agree.  There are instances in the
Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages
effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
recently, e.g.  

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

I think the 'He should' establishes this as
'prescriptive' rather than 'descriptive' (assuming Ven
T.'s translation is sound).  What's significant about
this to me is this: In all the instances that come to
mind of the Buddha expressly encouraging conventional
effort, he's either encouraging conventional morality,
jhaana cultivation (as in this example) or heedfulness
(as in his final words).  This seems to me to suggest
that the Buddha did find a place for conventional
effort in most aspects of the teaching.  If this is
true then some of the differences between some of us
on the list may have more to do with altitude than
with attitude.  If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to
strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded
as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
abhidhamma floors?

Please excuse a terribly strained metaphor and a weird
flight of fancy.

mike  

> 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.

I have to agree. As long as mind is 'darting among
unrealities', what can be accomplished?  On the other
hand, when mind is said to 'turn away' from 

> > 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 …..


 
8426 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 11:50am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Robert and Mike,
  "m. nease"  wrote: 
Hi Robert,

Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies.

--- Robert Epstein wrote:

> Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of
> Awareness that exists in Nibbana
> after the defilements are gone, 

Do you mean after parinibbaana? I don't have a
problem with luminous cittas arising after
nibbaana--just after parinibbaana.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Robert, 

Defilements are never gone, it is still there.  Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as described in Mahayana doctrines.  If defilements are gone, it will be an extreme left view. 


> it is neither a
> possession or a self.

Of course.


++++++++++

Definitely how do we possess something that is inherent the same as us.  It is already inside us, we do not need to possess it.  

++++++++++
> 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. 

Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other
possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and
found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
think you would have found it (or even looked for it)
in the Theravada?


+++++++++++++++++++

Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same essence of all dharmas.  it would only be show by the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in fact any cittas.  Just like wind is manifestated by its "blowing" but we cannot see wind.  Furthermore this essence is not defile by such manfestation of cittas.  it is the same as the sun rays that shine on every things but it is not affected by whether comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun rays.  The particles showed the rays but the ray is not defile by the dust particles.

Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless lives cittas are also  emcompassed inside it.  Luminious mind  is only realized not by removal of delifements or practising good virtues (technical speaking as such removal is extreme left view).  It is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all kinds of cittas, then it could be seen.  It is the calm after the storm.  

> The
> transparent ground of being could not be personal or
> objectified. 

As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the
Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of
it.

> 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...

Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.

> very
> difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.

I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult
even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
his understanding.

+++++++++++++++++

Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only be experience and not describe.  Just like watching the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset in words.  


Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe it adequately.  

 

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong


 
8427 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 0:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng  wrote:

> Dear Robert, 
> 
> Defilements are never gone, it is still there. 
> Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as
> described in Mahayana doctrines.  If defilements are
> gone, it will be an extreme left view. 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to
my comments?
 
> > it is neither a
> > possession or a self.
> 
> Of course.

 ++++++++++
> 
> Definitely how do we possess something that is
> inherent the same as us.  It is already inside us,
> we do not need to possess it.  
> 
> ++++++++++

What is the 'us' that it's inside?  In which khandha
is this 'us'?

> > 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. 
> 
> Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
> exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of
> other
> possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of
> 'one's
> pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
> elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
> don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
> I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
> possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
> pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
> with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
> If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana
> (and
> found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
> think you would have found it (or even looked for
> it)
> in the Theravada?
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same
> essence of all dharmas.  it would only be show by
> the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in
> fact any cittas.  Just like wind is manifestated by
> its "blowing" but we cannot see wind.  Furthermore
> this essence is not defile by such manfestation of
> cittas.  it is the same as the sun rays that shine
> on every things but it is not affected by whether
> comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun
> rays.  The particles showed the rays but the ray is
> not defile by the dust particles.
> 
> Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing
> as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our
> cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are
> all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless
> lives cittas are also  emcompassed inside it. 
> Luminious mind  is only realized not by removal of
> delifements or practising good virtues (technical
> speaking as such removal is extreme left view).  It
> is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all
> kinds of cittas, then it could be seen.  It is the
> calm after the storm.  

Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about.  I
was quite devoted to this view for decades.  I'm not
questioning the nature of 'original mind'.  What I'm
questioning is whether or not the 'original mind'
concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana.

> > The
> > transparent ground of being could not be personal
> or
> > objectified. 
> 
> As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if
> the
> Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware
> of
> it.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.
> 
> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic
> and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations,
> circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the
> geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't
> difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++
> 
> Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for
> Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not
> adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only
> be experience and not describe.  Just like watching
> the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset
> in words.  
> 
> Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe
> it adequately.  

Well, maybe not, Kenneth.  But you just used a fairly
commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done
likewise?  So far as I know he did not, in the Pali
canon.
 
Best wishes, Sir,

mike


 
8428 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:45pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi Mike
Regarding whether luminious mind is found in Pali, is a very good and beneficial question and I think I could understand your intention.  I could not comment at present because I am not good in Thervada.  It starts to interest me when pple talk abt Vipassana and Abidharma.  Actually my initial interest to learn Vipassana and Abidharma is embarassing because it started when somebody keep insisting that other type of methods are wrong only Vipassana is correct.  Hehe, that makes me angry (gosh akusala citta).  One of the area that I would like to study is the similarity between Abidharma and Mahayana doctrines esp the Surangama Sutra.  
But now I am limited by the availability of resources in the country I am staying now.  Maybe when I back to Singapore, presently I have only one book of Abidharama without commentaries but I would buy more books on Abidharama and the Path to liberation (Visuddhimagga).  Do you or anyone here have any good recommendation of books or websites that I could access.
Mike, sorry, 'us' is used as a technical speech. All the khandas are the same in essence same as luminious mind.  There is why in Mahayana doctrine there is always these words,  Buddha is found in defilements, and they are of the same essence.
Words do have limitation to express luminious mind.  Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual experience of "sweet" but it will know the description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it can only be experience and not decribed fully.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
 
  
  "m. nease"  wrote: Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng wrote:

> Dear Robert, 
> 
> Defilements are never gone, it is still there. 
> Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as
> described in Mahayana doctrines. If defilements are
> gone, it will be an extreme left view. 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to
my comments?

> > it is neither a
> > possession or a self.
> 
> Of course.

++++++++++
> 
> Definitely how do we possess something that is
> inherent the same as us. It is already inside us,
> we do not need to possess it. 
> 
> ++++++++++

What is the 'us' that it's inside? In which khandha
is this 'us'?

> > 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. 
> 
> Even if the quotation in question may be read as an
> exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of
> other
> possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of
> 'one's
> pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find
> elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I
> don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though
> I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could
> possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's
> pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it
> with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. 
> If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana
> (and
> found evidence of it in your own experience), do you
> think you would have found it (or even looked for
> it)
> in the Theravada?
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++
> 
> Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same
> essence of all dharmas. it would only be show by
> the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in
> fact any cittas. Just like wind is manifestated by
> its "blowing" but we cannot see wind. Furthermore
> this essence is not defile by such manfestation of
> cittas. it is the same as the sun rays that shine
> on every things but it is not affected by whether
> comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun
> rays. The particles showed the rays but the ray is
> not defile by the dust particles.
> 
> Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing
> as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our
> cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are
> all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless
> lives cittas are also emcompassed inside it. 
> Luminious mind is only realized not by removal of
> delifements or practising good virtues (technical
> speaking as such removal is extreme left view). It
> is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all
> kinds of cittas, then it could be seen. It is the
> calm after the storm. 

Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about. I
was quite devoted to this view for decades. I'm not
questioning the nature of 'original mind'. What I'm
questioning is whether or not the 'original mind'
concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana.

> > The
> > transparent ground of being could not be personal
> or
> > objectified. 
> 
> As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if
> the
> Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware
> of
> it.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> Yes, I think I know what you're getting at.
> 
> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic
> and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations,
> circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the
> geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't
> difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++
> 
> Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for
> Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not
> adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only
> be experience and not describe. Just like watching
> the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset
> in words. 
> 
> Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe
> it adequately. 

Well, maybe not, Kenneth. But you just used a fairly
commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done
likewise? So far as I know he did not, in the Pali
canon.

Best wishes, Sir,

mike




 
8429 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:42pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness).  The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on.  The idea isn't difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it.  Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.

Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless.  You may be right that Buddha didn't speak
explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no such
thing.  I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to
establish any concept of a self or soul.  

When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been discussing:
 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without'  I accept
the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring to
arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind.  But I don't
think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive
interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those
words sound like they are saying.  It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject
to interpretation.  

Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement?  I don't
know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal.  I do
know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy.

Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism:

<<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not
entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the
elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102).
Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so
often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except
in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the
Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact
reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply
practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing
away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to make
progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist
thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into a
sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can
easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still
haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul,
thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >>

Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but
it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage.

Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is
'real'.  He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising and
dissolving thoughts.

From the Dhammapada:


       Chapter Three - The Mind  

Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft,
even so the discerning man straightens his mind
 so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. 

 As a fish when pulled out of water and cast
   on land throbs and quivers, even so is
     this mind agitated. Hence should
      one abandon the realm of Mara. 

     Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue
      the mind, so difficult to subdue,
 ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires.
     A tamed mind brings happiness. 

  Let the discerning man guard the mind,
  so difficult to detect and extremely subtle,
        seizing whatever it desires.
    A guarded mind brings happiness. 

Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. 
He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments.

now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does speak
in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.

But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less
specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid
because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere else? 
Of course not.

Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis
that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon.  Nor should
we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is
really talking about individual thought-moments.  By your argument, in which you
argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original
nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I wonder
why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. 
Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous,
while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.'  But it
doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even
though this is not what he says in the sutta.  

I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what
we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist this. 
If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have meant
that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta.

Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to
let them go.  I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an
image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly
experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding of
what is really there.  But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a
succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are
specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta]
unless I experience that directly as well.

We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness.  Each
of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer,
rather gradually from experience, towards understanding.

Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination.  I'll look foward to
your response when you have a spare moment or two.  Or three.

Best Regards,
Robert Ep.




 
8430 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:49pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Dear Jon,
> 
> --- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> 
> > > 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)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I do understand and agree.  There are instances in the
> Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages
> effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
> recently, e.g.  
> 
> "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
> connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
> in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
> particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
> apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
> When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
> that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
> evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
> aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
> With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
> within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
> 
> I think the 'He should' establishes this as
> 'prescriptive' rather than 'descriptive' (assuming Ven
> T.'s translation is sound).  What's significant about
> this to me is this: In all the instances that come to
> mind of the Buddha expressly encouraging conventional
> effort, he's either encouraging conventional morality,
> jhaana cultivation (as in this example) or heedfulness
> (as in his final words).  This seems to me to suggest
> that the Buddha did find a place for conventional
> effort in most aspects of the teaching.  If this is
> true then some of the differences between some of us
> on the list may have more to do with altitude than
> with attitude.  If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
> jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to
> strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
> ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded
> as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
> abhidhamma floors?
> 
> Please excuse a terribly strained metaphor and a weird
> flight of fancy.
> 
> mike  

Dear Mike,
I think you are very right about this, and your quote is quite relevant.  I think
it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching functions on various levels and in
various stages.  Rather than thinking in black and white terms, that if a word is
used in a certain context in one place, it must mean that another usage is
incorrect, we should look at what is required by that context.  

In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and disciplining action, a kind of
conventional effort may be called for, while the Right Effort that Jon has
described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment of a very high level of
refinement, may be a very different effort for a very different refined purpose.

But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort and other conventional terms
may be very possible to engage in, even though there is actually no central 'self'
to do these things.  

Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting discussion.

Best,
Robert Ep.




 
8431 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:49pm
Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta

 
  Hi Robert K,

Thanks for you patience in explaining.  
Abidharma speaks about four ultimate realities.  Three are conditions.  My questions is if there are conditions, why should they be ultimate realities.  On what grounds they are consider ultimate reality.  
If cittas are temporal, how does it going to accumulate.  Take for example, a citta is like a RAM in the computer, once you power is off, the memory in the RAM is gone.  How is such cittas in nature temporal going to accumulate all our volitions and then these cittas in turn going to decide our future karma.  If they could accumulate, then it should not be transient or not how is it going to store these information of volitions similiarly like a hard disk in a computer.
We could say that they are a seamless stream of cittas,   but the problem is how is these stream of cittas going to determine the next rebirth.  Who is the boss of these cittas that decided for next rebirth or they co-arise or cooperate with each other.  If they co-operate with each other, their co-operation cannot be substantiate as all these cittas are temporal in the first place.
If our citta is a stream of citta, what is it when we reach Nibbana (be it using supramundane path). If it is a stream of cittas, then it is condition as cittas themselves are conditions.  If cittas have stop or gather like a sea.  This means it is also conditional by cittas.  If they are completely not to be found, then it is attached to a extreme left view because the cittas have been removed or "destroyed"
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
  






 
8432 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:52pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  --- KennethOng  wrote:

> Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for Buddha to describe luminious
> mind as words could not adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only be
> experience and not describe.  Just like watching the sunset, it is difficult to
> describe the sunset in words.  
> 
> 
> Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe it adequately.  
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong

Thanks Kenneth, for helping clarify that a bit.
I certainly didn't mean to say that the Buddha was at a loss for words,
Maybe just that words themselves were at a loss.

Best,
Robert Ep.



 
8433 From: KennethOng   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 3:04pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Robert Ep . 


I agree with you on the points that Buddha did speaks abt this luminious mind.  In my understanding The Buddha in the Mahayana sutra always infer this luminious mind especially those related to "wisdom Mahayana Sutras" for eg Daimond Sutra, Surangama Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra.  He has explicited said it many times in the Mahayana Sutra esp wisdoms ones just that the words use to describe it may be different at times.

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong


 

  Robert Epstein  wrote: --- "m. nease" wrote:

> --- Robert Epstein wrote:

> > very
> > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> 
> I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
> delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
> of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
> of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult
> even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> his understanding.

Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless. You may be right that Buddha didn't speak
explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no such
thing. I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to
establish any concept of a self or soul. 

When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been discussing:
'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without' I accept
the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring to
arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind. But I don't
think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive
interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those
words sound like they are saying. It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject
to interpretation. 

Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement? I don't
know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal. I do
know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy.

Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism:

<<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not
entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the
elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102).
Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so
often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except
in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the
Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact
reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply
practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing
away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to make
progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist
thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into a
sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can
easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still
haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul,
thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >>

Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but
it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage.

Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is
'real'. He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising and
dissolving thoughts.

From the Dhammapada:


Chapter Three - The Mind 

Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft,
even so the discerning man straightens his mind
so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. 

As a fish when pulled out of water and cast
on land throbs and quivers, even so is
this mind agitated. Hence should
one abandon the realm of Mara. 

Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue
the mind, so difficult to subdue,
ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires.
A tamed mind brings happiness. 

Let the discerning man guard the mind,
so difficult to detect and extremely subtle,
seizing whatever it desires.
A guarded mind brings happiness. 

Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. 
He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments.

now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does speak
in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.

But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less
specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid
because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere else? 
Of course not.

Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis
that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon. Nor should
we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is
really talking about individual thought-moments. By your argument, in which you
argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original
nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I wonder
why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. 
Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous,
while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.' But it
doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even
though this is not what he says in the sutta. 

I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what
we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist this. 
If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have meant
that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta.

Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to
let them go. I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an
image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly
experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding of
what is really there. But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a
succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are
specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta]
unless I experience that directly as well.

We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness. Each
of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer,
rather gradually from experience, towards understanding.

Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination. I'll look foward to
your response when you have a spare moment or two. Or three.

Best Regards,
Robert Ep.




8434 From: Sarah   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 3:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep

 
  Dear Rob Ep.

 --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 

> 
> I have bookmarked Nina's Cetasikas book and will try to look at it soon.  If
> I get
> in trouble by not completing my homeworks, I'm sure you'll forgive me, but I
> will
> try to do it. 

Just take your time.....I think this the homework Jon gave you was in this and
the homework I gave was in Abhid. in Daily Life (ADL)* on bhavangas and sense
and mind door processes....anyway it's all very helpful. ADL  is available on
the websites at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links

 I've been very bad about my reading list.  I think my wife is
> going
> to make it a choice between me and my unread books any day now.  Or perhaps
> she'll
> throw out my computer.  

Please give your wife top priority.....there can be awareness and many kusala
cittas whilst taking care of her and your daughter..let the books 'fit'
in.......Believe me, I have  texts I started decades ago and still haven't
finished....I just dip in here and there when I have a little time and I don't
begrudge it when I have no time (most the time);-) Maybe you can even print out
one or two posts a day which may be of interest to your wife....

Before the computer gets thrown out, a useful exercise or 'test' on what we've
been discussing would be to summarise it (from a Theravada point of view) for
Kenneth (or Ken O as we have 2 Kens) ;-))
> 
> Anyway, that's enough frivolity for now.  Again, I appreciate the exchanges
> and
> I'm very glad that you find them worthwhile as well.   That is very kind of
> you.  

We're allowed a little frivolity too ;-)...speak soon,

Sarah

*We have a spare 'hard'  copy of ADL (quite small;-) and I'll gladly send it by
snailmail if you wish to give me yr add off-list. If anyone else wishes to
obtain a copy, I know Sukin is always happy to help or else just send an email
to the Foundation at the adds I put in a post under Books (Free) or similar at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts




 
8435 From: Sarah   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:00pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Howard,
 
--- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken -

>        To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a 
> citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, 
> auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large 
> variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object 
> co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there
> 
> is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta 
> and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I
> 
> think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. 
> If either bundle falls, so does the other. 
.....................

Firstly, I think you are being far too modest !

I’m puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of reeds here
as referring to ‘vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa’. Someone else wrote the same
(Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I’m puzzled is because of
course vinnana/citta is  a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -mental
factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you kindly give
me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-))
....................

>Likewise, with the advent of 
> nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind is 
> freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
> illumination encountering no obstacles.
....................

I’m a little unclear here as well. Do you mean when nibbana is first
experienced (as for a sotapanna)or for an arahat or are your referring to
parinibbana? In the first two cases, there is still citta (magga and phala
cittas) experiencing or discerning an object (in this case the nama, nibbana),
but as you are suggesting (I think) at parinibbana, no more experiencing or
discerning ever.But then at parinibbana there is no ‘infinite illumination
encountering no obstacles’ that I’m aware of...Again I’d appreciate any sutta
ref.

You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or Rob
Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the inherent
or natural state of the mind. Again I’d appreciate a ref. from you or anyone. I
have a recollection of the sutta you’re referring to and would like to check
it, but I’m hopeless at locating them. (Apologies if I haven’t rephrased you
accurately as I don’t have that post in front of me).

Howard, I appreciate your participation and contributions greatly and I’m
enjoying your discussion (and the others) with Ken O very much;-)

Sarah



 
8436 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 5:11pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  ---  Sarah  wrote:
> Hi Howard,
>  
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken -
> 
> >        To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close 
to nil, a 
> > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning 
a visual, 
> > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied 
by a large 
> > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its 
namarupic object 
> > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the 
discerning, and there
> > 
> > is no discernment without its object. The relation between 
vi~n~nana/citta 
> > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles 
of reeds (I
> > 
> > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting 
each other. 
> > If either bundle falls, so does the other. 
> .....................
> 
> Firstly, I think you are being far too modest !
> 
> I'm puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of 
reeds here
> as referring to `vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa'. Someone else wrote 
the same
> (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I'm puzzled is 
because of
> course vinnana/citta is  a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -
mental
> factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you 
kindly give
> me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-))
> ....................
> 
> Dear Sarah,
Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the 
Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition 
for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is 
sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the 
paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see 
for example visuddhimagga xvii187). 

robert k.

 
8437 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 5:32pm
Subject: Re: Citta

 
  ---  KennethOng  wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert K,
> 
> Thanks for you patience in explaining.  
> Abidharma speaks about four ultimate realities.  Three are 
conditions.  My questions is if there are conditions, why should they 
be ultimate realities.  On what grounds they are consider ultimate 
reality. 
________
They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these 
conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process 
during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas 
which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the 
time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is 
simply concept, idea: not real.
________

 
> If cittas are temporal, how does it going to accumulate.  Take for 
example, a citta is like a RAM in the computer, once you power is 
off, the memory in the RAM is gone. 
______

Robert k.:When you turn the computer on again it comes back? I think 
it may not be helpful to use that analogy in any event.
______
 How is such cittas in nature temporal going to accumulate all our 
volitions and then these cittas in turn going to decide our future 
karma.  If they could accumulate, then it should not be transient or 
not how is it going to store these information of volitions 
similiarly like a hard disk in a computer.
______
Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because it 
is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it 
would  get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in 
samsara\
_______
> We could say that they are a seamless stream of cittas,   but the 
problem is how is these stream of cittas going to determine the next 
rebirth.  Who is the boss of these cittas that decided for next 
rebirth or they co-arise or cooperate with each other.  If they co-
operate with each other, their co-operation cannot be substantiate as 
all these cittas are temporal in the first place.
_____
there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or get 
reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and 
henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth. 
________
> If our citta is a stream of citta, what is it when we reach Nibbana 
(be it using supramundane path). If it is a stream of cittas, then it 
is condition as cittas themselves are conditions.  If cittas have 
stop or gather like a sea.  This means it is also conditional by 
cittas.  If they are completely not to be found, then it is attached 
to a extreme left view because the cittas have been removed 
or "destroyed"
______
nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are 
conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path).

 
Just a word now on the translation of paramattha dhammas as realities.
The word reality may have  connotations of something
substantial whereas dhammas , are too evanescent to
imagine. Any words
we
use to describe the nature of realities –impermanent,
momentary, temporary, instant by instant- cannot
convey the rapidity of the arising and passing away.
 
Take a moment of seeing consciousness: For  seeing to arise there
must be cakkhu
pasada (seeing base). This is the extremely refined
rupa that arises in the center of the eye. This
special rupa is the result of kamma. But
it only lasts for the briefest moment before falling
away . The reason we can keep seeing is that at this
moment the force of the kamma is still working to
continue replacing the cakkhu pasada. The visible eye,
the eyeball, and the surrounding matter, the rest of
the body, are also conditioned by different conditions
- not only kamma- and these rupas also only last for a
moment before vanishing forever. Every conditioning
factor is simarly evanescent as is every conditioned
moment. 

The reason I added this is to highlight the Theravada
understanding of dhammas. I think this needs consideration as we(I 
mean
Theravada people) are prone to talk about "moments" of
mind, and so on. However what we mean by moments is
rather open to interpretation. Some might have an idea
of a moment as a self-contained unit- sort of like a
box that contains things  but that is prone to
disappear rather quickly. However from the Patthana -
the last book of the abhidhamma - we learn that
"moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past
and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not
different from the quality they posses. In fact the
subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is
no other thing than the quality born by it" .   And no
moment is identical with another-It is true that such
dhammas as sanna or vedana are classified under the
same heading but the actual quality is influenced by
so many diverse factiors that not even one moment of
feeling is exactly the same.
best wishes
robert k.

 
8438 From: Ken Howard 
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Mike
You are way ahead of me in this Dhamma-study business, so the
following is not presumed to be telling you anything that is, in the
least bit, new to you.  I'm just verbalising my shaky understanding
and proving to Sarah that I'm still awake.

You wrote:
"I do understand and agree. There are instances in the
Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages
effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
recently, e.g. 

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it." <end quote>


My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught
the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way,
not the conventionally real way.  When he describes conventional
wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas.  Even if
he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think
for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional
terms, forms a part of the Dhamma.  

Is that the way you see it?

While I'm at it; You also wrote:

"If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to
strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded
as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
abhidhamma floors?"<end quote>

I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego I perceive that
which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred to in Robert
K's message # 8019. (?)


Kind regards
Ken Howard

 
8439 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:20pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Robert and Sarah -

In a message dated 10/5/01 5:15:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
robertkirkpatrick writes:


> 
> ---  Sarah  wrote:
> > Hi Howard,
> >  
> > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken -
> > 
> > >        To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close 
> to nil, a 
> > > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning 
> a visual, 
> > > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied 
> by a large 
> > > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its 
> namarupic object 
> > > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the 
> discerning, and there
> > > 
> > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between 
> vi~n~nana/citta 
> > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles 
> of reeds (I
> > > 
> > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting 
> each other. 
> > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. 
> > .....................
> > 
> > Firstly, I think you are being far too modest !
> > 
> > I'm puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of 
> reeds here
> > as referring to `vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa'. Someone else wrote 
> the same
> > (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I'm puzzled is 
> because of
> > course vinnana/citta is  a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -
> mental
> > factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you 
> kindly give
> > me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-))
> > ....................
> > 
> > Dear Sarah,
> Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the 
> Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition 
> for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is 
> sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the 
> paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see 
> for example visuddhimagga xvii187). 
> 
> robert k.
> 
> 
==========================
       Exacly so. The particular sutta about dependent origination I'm 
thinking of gives vi~n~nana as condition for namarupa, and it gives namarupa 
as condition for vi~n~nana.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8440 From: Howard 
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:47pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Sarah -

In a message dated 10/5/01 4:01:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Sarah writes:


> Hi Howard,
> 
> --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken -
> 
> >        To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, 
> a 
> > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a 
> visual, 
> > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a 
> large 
> > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object 
> > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and 
> there
> > 
> > is no discernment without its object. The relation between 
> vi~n~nana/citta 
> > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of 
> reeds (I
> > 
> > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each 
> other. 
> > If either bundle falls, so does the other. 
> .....................
> 
> Firstly, I think you are being far too modest !
> 
> I’m puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of reeds 
> here
> as referring to ‘vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa’. Someone else wrote the same
> (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I’m puzzled is because of
> course vinnana/citta is  a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -mental
> factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you kindly 
> give
> me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-))
> ....................
> 
-------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Sorry, I don't recall. (I'm not much good at that.) But please see my 
reply to Robert's post on this.
-----------------------------------------------------

> 
> >Likewise, with the advent of 
> > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind 
> is 
> > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
> > illumination encountering no obstacles.
> ....................
> 
> I’m a little unclear here as well. Do you mean when nibbana is first
> experienced (as for a sotapanna)or for an arahat or are your referring to
> parinibbana? In the first two cases, there is still citta (magga and phala
> cittas) experiencing or discerning an object (in this case the nama, 
> nibbana),
> but as you are suggesting (I think) at parinibbana, no more experiencing or
> discerning ever.But then at parinibbana there is no ‘infinite illumination
> encountering no obstacles’ that I’m aware of...Again I’d appreciate any 
> sutta
> ref.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       From my reading, I understand a sotapanna's apprehension of nibbana to 
be "at a distance", and as an object. I was referring to an arahant's 
experience of nibbana. And in that case, I'm not distinguishing between the 
nibbanic experience during life or beyond life. 
       When you say that at parinibbana there is no experiencing ever, do you 
mean of any sort? I understand that there is no discerning of objects. But 
are you suggesting that beyond the death of an arahant is absolute 
nothingness, that entry to final nibbana = annihilation? Obviously there is 
no entity to be annihilated. That is not what I mean. What I question is 
whether after entry to final nibbana there is no more awareness than the 
awareness of a rock, and that nibbana itself is a dark nothingness - and 
please note, here I am *not* equating 'nothingness' with 'emptiness'.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or 
> Rob
> Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the 
> inherent
> or natural state of the mind. Again I’d appreciate a ref. from you or 
> anyone. I
> have a recollection of the sutta you’re referring to and would like to check
> it, but I’m hopeless at locating them. (Apologies if I haven’t rephrased 
> you
> accurately as I don’t have that post in front of me).
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Again, I apologize for not being a sutta quoter! As I recall, the 
simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not like pure gold, but rather 
like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", and that refinement of 
that ore is required for the brilliance of the gold to manifest. But, of 
course, it is understood in that simile that the pure gold is present from 
the outset.
----------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Howard, I appreciate your participation and contributions greatly and I’m
> enjoying your discussion (and the others) with Ken O very much;-)
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Thank you, Sarah.
----------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Sarah
> 
> 
============================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8441 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 9:37pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Kenneth, Mike and all,
Since we've been talking about the Mahayana view a little bit, I thought I would
throw in a quote from Huang Po, one of the greatest of the zen masters:

        "People believe that what they see, hear, feel, or think is mind. They are
    
         blocked by (these things), so they don't see the brilliant spirit of
their 
         original mind."

This is similar to what I have heard said many times in this group, that we are
blocked by the sense that dharmas are 'real', and thus only see the results of the
sense-moments and don't notice the mind-moments that are devising our image of
what objects are.

The only difference is that Huang Po invokes the 'brilliant spirit of their
original mind' rather than saying that all one finds when objects are out of the
way are the anatta and anicca that the raw skandhas reveal.  

I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's statement about the
'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being blocked [or defiled I would say] by
sense objects, is enormously similar both in form and content to the disputed
phrase of the Buddha's:  

     "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by defilements from without."

If we cannot conclude that Buddha is talking about the same 'luminous mind' as
Huang Po's 'brilliant spirit of original mind', perhaps we may conclude that Huang
Po, an enlightened master by anyone's standards, is talking about the same
'luminous mind' as the Buddha.

Best Regards,
Robert Ep.

=====================================

--- KennethOng  wrote:
> 
> Hi Robert Ep . 
> 
> I agree with you on the points that Buddha did speaks abt this luminious mind. 
> In my understanding The Buddha in the Mahayana sutra always infer this luminious
> mind especially those related to "wisdom Mahayana Sutras" for eg Daimond Sutra,
> Surangama Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra.  He has explicited said it many
> times in the Mahayana Sutra esp wisdoms ones just that the words use to describe
> it may be different at times.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
>  
> 
>   Robert Epstein  wrote: --- "m. nease" wrote:
> 
> > --- Robert Epstein wrote:
> 
> > > very
> > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha.
> > 
> > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from
> > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe
> > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The
> > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and
> > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions
> > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the
> > brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses
> > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult
> > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if
> > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been
> > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of
> > his understanding.
> 
> Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless. You may be right that Buddha didn't speak
> explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no
> such
> thing. I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to
> establish any concept of a self or soul. 
> 
> When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been
> discussing:
> 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without' I accept
> the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring
> to
> arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind. But I
> don't
> think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive
> interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those
> words sound like they are saying. It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject
> to interpretation. 
> 
> Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement? I don't
> know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal. I do
> know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy.
> 
> Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism:
> 
> <<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not
> entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the
> elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102).
> Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so
> often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except
> in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the
> Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact
> reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply
> practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing
> away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to
> make
> progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist
> thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into
> a
> sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can
> easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still
> haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul,
> thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >>
> 
> Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but
> it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage.
> 
> Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is
> 'real'. He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising
> and
> dissolving thoughts.
> 
> From the Dhammapada:
> 
> 
> Chapter Three - The Mind 
> 
> Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft,
> even so the discerning man straightens his mind
> so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. 
> 
> As a fish when pulled out of water and cast
> on land throbs and quivers, even so is
> this mind agitated. Hence should
> one abandon the realm of Mara. 
> 
> Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue
> the mind, so difficult to subdue,
> ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires.
> A tamed mind brings happiness. 
> 
> Let the discerning man guard the mind,
> so difficult to detect and extremely subtle,
> seizing whatever it desires.
> A guarded mind brings happiness. 
> 
> Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. 
> He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments.
> 
> now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does
> speak
> in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra.
> 
> But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less
> specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid
> because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere
> else? 
> Of course not.
> 
> Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis
> that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon. Nor should
> we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is
> really talking about individual thought-moments. By your argument, in which you
> argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original
> nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I
> wonder
> why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. 
> Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous,
> while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.' But it
> doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even
> though this is not what he says in the sutta. 
> 
> I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what
> we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist
> this. 
> If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have
> meant
> that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta.
> 
> Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to
> let them go. I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an
> image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly
> experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding
> of
> what is really there. But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a
> succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are
> specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta]
> unless I experience that directly as well.
> 
> We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness.
> Each
> of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer,
> rather gradually from experience, towards understanding.
> 
> Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination. I'll look foward to
> your response when you have a spare moment or two. Or three.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Robert Ep.



 
8442 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 10:18pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Robert,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's
> statement about the
> 'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being
> blocked [or defiled I would say] by
> sense objects, is enormously similar both in form
> and content to the disputed
> phrase of the Buddha's:  
> 
>      "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by
> defilements from without."

Huang Po was one of my favorites, too.  I'm not
questioning your understanding Ch'an or the Mahayana
in general, at all.

What I'm asking is, aside from this and one or two
other translated passages, do you think that this
'original mind' concept is common to the rest of the
Pali Canon?  If not, this seems to me to be a kind of
loophole for interpolating an alien concept into the
Theravaada.

Just my opinion as always, of course.

Best wishes, Robert,

mike


 
8443 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 5:34am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> > I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's
> > statement about the
> > 'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being
> > blocked [or defiled I would say] by
> > sense objects, is enormously similar both in form
> > and content to the disputed
> > phrase of the Buddha's:  
> > 
> >      "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by
> > defilements from without."
> 
> Huang Po was one of my favorites, too.  I'm not
> questioning your understanding Ch'an or the Mahayana
> in general, at all.
> 
> What I'm asking is, aside from this and one or two
> other translated passages, do you think that this
> 'original mind' concept is common to the rest of the
> Pali Canon?  If not, this seems to me to be a kind of
> loophole for interpolating an alien concept into the
> Theravaada.

I wish I were qualified to answer that question.
But since the Buddha did say this, I wonder if it's an alien concept, or just one
he chose not to speak about a whole lot.

Probably hard to say.

Robert Ep.

=================

> Just my opinion as always, of course.
> 
> Best wishes, Robert,
> 
> mike
>


 
 
8444 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 5:51am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Mike
> Regarding whether luminious mind is found in Pali,
> is a very good and beneficial question and I think I
> could understand your intention.  I could not
> comment at present because I am not good in
> Thervada.  It starts to interest me when pple talk
> abt Vipassana and Abidharma.  Actually my initial
> interest to learn Vipassana and Abidharma is
> embarassing because it started when somebody keep
> insisting that other type of methods are wrong only
> Vipassana is correct.  

Yes, one often hears this from the proponents of
'vipassanaa meditation'.  Personally I think this is a
mistake.

> Hehe, that makes me angry
> (gosh akusala citta).  

I'm glad to hear you say this--I like having company
with my defilements(!).

> One of the area that I would
> like to study is the similarity between Abidharma
> and Mahayana doctrines esp the Surangama Sutra.

This sounds interesting.  It's been a long time since
I looked at the Surangama, though.
  
> But now I am limited by the availability of
> resources in the country I am staying now.  Maybe
> when I back to Singapore, presently I have only one
> book of Abidharama without commentaries but I would
> buy more books on Abidharama and the Path to
> liberation (Visuddhimagga).  Do you or anyone here
> have any good recommendation of books or websites
> that I could access.

Yes! Robert K's site,

http://abhidhamma.org/

And Khun Amara's site,

http://www.dhammastudy.com/

are both excellent sources of abhidhamma and links to
other resources.

> Mike, sorry, 'us' is used as a technical speech. All
> the khandas are the same in essence same as
> luminious mind.  There is why in Mahayana doctrine
> there is always these words,  Buddha is found in
> defilements, and they are of the same essence.

I do understand this doctrine, thanks.  I was a
student of Mahayana (Ch'an/Zen) for quite some
time--though not a particularly bright one, I'm
afraid.

> Words do have limitation to express luminious mind. 
> Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar
> taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual
> experience of "sweet" but it will know the
> description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it
> can only be experience and not decribed fully.

Understood.  The same can be said of any experience,
of course.  And, as you understood, my question is
simply whether the 'original, luminous mind' is a
teaching found with any significant degree of
consistency in the Theravada.

Always a pleasure talking with you, Kenneth.

mike


 
8445 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:10am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta

 
  Hi Robert K.
Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my questions.  Hope you are not offended as my questions are very direct and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). 
"They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these 
conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process 
during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas 
which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the 
time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is 
simply concept, idea: not real."

If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground it is condition.  There must be something for it to be condition.


"there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or get 
reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and 
henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth."

If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of being aware of then.   Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do they know our next karma.  

"Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because it 
is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it 
would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in 
samsara"


Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do is accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic.  So could we assume that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity.  How does it have the boundless capacity.  On what nature that it has boundless capacity.  If they are condition, they should not be boundless.  

"nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are 
conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path)."


Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana is condition as it need citta to recognise it.  Furthermore, if citta itself is condition, so must be Nibbana.  If we wish to say that Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition.  All of us need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to attain sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition.  Even if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is condition by citta in the initial place.

 

""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past
and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not
different from the quality they posses. In fact the
subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is
no other thing than the quality born by it" "

How do they being influence by past and present factor.  If they are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if they are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. 

Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail and reference with sutta if possible. 

Many thanks and kind regards

Kenneth Ong


 
 
8446 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:20am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Sarah
Excuse me for butting in
 ">Likewise, with the advent of 
> > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind 
> is 
> > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
> > illumination encountering no obstacles."

Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment.  If there is no discernment,  how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain enlightment.

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong







 
8447 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:50am
Subject: Re: Citta

 
  ---  KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Robert K.
> Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my 
questions.  Hope you are not offended as my questions are very direct 
and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). 
> "They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these 
> conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process 
> during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas 
> which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the 
> time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is 
> simply concept, idea: not real."
> 
> If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground it 
is condition.  There must be something for it to be condition.

_________________

dear kenneth,
Yes indeed. There are 24 conditions elucidated in the texts. these 
are carefully explained in the Patthana - the great book - which is 
considered the most important part of the Tipitaka by the ancient 
theravada tradition. You can purchase a translation (by Venerable 
narada of Burma) of the first part from the Pali text society.
______

> 
> 
> "there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or 
get 
> reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and 
> henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth."
>_______ 
>Kenneth: If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of being 
aware of then.   
_____
Robert K.:There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by 
controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various 
factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at 
deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control.
____________
Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do they 
know our next karma.  
________
Robert K:They don't know our next kamma - these phenomena arise and 
perform their function. If that function is to condition rebirth as a 
human (because of suitable conditions) then it does that. 


> "Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because 
it 
> is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it 
> would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in 
> samsara"
> 
> 
> Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do is 
accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic.  So could we assume 
that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity.  How does it have 
the boundless capacity.  On what nature that it has boundless 
capacity.  If they are condition, they should not be boundless.  
_____
Robert K; It is not explained how it has this. what can be seen 
though is that accumulations are carried over moment to moment. It is 
just the way things work. 
_____
> 
> "nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are 
> conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path)."
> 
> 
> Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana 
is condition as it need citta to recognise it.  Furthermore, if citta 
itself is condition, so must be Nibbana.  If we wish to say that 
Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition.  All of us 
need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to attain 
sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition.  Even 
if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is condition 
by citta in the initial place.
_____
Supramundane citta is conditioned but nibbana is not. Nibbana doesn't 
arise or pass away or exist in the way that conditioned dhammas do.
> 
>  
> 
> ""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past
> and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not
> different from the quality they posses. In fact the
> subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is
> no other thing than the quality born by it" "
> 
> How do they being influence by past and present factor.  If they 
are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if they 
are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the 
capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. 
> 
> Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail and 
reference with sutta if possible. 
> 
> Many thanks and kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong
> ________

Thanks for your questions kenneth.
It would be good if you study some of the Patthana - which has 
detailed answers to all these questions. i give you a taste now based 
on nina van gorkoms introduction to this section of the Tipitaka 
(available online at www.zolag.co.uk :
"The Buddha's teaching on the conditions for the phenomena of our life
has been laid down in the last of the seven books of the Abhidhamma,
the "Paììhåna", or "Conditional Relations". The Buddha, in the night 
he
attained enlightenment, penetrated all the different conditions for 
the
phenomena which arise and he contemplated the "Dependant
Origination" (Paticca Samuppåda), the conditions for being in the 
cycle
of birth and death, and the way leading to the elimination of these
causes. . Before we knew the Buddha's
teachings we used to think of cause and effect in a speculative way. 
We
may have reflected on the origin of life, on the origin of the world, 
we
may have thought about causes and effects with regard to the events of
life, but we did not penetrate the real conditions for the phenomena 
of life. The Buddha taught the way to develop understanding of what is
true in the absolute or ultimate sense. We cannot understand the
"Patthåna" if we do not know the difference between what is real in
conventional sense and what is real in the ultimate sense. Body and
mind are real in conventional sense, they are not real in the ultimate
sense. What we call body and mind are temporary combinations of
different realities which arise because of conditioning factors and 
then
fall away immediately. They are succeeded by new realities which fall
away again, and thus the flux of life goes on. Body, mind, person or
being do not exist in the ultimate sense. Mental phenomena, nåma, and
physical phenomena, rúpa, which constitute what we call a "person" are
real in the ultimate sense, but they are merely passing phenomena.

There are twentyfour classes of conditions enumerated in the
"Paììhåna". In order to understand these it is essential to have a 
precise
knowledge of the realities which are involved in these conditional
relations. . Each
conditioned reality can exist just for an extremely short moment. When
we understand this it will be easier to see that there is no self who 
can
exert control over realities. How could we control what falls away
immediately? When we move our hands, when we walk, when we laugh
or cry, when we are attached or worried, there are conditions for such
moments. The Patthåna helps us to understand the deep underlying
motives for our behaviour and the conditions for our defilements. It
explains, for example, that kusala can be the object of akusala 
citta. For
instance, on account of generosity which is wholesome, attachment,
wrong view or conceit, which are unwholesome realities, can arise. The
Patthåna also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for
example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an essential
point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot be
object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be
developed.
 When we know that there isn't anything we can control, will
that change our life? It is beneficial to have less ignorance about
ourselves. Defilements cannot be eradicated immediately, there will 
still
be sadness, worry and frustration. However, when it is more clearly
understood that realities arise because of their own conditions there 
will
be less inclination to try to do what is impossible: to change what 
has
arisen because of conditions. When there is more understanding one
will be less obsessed by one's experiences, there will be more 
patience.
Doubt will only disappear if we thoroughly consider the
different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves
whether the contents of the "Patthåna" conform to the truth or not.
Theoretical
knowledge of conditions is not the purpose of the "Patthåna". Through
mere intellectual understanding conditions cannot be thoroughly
grasped. When understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa,
physical phenomena, has been developed to the degree of the second
stage of insight there will be direct understanding of the
conditionality of realities. When conditions are understood more
clearly, there will be less clinging to a self who could control 
awareness
of nåma and rúpa. Thus, the "Paììhåna" can help us to follow the right
practice. It is above all the right practice of the eightfold Path 
that can
promote the survival of the Buddha's teachings."Endquote

robert
> 
>  

 
8448 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 0:09pm
Subject: Sutras as Descriptive Experiences (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike)

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Hi Kenneth,
> 
> --- KennethOng  wrote:

> > Words do have limitation to express luminious mind. 
> > Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar
> > taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual
> > experience of "sweet" but it will know the
> > description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it
> > can only be experience and not decribed fully.
> 
> Understood.  The same can be said of any experience,
> of course.  

There is one experience which can be fully experienced by being described, and
that is the experience of experiencing the description.  This is often what we
have when we read sutras.  We experience the experience of the description in the
sutras.  Because of this, I think it's fair to say, that Sutra-reading experiences
fall into two categories:  1/  confirming descriptions; and 2/ pointing
descriptions.  They either confirm an experience we believe we've had by virtue of
the description, or they point to a description of an experience we wish or expect
to have via the experience of the description.  I think it's important to note
that no matter how profound the sutra, it is still in the realm of description.

Does anyone seriously break down the reality of the dhammas and cetasikas
encountered in the reading of Sutras, or do we normally just go back to our
ordinary, non-discerning mode of assuming that we are reading something that is
'true'?  If it is important to discern the true nature of realities at all times
and of all sorts in order to develop panna, the act of encountering sutras should
be the most important single place where we do not take for granted that we know
what the object is, assuming that it is a *real* dhamma and not a
sense-door/mind-door experience, and assuming that we are merely *reading what is
there* and not interpreting through our level of panna, our specific kusala and
akusala cittas and cetisikas in order to create what we *think* we are reading. 
If the action that takes place in the mental process is often obscured by the
illusion of the solid object, how much more so must this take place when the
illusion of the Sutta as an object interferes with our ability to discern how much
we are interpreting what we read and thus creating its meaning.

Many have said here that the Suttas say it all, and that it is most important to
use the Suttas as our guide, and this is undoubtably true in a mundane sense.  But
for those attempting to practice mindfulness and discernment in daily life, this
is not good enough, I think.  I think it is necessary to examine what is taking
place in detail when reading Suttas, and break down this reality as we would any
other.  Otherwise what we are swallowing whole is not actually the Buddha's
teachings, but our objectification of them in print.

Just as it has been said [by Robert or Jon, sorry for not being clear] that
Samatha and Samadhi may not be kusala, because for instance one may be clinging to
the calmness and concentration of those states, respectively, it is also possible
that reading Sutras may not be kusala, as one may very well be grasping after the
truth of the Sutras, depending upon them as a real external object, holding onto
them and not realizing that they, as any object are anicca and anatta, and turning
the Suttas into a substitute self.  In other words not applying the teachings of
the Suttas, which are meant to be applied to every object, to the Suttas
themselves.

Best,
Robert Ep.



 
8449 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 1:41pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Sorry could i know the meaning of athaan rarueng :)
Thanks and kind regards
Kenneth Ong
  Sukinderpal Narula  wrote: Dear Jonothan,

> Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
> positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks.

I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not
understand
the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my
experience
of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment.
This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance.
I was
lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the
teachings
in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I
have very little
knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and
this made
things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all
realities arise
because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems
like a long
stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed
that
thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting
go'.
I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I
have about
my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the
situation, but I
was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition for
some good cheer.
Hope I go it correct, if not let me know.

Sukin.



 
8450 From: Sarah   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 2:14pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Ken O,

Just looking in quickly in between my classes;-))

 --- KennethOng  wrote: > 
> Hi Sarah
> Excuse me for butting in

anytime, I'm enjoying all your contributions-

>  ">Likewise, with the advent of 
> > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind 
> > is 
> > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite 
> > > illumination encountering no obstacles."

Sorry, this is Howard's quote not mine. I gave my comments in a post to him and
plan to follow up when I have time (no chance today;-)

> 
> Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the
> mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment.  If there is no
> discernment,  how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain
> enlightment.

You've quite lost me, Kenneth! From my studies of the pali canon, I have no
idea of a boundless mind or a mind of nibbana. After his enlightenment, the
Buddha taught during his lifetime only. Since his Parinibbana, we look to his
Teachings, the dhamma, as encouraged by him.

If you have any queeries about the quote above, you may wish to address these
to Howard.

Oops, I can hear students arriving...

Sarah






 
8451 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:18pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Sukin

Thanks for sharing this experience with us.  It's a good reminder that
reflection on the Dhamma can condition more moments of wholesomeness.

Of course, only the person him/herself can know whether and to what extent
the citta is wholesome.  This is not as easy as we may think, but
gradually one gets a clearer and clearer idea of it.

As you say, even in the midst of what seems like a long stretch of dosa,
there can be moments of patience and acceptance.  And there are certainly
at such times moments of seeing and visible object and the experiences
through the other sense-doors proceeding along as normal.  The reason the
dosa seems so all-present is no doubt our strong idea of self and 'my
anger' at those times.  The reminder about the conditioned nature of
things was the right 'medicine' for you at that moment.

Not to be clung to as a 'way' for next time, of course!

Jon

 --- Sukinderpal Narula  wrote: > Dear Jonothan,
> 
> > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
> > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)?  Thanks.
> 
> I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I
> do not
> understand
> the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay
> my
> experience
> of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment.
> This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular
> circumstance.
> I was
> lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering
> the
> teachings
> in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that
> too, I
> have very little
> knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status
> and
> this made
> things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that
> all
> realities arise
> because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what
> seems
> like a long
> stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I
> noticed
> that
> thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of
> 'letting
> go'.
> I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations
> I
> have about
> my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the
> situation, but I
> was also  left with some  breathing space and this itself was condition
> for
> some good cheer.
> Hope I go it correct, if not let me know.
> 
> Sukin.




 
8452 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:28pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon]

 
  Howard

I did appreciate your tactfully worded description of our respective
positions on this topic.

--- 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.

Whenever I think I begin to understand your position on this area
(intention and effort), I find something in your post that makes me wonder
if I do understand it after all!  So I hope you don't mind my asking you
directly (below).  

We have discussed in our posts on this thread 2 kinds of intention--

1.  What you call volitional intention namely, if I understand you
correctly, the positive, conscious intention to do something, in all its
various guises and shades of deliberateness.
2.  The mental concomitant that is 'cetana' ('intention') that arises with
each moment of consciousness.

What I am not clear on is whether you see these, as I do, as being 2 quite
different things.  For example, when we talk about the intention to do
something (type 1 above), we usually mean the thought moments that precede
(by a shorter or longer period) the doing of the thing in question.  So
intention here refers to a citta the object of which is the thought of
doing a particular thing.  

On the other hand, the mental factor that is 'intention' (type 2 above)
arises as one of several mental factors accompanying a citta and performs
its function in the context of that particular moment of consciousness (in
general terms, it has to do with 'willing' or coordinating the citta and
the other mental factors with which it arises).

To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something
(type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is being
alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other
moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention.  Of course,
both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as
intention.

Coming to your description of my position ...

>        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, 

Just to clarify my understanding of the teachings on intention and
dependent origination (if that's what you are referring to here).  It is
the mental factor cetana, the 'type 2' intention, that is the link in the
chain of dependent origination, not the type 1.  The type 1 has no place
in the chain of causality, as I understand it.

Likewise, in the context of kamma and vipaka, it is cetana (the type 2
intention) that is being referred to.  Again, the type 1 intention is not
being alluded to here.

Was there any other context you had in mind here?

>         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 am happy to say that I have never found the study of the conditioned
nature of realities, or of the various kinds of conditioning relationships
that exist between realities, to give rise to these kinds of thoughts or
feelings in the slightest.  (Perhaps I am fortunate in this regard, which
no doubt explains my lack of sensitivity in discussing these areas with
others!)

>        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. 

I'm not sure whether what I have said above makes me more "left-hand" or
less!

Thanks again for you well chosen and, I am sure, well-meant words, Howard.
 And my apologies as usual for the time taken to respond.

Jon



 
8453 From: Nina van Gorkom   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:32pm
Subject: cheerfulness with Dhamma.

 
  Dear Sukin, your post about contrarieties in daily life and about
perseverance and gladness of Dhamma was such a good reminder. We should not
overlook seemingly unimportant events, they are Dhamma. Looking forward to
having more examples from you. It is so good to have this forum where we can
exchange our experiences. I appreciate that you are helping in many ways,
also at the foundation, anumodana, Nina.

 
8454 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:51pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment

 
  Rob Ep

 --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 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.

I may not have explained myself clearly.

To my way of thinking, the fact that moments of 'intention to have kusala'
may sometimes be followed by kusala and sometimes not tends to show a
*lack of* connection between the two.

But more importantly, I don’t think we really know the characteristic of
kusala moments anyway, I mean by direct experience, so we have no way of
knowing if the moments that follow the deliberate intention are actually
kusala or just seem that way.  Even when it comes to akusala, which you
would think should be very easily 'known' because of its gross nature
(speaking for myself, at least) we are liable to mistake, say, the
unpleasant feeling for the aversion it arises together with.

So no, I don’t see the kind of connection you are suggesting.

> I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual
> movement towards kusala and wisdom.

You mention 'factors towards wisdom'.  There is a short and pithy sutta on
this very subject (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 246 -- NDB trans. p. 124):

"These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom.  What
four?
Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper
attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things
are conducive to the growth of wisdom."

These 4 'things' are described elsewhere as 'factors' (factors for
stream-entry -- 'sotapattiyanga').  They are the same factors as are met
in so many contexts elsewhere in the suttas.  Having the chance to listen
to and discuss the Dhamma with the help of one who can explain the
teachings to us, wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) on what we have heard
and understood, and applying that to our own experience of the present
moment.  This is the development of the path, vipassana (literally,
'seeing clearly', = wisdom).  

There is no factor of 'one's effort' here, because effort of the right
kind is implicit in the moments of wholesomeness that draw us to listen
and discuss, to consider and apply.

It is worth noting that all 4 factors must continue to occur if wisdom is
to continue to develop.  In particular, some my think that first 3 are
sort of 'once and for all' factors that one somehow gets beyond after a
certain stage.  This would not be correct, according to my understanding. 
The need for continuing association with the good friend, which is the
only way to gain exposure to the listening and discussing that is also
needed, is evident from this passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV, 2 (CDB
trans, p. 1524):  

"… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ananda, beings subject to birth
are freed from birth ….  By this method it may be understood how the
entire holy life is good friendship"

"The entire holy life (ie. development of the path) is good friendship". 
Without continued association with good friends (= listening to,
discussion of Dhamma), progress cannot continue to be made.  I emphasise
this because it indicates how kusala can be developed without the need for
the kind of deliberate intention or effort that you may think is
essential, Rob.

(By the way, these 2 sutta quotes I had collected to reply to an earlier
discussion we were having about the need for reliance on a teacher.  Any
'good friend' or 'superior person' as referred to in these passages is a
'teacher' to us while we are benefiting from association with him/her.)

Jon

> ==============================
> 
> --- 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


 
8455 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment

 
  Hi Jon
That is why I am here learning from you and everyone here :)
Cheers
Kenneth Ong
  Jonothan Abbott  wrote: Rob Ep

--- Robert Epstein wrote: > 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.

I may not have explained myself clearly.

To my way of thinking, the fact that moments of 'intention to have kusala'
may sometimes be followed by kusala and sometimes not tends to show a
*lack of* connection between the two.

But more importantly, I don’t think we really know the characteristic of
kusala moments anyway, I mean by direct experience, so we have no way of
knowing if the moments that follow the deliberate intention are actually
kusala or just seem that way. Even when it comes to akusala, which you
would think should be very easily 'known' because of its gross nature
(speaking for myself, at least) we are liable to mistake, say, the
unpleasant feeling for the aversion it arises together with.

So no, I don’t see the kind of connection you are suggesting.

> I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual
> movement towards kusala and wisdom.

You mention 'factors towards wisdom'. There is a short and pithy sutta on
this very subject (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 246 -- NDB trans. p. 124):

"These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What
four?
Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper
attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things
are conducive to the growth of wisdom."

These 4 'things' are described elsewhere as 'factors' (factors for
stream-entry -- 'sotapattiyanga'). They are the same factors as are met
in so many contexts elsewhere in the suttas. Having the chance to listen
to and discuss the Dhamma with the help of one who can explain the
teachings to us, wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) on what we have heard
and understood, and applying that to our own experience of the present
moment. This is the development of the path, vipassana (literally,
'seeing clearly', = wisdom). 

There is no factor of 'one's effort' here, because effort of the right
kind is implicit in the moments of wholesomeness that draw us to listen
and discuss, to consider and apply.

It is worth noting that all 4 factors must continue to occur if wisdom is
to continue to develop. In particular, some my think that first 3 are
sort of 'once and for all' factors that one somehow gets beyond after a
certain stage. This would not be correct, according to my understanding. 
The need for continuing association with the good friend, which is the
only way to gain exposure to the listening and discussing that is also
needed, is evident from this passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV, 2 (CDB
trans, p. 1524): 

"… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ananda, beings subject to birth
are freed from birth …. By this method it may be understood how the
entire holy life is good friendship"

"The entire holy life (ie. development of the path) is good friendship". 
Without continued association with good friends (= listening to,
discussion of Dhamma), progress cannot continue to be made. I emphasise
this because it indicates how kusala can be developed without the need for
the kind of deliberate intention or effort that you may think is
essential, Rob.

(By the way, these 2 sutta quotes I had collected to reply to an earlier
discussion we were having about the need for reliance on a teacher. Any
'good friend' or 'superior person' as referred to in these passages is a
'teacher' to us while we are benefiting from association with him/her.)

Jon







 
8456 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Mike
Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the enlightment of Arahats.  Is there a difference in Thervada terms.
If it is the same, then luminious mind is just simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. Nibbana)
If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in Mahayana Doctrines. 
For comments please
Kenneth Ong
 






 
8457 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:41pm
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  ---  KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Mike
> Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a difference between the 
enlightment of Buddha and the enlightment of Arahats.  Is there a 
difference in Thervada terms.
> If it is the same, then luminious mind is just simply enlightment 
that is found in Pali (i.e. Nibbana)
> If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition cannot not be 
found in Pali, it could only found in Mahayana Doctrines. 
> For comments please
> Kenneth Ong
>  
________
Dear kenneth,

The Cariyapitaka atthakatha (translation Bhikkhu Bodhi p.324 of net 
of views) "in regard to parinibbana all the disciples(arahants) and 
paccekabuddhas are completely equal to the Tathagatas (Buddhas); they 
are identical, without any distinction. Thence it is said "there is 
no diversity among them in regard to emancipation (see Samyutta 
nikaya iii 1.6.6)"endquote

Asking good questions is one of the bases for the development of 
wisdom(nice to see you doing so): cariyapitaka atthakatha p305 notes 
that one of the causes for delusion is 'non-interrogation' i.e. not 
asking in various ways questions that should be asked of those 
suitable to ask.
On p307 it says that one should first acquire "through study and 
interrogation a knowledge of the dhammas such as the five khandas 
[and dhatus, ayatanas etc] consituting the soil of wisdom". 
best wishes
robert

 
8458 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:44pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Mike
> Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a
> difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the
> enlightment of Arahats.  Is there a difference in
> Thervada terms.

Yes, there is.  Howard gave a good explanation of this
in message 8381, better than I could've done.  Simply
put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha
'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no
one else knows them.  An arahanta only(!) has to fully
awaken to them (after having been taught them).

> If it is the same, then luminious mind is just
> simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e.
> Nibbana)
> If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition
> cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in
> Mahayana Doctrines.

As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does
occur according to the Theravada, but only very
briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in
succession).  It is in no way original, fundamental or
continuous and certainly is not nibbaana.

Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the
subject.

mike 
 
> For comments please
> Kenneth Ong


 
 
8459 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:06am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Mike and Robert Ep,
"So that using the term "luminous mind" can
easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still
haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul,
thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." "
Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this word self.  I think the problem is the definition of self.  Buddha never rejects self, it only says the self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the five aggregates.  In fact all beings in the six realms, form by at least one of the five aggregates.  Hence I think that why they could be also known as ultimate condition in Abidharma.  
The word realizing Nibbana already means there is something to grasp, to hold on (technically speaking).    Nibbana could be equate to word like "god" or "soul"  because it is the ultimate reality of Buddism in Thervada terms.  Hence Nibbana is utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain.  Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists. We should not be afraid of words like immortal soul or self.  Because Buddha never rejects self, he only says this self is not as what we see.  There is more than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he would be in the extreme left view. 
Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be misleading because it is a rightist view as it is the ultimate reality of Abidharma. Sorry no offence here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements.  This definition does not cling to left or right views. 
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong






 
8460 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 8:31pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Sarah and Ken -

       I'll take up the reply inasmuch as it was I being quoted. In a message 
dated 10/6/01 2:14:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes:


> 
> Hi Ken O,
> 
> Just looking in quickly in between my classes;-))
> 
> --- KennethOng  wrote: > 
> > Hi Sarah
> > Excuse me for butting in
> 
> anytime, I'm enjoying all your contributions-
> 
> >  ">Likewise, with the advent of 
> > > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the 
> mind 
> > > is 
> > > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an 
> infinite 
> > > > illumination encountering no obstacles."
> 
> Sorry, this is Howard's quote not mine. I gave my comments in a post to him 
> and
> plan to follow up when I have time (no chance today;-)
> 
> > 
> > Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the
> > mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment.  If there is no
> > discernment,  how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain
> > enlightment.
> 
> You've quite lost me, Kenneth! From my studies of the pali canon, I have no
> idea of a boundless mind or a mind of nibbana. After his enlightenment, the
> Buddha taught during his lifetime only. Since his Parinibbana, we look to 
> his
> Teachings, the dhamma, as encouraged by him.
> 
> If you have any queeries about the quote above, you may wish to address 
> these
> to Howard.
> 
> Oops, I can hear students arriving...
> 
> Sarah
> 
==========================
       Ken, you asked:  "Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are 
you implying that the mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment.  If 
there is no
discernment,  how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain
enlightment."
       A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into 
cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying 
nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core to 
be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless 
nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm 
described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, an 
arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of the 
realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana 
understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to 
phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., 
worldlings).

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
8461 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:35am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi Mike,
If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find luminous mind in Pali Cannon.  I think you know that Buddha makes great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra.  Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
 
 
 
 
  "m. nease"  wrote: Hi Kenneth,

--- KennethOng wrote:
> 
> Mike
> Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a
> difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the
> enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in
> Thervada terms.

Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this
in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply
put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha
'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no
one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully
awaken to them (after having been taught them).

> If it is the same, then luminious mind is just
> simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e.
> Nibbana)
> If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition
> cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in
> Mahayana Doctrines.

As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does
occur according to the Theravada, but only very
briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in
succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or
continuous and certainly is not nibbaana.

Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the
subject.

mike 

> For comments please
> Kenneth Ong





 
8462 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:47am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Howard,
"A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into 
cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying 
nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core to 
be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless 
nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm 
described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, an 
arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of the 
realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana 
understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to 
phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., 
worldlings)."

"If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very rightist view.  It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view.

Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements.  this is Mahayana view of Nibbana.  If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me.  There is discernment in Nibbana.  In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ).

Kind regards

Kenneth Ong

 




 
8463 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 9:11pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> Hi Howard,
> "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into 
> cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying 
> nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core 
> to 
> be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless 
> nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm 
> described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, 
> an 
> arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of 
> the 
> realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana 
> understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to 
> phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., 
> worldlings)."
> 
> "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very 
> rightist view.  It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, 
> we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of 
the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As far 
as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own 
interpretations.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements.  this is Mahayana view of 
> Nibbana.  If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of 
> reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me.  There is discernment 
> in Nibbana.  In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha 
> Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ).
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=========================
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)                    
            
                                         



 
8464 From: m. nease   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 1:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth

 
  Dear Sarah, 

What a great quotation--I'd forgotten all about this
simile.  Thanks for the reminder!

By the way, I found it in the Kimsuka Sutta at SN
XXXV.204.  I believe it may occur elsewhere as well,
but not certain.

mike


--- Sarah  wrote:
> Dear Kenneth,
> 
>  --- KennethOng  wrote: > 
> 
> > 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
> ....................
> 
> I understand all the suttas to be talking about
> bhavana (mental development),
> either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both.
> Vipassana means insight
> and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So
> whenever we read about the
> development of understanding or about the realities
> which are to be known, we
> are considering about vipassana. 
> 
> With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many
> details, these can be read in
> the Visuddhimagga.
> 
> If you want specific references mentioning vipassana
> (as opposed to similar
> words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I
> can think of in the Samyutta
> Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure
> that it's vipassana referred
> to in this Sutta description at SN 1V,
> Salayatanavagga, 194:
> 
> 'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with
> strong ramparts, walls, and
> arches, and with six gates.  The gatekeeper posted
> there would be wise,
> competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out
> strangers and admits
> acquaintances.  A swift pair of messengers would
> come from the east and ask the
> gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this
> city?' He would reply: 'He is
> sitting in the central square.'  Then the swift pair
> of messengers would
> deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city
> and leave by the route by
> which they had arrived.  Similarly, messengers would
> come from the west, from
> the north, from the south, deliver their message,
> and leave by the route by
> which they had arrived.
> 
> “I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to
> convey a meaning.  This is
> the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation
> for this body consisting of
> the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is
> a designation for the six
> internal bases.  “The gatekeeper’: this is a
> designation for mindfulness.  ‘The
> swift pair of messengers’:  this is a designation
> for serenity and insight
> (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a
> designation for consciousness.
> ‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the
> four great elements .....’A
> message of reality’: this is a designation for
> Nibbana.  ‘The route by which
> they had arrived’:   this is a designation for the
> Noble Eightfold Path;  that
> is, right view....right concentration.”
> 
> Hope this helps and thanks for your helpful
> questions and comments.
> 
> Sarah


 
8465 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 1:34am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Howard,
In the glossary that I have used Nibbana is the same as Bodhi, unless you are talking about Bodhicitta which has the same meaning as bodhi-mind (as according to the glossary I used).  
There is definitely discernment in Nibbana or not why did Buddha comes out from Nibbana and help the six realms of beings out of compassions. Compassions is arise because Buddha understand the sufferings of beings.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong
 
  Howard wrote: Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> Hi Howard,
> "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into 
> cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying 
> nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core 
> to 
> be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless 
> nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm 
> described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, 
> an 
> arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of 
> the 
> realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana 
> understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to 
> phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., 
> worldlings)."
> 
> "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very 
> rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, 
> we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view.
> 
---------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of 
the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As far 
as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own 
interpretations.
-----------------------------------------------------------

> Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of 
> Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of 
> reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment 
> in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha 
> Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ).
> 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not.
-------------------------------------------------------------

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
=========================
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) 





 
8466 From: Howard 
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 3:39am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

       Well, rather than comparing glossaries, I think it may be most helpful 
if I indicate how *I* was using the terms 'nibbana' and 'bodhi'. I was using 
'nibbana' to refer to the unconditioned (asankhata) dhamma, that which is 
free of all conditions and does not arise from any condition. I was using 
'bodhi' to mean the awakened, enlightened state of the arahant, which *is* a 
result, the result of having fully entered into nibbana at some point. Bodhi, 
in the sense I use the term, and the apprehension of objects and conditions, 
are compatible, but nibbana, in the sense of asankhata dhamma, and the 
apprehension of objects and conditions are not. That cessation which is the 
entering into nibbana constitutes the moment "one" becomes an arahant. In 
Theravada, entry to the uncondititoned is final at the moment of death of an 
arahant.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 10/6/01 1:34:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> Hi Howard,
> In the glossary that I have used Nibbana is the same as Bodhi, unless you 
> are talking about Bodhicitta which has the same meaning as bodhi-mind (as 
> according to the glossary I used).  
> There is definitely discernment in Nibbana or not why did Buddha comes out 
> from Nibbana and help the six realms of beings out of compassions. 
> Compassions is arise because Buddha understand the sufferings of beings.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
>   Howard wrote: Hi, Ken -
> 
> In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Kenneth Ong writes:
> 
> 
> > Hi Howard,
> > "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into 
> > cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", 
> reifying 
> > nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any 
> self/core 
> > to 
> > be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to 
> timeless 
> > nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the 
> state/realm 
> > described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond 
> death, 
> > an 
> > arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of 
> > the 
> > realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana 
> > understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, 
> to 
> > phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., 
> > worldlings)."
> > 
> > "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very 
> > rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, 
> > we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view.
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of 
> the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As 
> far 
> as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own 
> interpretations.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of 
> > Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point 
> of 
> > reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment 
> > in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha 
> > Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ).
> > 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > 
> > Kenneth Ong
> > 
> > 
> =========================
> 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)                    
            
                                         



 
8467 From: Howard 
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 4:00am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon]

 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 10/6/01 10:31:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Jonothan Abbott writes:


> Howard
> 
> I did appreciate your tactfully worded description of our respective
> positions on this topic.
> 
> --- 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.
> 
> Whenever I think I begin to understand your position on this area
> (intention and effort), I find something in your post that makes me wonder
> if I do understand it after all!  So I hope you don't mind my asking you
> directly (below).  
> 
> We have discussed in our posts on this thread 2 kinds of intention--
> 
> 1.  What you call volitional intention namely, if I understand you
> correctly, the positive, conscious intention to do something, in all its
> various guises and shades of deliberateness.
> 2.  The mental concomitant that is 'cetana' ('intention') that arises with
> each moment of consciousness.
> 
> What I am not clear on is whether you see these, as I do, as being 2 quite
> different things.  For example, when we talk about the intention to do
> something (type 1 above), we usually mean the thought moments that precede
> (by a shorter or longer period) the doing of the thing in question.  So
> intention here refers to a citta the object of which is the thought of
> doing a particular thing.  
> 
> On the other hand, the mental factor that is 'intention' (type 2 above)
> arises as one of several mental factors accompanying a citta and performs
> its function in the context of that particular moment of consciousness (in
> general terms, it has to do with 'willing' or coordinating the citta and
> the other mental factors with which it arises).
> 
> To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something
> (type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is being
> alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other
> moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention.  Of course,
> both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as
> intention.
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, Jon, I can't say very much at all with regard to the cetasikas 
accompanying individual cittas, because I doubt very much that I am aware of 
them in any first-hand manner. I do make the following distinctions based on 
personal experience: I distinguish thoughts about doing something, a 
wish/hope to do something (in the sense of a rather neutral chanda[sp?]), the 
desire/craving to do something, and the willing/volition/intention to do 
something, which I think of as being a kind of motive force. I think these 
are all related, but that the last of these comes closest to what I 
understand cetana to be.
---------------------------------------------------------

> Coming to your description of my position ...
> 
> >        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, 
> 
> Just to clarify my understanding of the teachings on intention and
> dependent origination (if that's what you are referring to here).  It is
> the mental factor cetana, the 'type 2' intention, that is the link in the
> chain of dependent origination, not the type 1.  The type 1 has no place
> in the chain of causality, as I understand it.
> Likewise, in the context of kamma and vipaka, it is cetana (the type 2
> intention) that is being referred to.  Again, the type 1 intention is not
> being alluded to here.
> Was there any other context you had in mind here?
> 
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I was thinking of kamma, and of craving -> attachment -> becoming.
---------------------------------------------------------

> 
> >         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 am happy to say that I have never found the study of the conditioned
> nature of realities, or of the various kinds of conditioning relationships
> that exist between realities, to give rise to these kinds of thoughts or
> feelings in the slightest.
> 
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I am very happy that is so.
------------------------------------------------
   (Perhaps I am fortunate in this regard, which
> no doubt explains my lack of sensitivity in discussing these areas with
> others!)
> 
> >        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. 
> 
> I'm not sure whether what I have said above makes me more "left-hand" or
> less!
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, the whole left/right distinction is nonsense. I just wanted to 
indicate two polar extremes, both of which are errors.
----------------------------------------------------

> 
> Thanks again for you well chosen and, I am sure, well-meant words, Howard.
> 
------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Please be assured that they were well meant.       
------------------------------------------------------

> And my apologies as usual for the time taken to respond.
> 
> 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)                    
            
                                         



 
8468 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 8:52am
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  ---  KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Hi Mike,
> If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find 
luminous mind in Pali Cannon.  I think you know that Buddha makes 
great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra.  
Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found 
commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
__________
Dear kenneth,
Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? 
robert k.


>  
>  
>  
>  
>   "m. nease"  wrote: Hi Kenneth,
> 
> --- KennethOng wrote:
> > 
> > Mike
> > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a
> > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the
> > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in
> > Thervada terms.
> 
> Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this
> in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply
> put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha
> 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no
> one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully
> awaken to them (after having been taught them).
> 
> > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just
> > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e.
> > Nibbana)
> > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition
> > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in
> > Mahayana Doctrines.
> 
> As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does
> occur according to the Theravada, but only very
> briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in
> succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or
> continuous and certainly is not nibbaana.
> 
> Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the
> subject.
> 
> mike 
> 
> > For comments please
> > Kenneth Ong
> 
> 


 
8469 From: KennethOng   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 10:26am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Hi  Robert K,
You are not implying, I am implying. he he :).  Sorry should be more clear in my writing next time.
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong  
 
 
  robertkirkpatrick wrote: ---  KennethOng wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find 
luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes 
great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. 
Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found 
commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
__________
Dear kenneth,
Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? 
robert k.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth,
> 
> --- KennethOng wrote:
> > 
> > Mike
> > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a
> > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the
> > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in
> > Thervada terms.
> 
> Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this
> in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply
> put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha
> 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no
> one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully
> awaken to them (after having been taught them).
> 
> > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just
> > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e.
> > Nibbana)
> > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition
> > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in
> > Mahayana Doctrines.
> 
> As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does
> occur according to the Theravada, but only very
> briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in
> succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or
> continuous and certainly is not nibbaana.
> 
> Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the
> subject.
> 
> mike 
> 
> > For comments please
> > Kenneth Ong
> 






 
8470 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 6:14pm
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Ah ha, I see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see nibbana as being 
conscious in any way.(according to what I understand from Theravada)
robert---

  KennethOng  wrote:
> 
> Hi  Robert K,
> You are not implying, I am implying. he he :).  Sorry should be 
more clear in my writing next time.
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong  
>  
>  
>   robertkirkpatrick wrote: ---  
KennethOng wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find 
> luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes 
> great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. 
> Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found 
> commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
> > Kind regards
> > Kenneth Ong
> __________
> Dear kenneth,
> Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? 
> robert k.


 
8471 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 8:12pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  Robert K,

Actually this is very interesting.  Then what is
Thervada defination of Nibbana.  Does Nibbana has a
conscious be it condition or uncondition.  What are
the last cittas before one reaches Nibbana?  What are
the cittas that cease after nibbana and what does not
or are all ceases?



Kind regards
Kenneth Ong



--- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Ah ha, I
see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see
> nibbana as being 
> conscious in any way.(according to what I understand
> from Theravada)
> robert---
> 
>   KennethOng 
> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi  Robert K,
> > You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). 
> Sorry should be 
> more clear in my writing next time.
> > Kind regards
> > Kenneth Ong  
> >  
> >  
> >   robertkirkpatrick wrote: ---  
> KennethOng wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi Mike,
> > > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely
> difficult to find 
> > luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know
> that Buddha makes 
> > great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in
> the Mahayana Sutra. 
> > Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then
> luminous find is found 
> > commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
> > > Kind regards
> > > Kenneth Ong
> > __________
> > Dear kenneth,
> > Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind
> is nibbana? 
> > robert k.

 
8472 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 9:53pm
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike

 
  --- 
Dear kenneth,
 post 6912 to herman has some info. about this. nibbana is an object 
of citta - not citta. The stream of cittas that arise and fall 
continues (until cuti citta -death consciousness) after the process 
of attaining arahantship(see below). But all defilements have been 
eradicated hence the fuel for future becoming is missing. After cuti 
citta (in this fuelless stream) there is no more conditions for citta 
to arise.
here is something:> > Dear herman,
> > Just very briefly. In the extremely short process known as magga-
> > vitthi (path process) the following cittas arise in order:
> > parikamma (preparatory)-takes one of the three characteristics of 
a 
> > paramattha dhamma as object
> > upacara -(access) -3 characteristics as object
> > anuloma -(conformity) -characteristics
> > Gotrabhu - (change of lineage) -nibbana as object
> > Magga citta - nibbana as object
> > Phala-citta - nibbana as object
> > phala-citta -nibbana as object
> > 
> > this process arises as the culmination of the correct development 
> of 
> > insight.
> > robert



 Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Robert K,
> 
> Actually this is very interesting.  Then what is
> Thervada defination of Nibbana.  Does Nibbana has a
> conscious be it condition or uncondition.  What are
> the last cittas before one reaches Nibbana?  What are
> the cittas that cease after nibbana and what does not
> or are all ceases?
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
> 
> --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Ah ha, I
> see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see
> > nibbana as being 
> > conscious in any way.(according to what I understand
> > from Theravada)
> > robert---
> > 
> >   KennethOng 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi  Robert K,
> > > You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). 
> > Sorry should be 
> > more clear in my writing next time.
> > > Kind regards
> > > Kenneth Ong  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >   robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- In
> > <>, 
> > KennethOng wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely
> > difficult to find 
> > > luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know
> > that Buddha makes 
> > > great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in
> > the Mahayana Sutra. 
> > > Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then
> > luminous find is found 
> > > commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana)
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > Kenneth Ong
> > > __________
> > > Dear kenneth,
> > > Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind
> > is nibbana? 
> > > robert k.
> > > 

 
8473 From: Victor 
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:39am
Subject: Re: Citta

 
  Friends,

If interested, you might want to refer to
Dhammapada 12, The Self
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html

Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include

157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. 
Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the 
night. 

158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only 
should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. 

159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train 
others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is 
self-control. 

160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the 
protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that 
is hard to gain. 

I think these verses are some good examples of how the word "self" is 
used.

As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the 
Buddha taught.  If interested, you might want to refer to 
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html
and 
Ananda Sutta, To Ananda
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html

Metta,
Victor


---  robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> ---  KennethOng  wrote:
> > 
> >  Hi Robert K.
> > Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my 
> questions.  Hope you are not offended as my questions are very 
direct 
> and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). 
> > "They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than 
these 
> > conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process 
> > during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas 
> > which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the 
> > time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- 
is 
> > simply concept, idea: not real."
> > 
> > If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground 
it 
> is condition.  There must be something for it to be condition.
> 
> _________________
> 
> dear kenneth,
> Yes indeed. There are 24 conditions elucidated in the texts. these 
> are carefully explained in the Patthana - the great book - which is 
> considered the most important part of the Tipitaka by the ancient 
> theravada tradition. You can purchase a translation (by Venerable 
> narada of Burma) of the first part from the Pali text society.
> ______
> 
> > 
> > 
> > "there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or 
> get 
> > reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable 
and 
> > henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth."
> >_______ 
> >Kenneth: If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of 
being 
> aware of then.   
> _____
> Robert K.:There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness 
by 
> controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various 
> factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at 
> deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control.
> ____________
> Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do 
they 
> know our next karma.  
> ________
> Robert K:They don't know our next kamma - these phenomena arise and 
> perform their function. If that function is to condition rebirth as 
a 
> human (because of suitable conditions) then it does that. 
> 
> 
> > "Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because 
> it 
> > is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa 
it 
> > would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions 
in 
> > samsara"
> > 
> > 
> > Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do 
is 
> accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic.  So could we 
assume 
> that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity.  How does it have 
> the boundless capacity.  On what nature that it has boundless 
> capacity.  If they are condition, they should not be boundless.  
> _____
> Robert K; It is not explained how it has this. what can be seen 
> though is that accumulations are carried over moment to moment. It 
is 
> just the way things work. 
> _____
> > 
> > "nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana 
are 
> > conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold 
path)."
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana 
> is condition as it need citta to recognise it.  Furthermore, if 
citta 
> itself is condition, so must be Nibbana.  If we wish to say that 
> Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition.  All of 
us 
> need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to 
attain 
> sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition.  Even 
> if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is 
condition 
> by citta in the initial place.
> _____
> Supramundane citta is conditioned but nibbana is not. Nibbana 
doesn't 
> arise or pass away or exist in the way that conditioned dhammas do.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > ""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past
> > and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not
> > different from the quality they posses. In fact the
> > subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is
> > no other thing than the quality born by it" "
> > 
> > How do they being influence by past and present factor.  If they 
> are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if 
they 
> are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the 
> capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. 
> > 
> > Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail 
and 
> reference with sutta if possible. 
> > 
> > Many thanks and kind regards
> > 
> > Kenneth Ong
> > ________
> 
> Thanks for your questions kenneth.
> It would be good if you study some of the Patthana - which has 
> detailed answers to all these questions. i give you a taste now 
based 
> on nina van gorkoms introduction to this section of the Tipitaka 
> (available online at www.zolag.co.uk :
> "The Buddha's teaching on the conditions for the phenomena of our 
life
> has been laid down in the last of the seven books of the Abhidhamma,
> the "Paììhåna", or "Conditional Relations". The Buddha, in the 
night 
> he
> attained enlightenment, penetrated all the different conditions for 
> the
> phenomena which arise and he contemplated the "Dependant
> Origination" (Paticca Samuppåda), the conditions for being in the 
> cycle
> of birth and death, and the way leading to the elimination of these
> causes. . Before we knew the Buddha's
> teachings we used to think of cause and effect in a speculative 
way. 
> We
> may have reflected on the origin of life, on the origin of the 
world, 
> we
> may have thought about causes and effects with regard to the events 
of
> life, but we did not penetrate the real conditions for the 
phenomena 
> of life. The Buddha taught the way to develop understanding of what 
is
> true in the absolute or ultimate sense. We cannot understand the
> "Patthåna" if we do not know the difference between what is real in
> conventional sense and what is real in the ultimate sense. Body and
> mind are real in conventional sense, they are not real in the 
ultimate
> sense. What we call body and mind are temporary combinations of
> different realities which arise because of conditioning factors and 
> then
> fall away immediately. They are succeeded by new realities which 
fall
> away again, and thus the flux of life goes on. Body, mind, person or
> being do not exist in the ultimate sense. Mental phenomena, nåma, 
and
> physical phenomena, rúpa, which constitute what we call a "person" 
are
> real in the ultimate sense, but they are merely passing phenomena.
> 
> There are twentyfour classes of conditions enumerated in the
> "Paììhåna". In order to understand these it is essential to have a 
> precise
> knowledge of the realities which are involved in these conditional
> relations. . Each
> conditioned reality can exist just for an extremely short moment. 
When
> we understand this it will be easier to see that there is no self 
who 
> can
> exert control over realities. How could we control what falls away
> immediately? When we move our hands, when we walk, when we laugh
> or cry, when we are attached or worried, there are conditions for 
such
> moments. The Patthåna helps us to understand the deep underlying
> motives for our behaviour and the conditions for our defilements. It
> explains, for example, that kusala can be the object of akusala 
> citta. For
> instance, on account of generosity which is wholesome, attachment,
> wrong view or conceit, which are unwholesome realities, can arise. 
The
> Patthåna also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for
> example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an 
essential
> point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot 
be
> object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot 
be
> developed.
>  When we know that there isn't anything we can control, will
> that change our life? It is beneficial to have less ignorance about
> ourselves. Defilements cannot be eradicated immediately, there will 
> still
> be sadness, worry and frustration. However, when it is more clearly
> understood that realities arise because of their own conditions 
there 
> will
> be less inclination to try to do what is impossible: to change what 
> has
> arisen because of conditions. When there is more understanding one
> will be less obsessed by one's experiences, there will be more 
> patience.
> Doubt will only disappear if we thoroughly consider the
> different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves
> whether the contents of the "Patthåna" conform to the truth or not.
> Theoretical
> knowledge of conditions is not the purpose of the "Patthåna". 
Through
> mere intellectual understanding conditions cannot be thoroughly
> grasped. When understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa,
> physical phenomena, has been developed to the degree of the second
> stage of insight there will be direct understanding of the
> conditionality of realities. When conditions are understood more
> clearly, there will be less clinging to a self who could control 
> awareness
> of nåma and rúpa. Thus, the "Paììhåna" can help us to follow the 
right
> practice. It is above all the right practice of the eightfold Path 
> that can
> promote the survival of the Buddha's teachings."Endquote
> 
> robert
> > 
 
8474 From: Victor 
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:47am
Subject: Re: Citta

 
  Friends,

Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
that "there is no self"?

Metta,
Victor

 
8475 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 3:45pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Howard,

I’ve just been listening to the latest news (with apprehension) and checking
the suttas I think you’re referring to at the same time....I’ll happily ‘focus’
on the latter now;-)
....................
Howard:

 There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and 
> > there
> > > 
> > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between 
> > vi~n~nana/citta 
> > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of 
> > reeds (I
> > > 
> > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each 
> > other. 
> > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. 
> > .....................
> -------------------------------------------------------
Rob K:

> Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the 
> Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition 
> for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is 
> sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the 
> paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see 
> for example visuddhimagga xvii187). 
> 
> robert k.
> 
> 
==========================
Howard:

       Exacly so. The particular sutta about dependent origination I'm 
thinking of gives vi~n~nana as condition for namarupa, and it gives namarupa 
as condition for vi~n~nana.

....................

Sarah:

Thanks Rob and Howard for all these ‘clues’. I think the sutta Howard had in
mind (there may be others too) was the Nalakalapiyo Sutta (Sheaves of Reeds)
<or the Kosambi Sutta (SN X11,68)>

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-067.html

Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of paticcasamuppada, nama has a
particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas) and so indeed as Howard
says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions nama and rupa and vice
versa.

Thanks for the Vis ref, Rob. I wonder if there are any other examples of this
usage of nama other than in specific reference to paticcasamuppada?

 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Howard:

>        From my reading, I understand a sotapanna's apprehension of nibbana to
> 
> be "at a distance", and as an object. I was referring to an arahant's 
> experience of nibbana. And in that case, I'm not distinguishing between the 
> nibbanic experience during life or beyond life. 
....................
Sarah:

As Rob has mentioned in a couple of recent posts, in the case of both the
sotapanna and the arahat, nibbana is the object of specific cittas at the
moments of enlightenment. Beyond life, there is no nibbanic experience in the
Theravada Teachings....I’m wondering where you get this from?

....................
Howard:

>        When you say that at parinibbana there is no experiencing ever, do you
>> mean of any sort? I understand that there is no discerning of objects. But 
> are you suggesting that beyond the death of an arahant is absolute 
> nothingness, that entry to final nibbana = annihilation? Obviously there is 
> no entity to be annihilated. That is not what I mean. What I question is 
> whether after entry to final nibbana there is no more awareness than the 
> awareness of a rock, and that nibbana itself is a dark nothingness - and 
> please note, here I am *not* equating 'nothingness' with 'emptiness'.

....................
Sarah:

Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the khandhas including
vinnana/citta (consciousness). Nibbana is not experienced after death under any
circumstances for the Buddha or the arahats, so it’s not a matter of nibbana
being a ‘dark nothingness’. Do we see life and realities as being inherently
satisfactory and worth clinging onto or unsatisfactory? The arahat has
eradicated all clinging and thus it is cause for joy rather than the reverse
that there are no conditions for more becoming or experiencing once the fuel
has run out. There  is no question in the Pali canon of continuing
consciousness or helping others after parinibbana out of compassion or
continuing on the Path to realize Buddhahood as others (not you) have
suggested. 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah: 

> > You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or 
> > Rob
> > Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the 
> > inherent
> > or natural state of the mind. >
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Howard:

>        Again, I apologize for not being a sutta quoter! As I recall, the 
> simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not like pure gold, but rather 
> like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", and that refinement of 
> that ore is required for the brilliance of the gold to manifest. But, of 
> course, it is understood in that simile that the pure gold is present from 
> the outset.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the
Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again there are probably others
too:.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html

The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and discussing further by
anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here:

".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas. Which three? The Uposatha of a
cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha of the Noble Ones. 

"......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones? It is the cleansing of the
defiled mind through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed
through the proper technique? 

".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is the cleansing of the mind
through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the
proper technique? 

".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the
defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when a gold is cleansed through
the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed through the proper technique?
Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk, a blow-pipe, tongs, & the
appropriate human effort. This is how gold is cleansed through the proper
technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is cleansed through the proper
technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique?
There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas...
As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the
defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ <end quote>
....................
I can see straight away how we would interpret this sutta or simile to ‘gold
cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be understood in the light of
all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to the natural (or original)
state of mind being one that as full of defilements which should be understood
and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be interested to hear anything
from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. 

Sarah



 
8476 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 3:53pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth

 
  Mike,

Thanks for your many, many posts of encouragement. i'm sure we all appreciate
this. 

The great thing about list discussions is that even if one doesn't hear back
from one person (for whatever reason) we can always be sure that someone else
is listening or finding the slog of keying in the words (as in this case)
worthwhile;-)

Thanks for the additional reference too...

Sarah

 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Dear Sarah, 
> 
> What a great quotation--I'd forgotten all about this
> simile.  Thanks for the reminder!
> 
> By the way, I found it in the Kimsuka Sutta at SN
> XXXV.204.  I believe it may occur elsewhere as well,
> but not certain.
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> --- Sarah  wrote:
> > Dear Kenneth,
> > 
> >  --- KennethOng  wrote: > 
> > 
> > > 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
> > ....................
> > 
> > I understand all the suttas to be talking about
> > bhavana (mental development),
> > either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both.
> > Vipassana means insight
> > and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So
> > whenever we read about the
> > development of understanding or about the realities
> > which are to be known, we
> > are considering about vipassana. 
> > 
> > With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many
> > details, these can be read in
> > the Visuddhimagga.
> > 
> > If you want specific references mentioning vipassana
> > (as opposed to similar
> > words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I
> > can think of in the Samyutta
> > Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure
> > that it's vipassana referred
> > to in this Sutta description at SN 1V,
> > Salayatanavagga, 194:
> > 
> > 'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with
> > strong ramparts, walls, and
> > arches, and with six gates.  The gatekeeper posted
> > there would be wise,
> > competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out
> > strangers and admits
> > acquaintances.  A swift pair of messengers would
> > come from the east and ask the
> > gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this
> > city?' He would reply: 'He is
> > sitting in the central square.'  Then the swift pair
> > of messengers would
> > deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city
> > and leave by the route by
> > which they had arrived.  Similarly, messengers would
> > come from the west, from
> > the north, from the south, deliver their message,
> > and leave by the route by
> > which they had arrived.
> > 
> > “I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to
> > convey a meaning.  This is
> > the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation
> > for this body consisting of
> > the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is
> > a designation for the six
> > internal bases.  “The gatekeeper’: this is a
> > designation for mindfulness.  ‘The
> > swift pair of messengers’:  this is a designation
> > for serenity and insight
> > (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a
> > designation for consciousness.
> > ‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the
> > four great elements .....’A
> > message of reality’: this is a designation for
> > Nibbana.  ‘The route by which
> > they had arrived’:   this is a designation for the
> > Noble Eightfold Path;  that
> > is, right view....right concentration.”



 
8477 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 4:02pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Dear Ken H,

Butting in here....

> "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
> connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
> in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
> particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
> apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
> When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
> that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
> evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
> aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
> With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
> within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it." <end quote>
> 
> 
> My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught
> the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way,
> not the conventionally real way.  When he describes conventional
> wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas.  Even if
> he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think
> for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional
> terms, forms a part of the Dhamma.  
> 
> Is that the way you see it?

Exactly as I see it, Ken.
> 
> While I'm at it; You also wrote:
> 
> "If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
> jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to
> strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
> ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded
> as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
> abhidhamma floors?"<end quote>
> 
> I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego I perceive that
> which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred to in Robert
> K's message # 8019. (?)

Yes, I don't think conventional effort even gets off the ground. I also
understand the abhidhamma floors to start at ground level....right
understanding from the beginning in other words. Words like 'develop skilful
states' can be understood with an idea of self or without an idea of self.

Ken, look forward to many more posts from you....why not show me you're awake
every day ;-))?

Impressed,
Sarah



 
8478 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 4:21pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Sarah and Robert K

Nibbana is an object of citta.  Could you explain more
in detail abt this object.  

When Arahant and Buddha reach Nibbana, are they still
able to think or discern?  What become of them when
they reach Nibbana?



Kind regards
Kenneth Ong




 
8479 From: Sukinderpal Narula   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 7:09pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Dear Kenneth,
Sorry I did not give the english meaning along with the phrase 'athaan rarueng',
it was partly because I have never used the words before under any other
context and partly because I did not think about you or any of the other
members of this list who do not know thai.
When thinking about 'athaan', the words 'bravery', 'not feeling discouraged',
'facing the truth' come to mind. 'Rarueng' means 'good cheer'. So together the
words mean to the effect 'having the courage to face the truth with good cheer'.
Like I said, I have not used the phrase before, so it might be that other members
will come up with a better translation.
I take this opportunity to offer you and Robert Ep., both of whose letters I've
been
appreciating very much lately, to email me your postal addresses so that I may
send over 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' and a couple of other books to you. If
I do not get any response in a couple of days, I will email a private note to both

of you.

Anumodana,
Sukin.

KennethOng wrote:

>  Sorry could i know the meaning of athaan rarueng :)
> Thanks and kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
>   Sukinderpal Narula  wrote: Dear Jonothan,
>
> > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the
> > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks.
>
> I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not
> understand
> the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my
> experience
> of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment.
> This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance.
> I was
> lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the
> teachings
> in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I
> have very little
> knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and
> this made
> things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all
> realities arise
> because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems
> like a long
> stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed
> that
> thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting
> go'.
> I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I
> have about
> my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the
> situation, but I
> was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition for
> some good cheer.
> Hope I go it correct, if not let me know.
>
> Sukin.
>

 
8480 From: Sukinderpal Narula   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 7:48pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] cheerfulness with Dhamma.

 
  Dear Nina and Jon,
Thanks for your words of encouragement.
Jon you said;
"The reminder about the conditioned nature of
things was the right 'medicine' for you at that moment.

Not to be clung to as a 'way' for next time, of course!"

This in itself is a very good reminder for me. I understand that as long
as I have (for the sake of illustration) an oceanful of lobha and dosa,
and the wind of moha is forever blowing over this ocean, there
will always be a feeling of insecurity and hence a 'clinging to a way'
even this be some small 'reflection' on the teachings. It is extremely
hard to acknowledge that there is absolutely no control and therefore
one must learn to walk without a crutch. But even this is to be
acknowledged and not to be turned into another thing to 'reject'.
I think 'patience' plays a big part here. Always the mind is looking
for answers, but the answers it seems will not come from looking
for it. The conceptual mind is happy with explanations, otherwise
it will keep on doubting till it finds what it is looking for. In its search
it misses what is essential, namely what is appearing through the
six sense doors at this moment.
Sorry for the rambling, this is just my experience, the recurring traps
I am constantly falling into. Thought of not sending it, but then wouldn't
it be nice to get some pointers from you two, or anyone else. So here it goes.

Metta,
Sukin.


Nina van Gorkom wrote:

> Dear Sukin, your post about contrarieties in daily life and about
> perseverance and gladness of Dhamma was such a good reminder. We should not
> overlook seemingly unimportant events, they are Dhamma. Looking forward to
> having more examples from you. It is so good to have this forum where we can
> exchange our experiences. I appreciate that you are helping in many ways,
> also at the foundation, anumodana, Nina.

 
8481 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:11pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] - Herman

 
  Hi Herman,

I’ve been meaning to get back on this interesting post:

 --- Herman wrote:
> 
> 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.

However, there was still seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and
tmind-door experiencing. Is it really the TV, the radio or the computer that is
the distraction now or is it not the attachment and the story about what is
seen, heard and so on that is the distraction? Different stories, different
concepts, but aren’t the realities just the same?
> 
> I cannot but think that practise in daily life today has less fertile 
> soil in which to be grounded than when the Buddha lived

In as much as there are.just as many realities to be known in daily life now as
ever before, I would say the soil is just as fertile. As we’ve discussed
before, many people who had the vipaka and accumulations to listen to the
Buddha were very exceptional in their ability to understand and it wasn’t by
chance that they were born at that time, in that place. But there were also
very many who were lost in their papanca (proliferations or distractions) and
wrong views, even without TVs, computers and the rest and were unable to
benefit.

 A cursory 
> glimpse of awareness here and there, in between hours of captivating 
> but meaningless activity is how I would describe my situation

Herman, this is very astute, I think. So many people think they have lots of
awareness and talk about continuous awareness. This shows your comprehension of
how infrequent awareness really is and how ‘captivated’ we are most the time as
soon as we open our eyes or hear a sound and so on.

It also reminds me that ages ago you were asking or discussing more about
visible objects and seeing and so on. I remember there was one post in
particular that I meant to respond to but it got lost or I got busy.Please
bring up any of these comments again anytime.

Speak soon,

Sarah



 
8482 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:23pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O

 
  Hi Ken O,

 --- Kenneth Ong  wrote: > Hi Sarah and Robert K
> 
> Nibbana is an object of citta.  Could you explain more
> in detail abt this object. 

Ken, 

If you go to the link below and look under nibbana, you will find a lot of
posts on this topic with many useful (in my view) sutta and commentary
references for the pali canon. Please quote any that don't make sense or which
you wish to discuss further. Nibbana has been a very popular topic here
(especially amongst those who've come from a Mahayana background).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 
> 
> When Arahant and Buddha reach Nibbana, are they still
> able to think or discern?  

When they realize nibbbana and all the defilements are eradicated, of course
they are able to think and function as we do. How else would they be able to
live or teach dhamma? (If you mean parinibbana, please see my post to Howard)

What become of them when
> they reach Nibbana?

They know (at this 4th and final stage) that all defilements have been
eradicated and that there will be no more becoming after the present life. They
continue to live and help others without any unskilful mental states. They
still see, hear, smell. taste, touch and think , but with no clinging to self
or anything that is experienced at all.

Appreciating your keen interest, Ken,

Sarah

p.s. if you're not in Sing now, where are you? Just curious;-)






 
8483 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 6:05pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Sarah -

In a message dated 10/8/01 3:53:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Sarah writes:


> Hi Howard,
> 
> I’ve just been listening to the latest news (with apprehension) and checking
> the suttas I think you’re referring to at the same time....I’ll happily 
> ‘focus’
> on the latter now;-)
> 



                                             <snip remainder>

==========================
       Thank you for this post, Sarah, so full of helpful quotes. Yours is a 
post with a wealth of information along with some questions deserving of 
careful response. I don't have the time to reply properly at the moment, but 
I promise to do so when time allows.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8484 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 11:29pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O

 
  Oops, Sarah I was refering to Parinibbana

I think you wrote this
"Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the
khandhas including vinnana/citta (consciousness)."

Isn't total cessation is kind of extreme views? 
Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this
state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
"discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
Parinibbana?

I thought the Abidharma say that Arahant enters
fruition attainment, the cittas that occur in the
attainment belong to the class of resultants, being
fruits of supramundane path.  Hence in Parinibbana
there should be cittas it should be the resultant
supramundane citta(one only) of Arahant.


Sarah,
Presently I am in Brunei, a Muslim country

Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong



 
8485 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 10:27am
Subject: Re: cheerfulness with Dhamma.

 
  ---  Sukinderpal Narula  wrote:
. Always the mind is looking
> for answers, but the answers it seems will not come from looking
> for it. The conceptual mind is happy with explanations, otherwise
> it will keep on doubting till it finds what it is looking for. In 
its search
> it misses what is essential, namely what is appearing through the
> six sense doors at this moment.
_____________________________________
This is it Sukin. Only in this way is deeper understanding built up. 
The concepts of Dhamma are essential but if there is not 
understanding of the present moment - and this should occur even 
while thinking- the Dhamma can never be really known. It is not that 
we try to think less about Dhamma but rather that while considering 
Dhamma there are cittas, cetasikas and rupas, paramttha dhammas 
appearing. They should be investgated directly at whatever level is 
appropriate, without stress or wanting results. Doubt is just another 
momentary penomena- anatta, no better or worse as an object than 
colour or feeling or any other dhamma.
robert

 
8486 From: Sarah   
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Victor

 
  Dear Victor,

Good to see you around again;-)

--- Victor wrote: > Friends,
> 
> If interested, you might want to refer to
> Dhammapada 12, The Self
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html
> 
> Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include
> 
> 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. 
> Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the 
> night. 
> 
> 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only 
> should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. 
> 
> 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train 
> others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is 
> self-control. 
> 
> 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the 
> protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that 
> is hard to gain. 
> 
> I think these verses are some good examples of how the word "self" is 
> used.
....................
Yes, good examples of how the word ‘self’ is used ‘conventionally’ by the
Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self exists.

.................... 
> As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the 
> Buddha taught.  If interested, you might want to refer to 
> Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic,
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html

....................
This sutta clearly shows that what is taken for the self are merely the 5
khandhas and that there is no self anywhere in these khandhas. It also clearly
shows how these realities are conditioned and cannot be controlled by self.

...................
> and 
> Ananda Sutta, To Ananda
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html

....................
What is not self are the khandhas, i.e the realities that make up our lives. As
this sutta shows, it is not that there used to be a self which no longer
exists, which might lead to the idea that ‘death is the annihilation of
consciousness’. Whether there is or is not any right understanding, seeing now,
hearing now and all other cittas and realities now are not self.

In your next post you ask this question:

....................
> Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
> that "there is no self"?

....................
As I read and understand the Tipitaka, the Buddha is talking about anatta (not
self) with regard to all realities in all the discourses.

I may be being dense but I’m having a little trouble understanding what is at
the back of your mind and what your understanding is here, Victor. Perhaps you
would elaborate in more detail as these are very important points and I know
you’ve raised them before. I’m also not quite sure how you see the suttas you
quoted as relating to Rob’s discussion with Ken O. Would you elaborate on this
too.

Look forward to hearing more from you,

Sarah



 
8487 From: Sarah   
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 3:46pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O

 
  Hi Ken O,

 --- Kenneth Ong  wrote: 

> Oops, Sarah I was refering to Parinibbana
> 
> I think you wrote this
> "Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the
> khandhas including vinnana/citta (consciousness)."
> 
> Isn't total cessation is kind of extreme views? 
> Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this
> state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
> "discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
> Parinibbana?

Sarah:
At least you quoted from one of my posts rather than someone else's;-))
Remember that what we call an arahat is a conventional  truth only and that
really we’re talking about  a particular set of 5 khandhas (aggregates) when we
refer to the arahat. 

This isn’t an extreme view (in the quote) but rather just the way it is as
described in precise detail by the Buddha.  I’ve just pasted the following
quote from ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’ (ADL)*  which may help:
....................

<quote>In 'As it was said' ('ltivuttaka', Ch. II, par. 7, 'Khuddaka Nikaya') 
two 'conditions of nibbana' (dhatu, which literally means element) are
explained. Sa-upadi-sesa nibbana is nibbana with the five khandhas still
remaining. For the arahat who has not finally passed away yet, there are still
citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away, although he has eradicated
all defilements. An-upadi-sesa nibbana is nibbana without the khandhas
remaining. For the arahat who has finally passed away, there are no longer
citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away. 

We read in the verse, after the explanation: 

These two nibbana-states are shown by him  
Who sees, who is such and unattached.  
One state is that in this same life possessed.  
With base remaining, though becoming's stream  
Be cut off. While the state without a base  
Belongs to the future, wherein all  
Becomings utterly do come to cease.  
They who, by knowing this state uncompounded  
Have heart's release, by cutting off the stream,  
They who have reached the core of dhamma, glad  
To end, such have abandoned all  becomings. <end quote>
....................

Sarah:
As I mentioned to Howard, it depends how one views life and realities as to
whether this final cessation of the khandhas seems extreme and shocking or
whether, seeing the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities, reaching
‘the core of dhamma’, 'one' is ‘glad to end’ or cut off the stream. 

A little later in the same book (ADL), Nina shares the following relevant
quote:
....................

<quote> We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (V, Maha-vagga, Book XII, Kindred
Sayings about the Truths, Ch. V, part 6, Gross darkness) that the Buddha said
to the monks: 

'Monks, there is a darkness of interstellar space,  
impenetrable gloom, such a murk of darkness as  
cannot enjoy the splendour of this moon and sun,  
though they be of such mighty magic power and majesty.' 

At these words a certain monk said to the Exalted One:  

'Lord, that must be a mighty darkness, a mighty 
darkness indeed! Pray, lord, is there any other 
darkness greater and more fearsome than that?' 

'There is indeed, monk, another darkness, greater 
and more fearsome. And what is that other darkness? 

Monk, whatsoever recluses or brahmins understand 
not, as it really is, the meaning of: This is dukkha, 
this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of 
dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing 
of dukkha, such take delight in the activities which 
conduce to rebirth. Thus taking delight they compose 
a compound of activities which conduce to rebirth. 
Thus composing a compound of activities they fall 
down into the darkness of rebirth...and despair. They 
are not released from birth, and death...and despair. 
They are not released from dukkha, I declare. 

But, monk, those recluses or brahmins who do 
understand as it really is, the meaning of : This is 
dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing 
of dukkha, such take not delight in the activities which 
conduce to rebirth...They are released from dukkha, 
I declare. 

Wherefore, monk, an effort must be made to 
realize: This is dukkha. This is the arising of dukkha. 
This is the ceasing of dukkha. This is the practice that 
leads to the ceasing of dukkha.' <end quote>
....................

> I thought the Abidharma say that Arahant enters
> fruition attainment, the cittas that occur in the
> attainment belong to the class of resultants, being
> fruits of supramundane path.  Hence in Parinibbana
> there should be cittas it should be the resultant
> supramundane citta(one only) of Arahant.
....................

Sarah:
The details about cittas are very precise in the Tipitaka and especially in the
abhidhamma. Again let me quote from Nina’s book to add to the details Rob gave
you:.
 
....................

<quote>...... The magga-citta is the first lokuttara citta in that process of
cittas. When it has fallen away it is succeeded by two (or three) phala-cittas
which are the result of the magga-citta and which still have nibbana as the
object. As we have seen, the magga-citta is succeeded immediately by its
result, in the same process of citta. The magga-citta cannot produce vipaka in
the form of rebirth, such as the kusala citta of the other planes of
consciousness. The phala-cittas are succeeded by bhavanga-cittas. 

Some people do not need the moment of parikamma (preparatory consciousness) and
in that case three moments of phala-citta arise instead of two moments. 

Summarizing the process of citta, during which enlightenment is attained, it is
as follows:  

mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) 
parikamma (preparatory; for some people not necessary) 
upacara (proximatory)  
anuloma (adaptation)  
gotrabhu (change of lineage)  
magga-citta 
phala-citta (two or three moments, depending on the individual)
B. When the lokuttara cittas have fallen away and there are kamavacara cittas
again, can nibbana also be the object of kamavacara citta? 

A. Nibbana can be the object of kamavacara-cittas which arise after the
lokuttara cittas have fallen away. Before someone becomes an ariyan there can
only be 
speculation about nibbana. Since the ariyan, however, directly experiences
nibbana, he can reflect upon his experience afterwards. 

We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (XXII, 19) that, after the lokuttara cittas have
fallen away, the person who attained enlightenment reviews in different
mind-door processes of citta the path, fruition, the defilements which have
been abandoned, the defilements still remaining and nibbana.<end quote>

.....................

Sarah:
You’ll note that the result of the magga (path) cittas which experience nibbana
follow immediately. 

In the last quote from the Vis., which mentions the defilements still
remaining, this of course does not apply to the arahat.
....................

> Presently I am in Brunei, a Muslim country

Well, I’d be very surprised if there were any problems in Brunei. I hope not.
Are you working there?

Thanks for your interest, Ken. 

Sarah
 *ADL can be found at;

http://www.abhidhamma.org/



 
8488 From: Herman 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Citta

 
  Dear Victor,

I do not assume from the fact that the Buddha often referred to Mara, 
that he credited Mara with personality, essence, substance. 

What the Buddha said from time to time is not necessarily what he 
taught as being ultimate truth, it was what he deemed appropriate for 
the specific audience to digest.

Literal readings of any text tend to ignore the fact that words are 
so far, far removed from reality.

All the best


Herman

---  Victor wrote:
> Friends,
> 
> Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
> that "there is no self"?
> 
> Metta,
> Victor

 
 
8489 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 3:09pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Kenneth -

In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very 
> rightist view.  It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, 
> we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view.
> 
> Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements.  this is Mahayana view of 
> Nibbana.  If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of 
> reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me.  There is discernment 
> in Nibbana.  In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha 
> Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ).
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Kenneth Ong
> 
================================
       As far as what is a "rightest" view and what is a "leftest" view are 
concerned, I have no clue, and such characterizations are of no interest to 
me. Getting down to the actual subject matter, neither you nor I know what 
the reality of this issue really is. What the so-called "essence" of 
defilements is other than being empty of self/core, is unknown to me, but 
defilements, and all conditions for that matter, do share features that the 
unconditioned does *not* have, namely impermanence, temporality, 
conditionality, and unsatisfactoriness. If no-self is what you mean by 
"essence", then, yes, all conditions and the unconditioned share that.
       Nibbana, in the sense of the tipitaka, is, or involves, unmanifestive 
discernment, no arising, and no ceasing. It is not a dark annihilation. But 
in nibbana there are no objects, there is neither vi~n~nana (discernment) nor 
namarupa (the discerned), there is no subject-object duality. 'Discernment' 
means discernment of objects, the light of awareness encountering, 
illuminating, and *separating out* of obstacles. The unmanifestive 
discernment of nibbana is a radiance that shines infinitely, encountering not 
so much as a separate dust mote. (The notion reminds me a bit of that of "no 
mind" in the Silent Illumination approach of Ch'an/Zen, if one is looking for 
a Mahayana correlate.) Nibbana is nama in the tipitaka. Reality is not 
divided there into three categories of nama, rupa, and nibbana, but only into 
the two categories of rupa and nama, with nama subsuming, using Abhdhammic 
terminology, cittas, cetasikas, and nibbana. There is nothing dead or 
rock-like about nibbana. What it is is an oasis, a living reality, a total 
opening up into vast, unrestricted freedom.
       Perhaps there is a "nibbana beyond nibbana" which transcends and 
subsumes both conditions and the unconditioned; perhaps that is what is meant 
by "suchness". But neither you nor I know that. I think it suffices for us to 
accept that there is an escape from the unworthy to the worthy, from dukkha 
to sukha, from spiritual limitation to spiritual freedom, from ignorance to 
knowing, and that the Buddha's Eightfold Path is the road to that freedom. We 
really ought to walk that road without worrying so much about the precise 
nature of the treasure at its far distant end, a nature truly indescribable 
in any case.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8490 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 7:44pm
Subject: Parinibbana (was Vipassanã - Ken O

 
  --- Dear Kenneth,
You asked:
 Kenneth Ong  wrote:

> Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this
> state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
> "discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
> Parinibbana?
________
Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha talked about the 
extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked 
vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished:
MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II
II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) 
"So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it 
pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, 
there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire 
burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front 
of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of 
you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good 
Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account 
of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of 
me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire 
in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of 
me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me 
extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if 
you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction 
did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does 
not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those 
supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports 
the fire, went out.'. 
`Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One 
is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a 
thing not to grow again."
You can read the full sutta at:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm
robert

 
8491 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 9:16pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  Hi Robert K

Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you.  Is
parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer
similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation?


Kind regards
Kenneth Ong

 --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > ---
Dear Kenneth,
> You asked:
>  Kenneth Ong 
> wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching
> this
> > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
> > "discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
> > Parinibbana?
> ________
> Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha
> talked about the 
> extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to
> a fire and asked 
> vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been
> extinguished:
> MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II
> II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) 
> "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and
> you may reply as it 
> pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of
> you, would you know, 
> there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good
> Gotama, if a fire 
> burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire
> burning in front 
> of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire
> burning in front of 
> you, on account of what is it burning, how would you
> reply?''Good 
> Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front
> of you, on account 
> of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire
> burning in front of 
> me is burning on account of grass and sticks.'
> `Vaccha, if the fire 
> in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this
> fire in front of 
> me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in
> front of me 
> extinguishes, I would know, this fire has
> extinguished''Vaccha, if 
> you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in
> which direction 
> did it go, to the east, west, north or south?'
> `Good, Gotama, it does 
> not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and
> sticks, those 
> supports finished, no other supports were supplied,
> without supports 
> the fire, went out.'. 
> `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which
> the Thus Gone One 
> is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm
> stump, made a 
> thing not to grow again."
> You can read the full sutta at:
>
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
> Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm
> robert
> 

 
8492 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  ---
Dear kenneth,
I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation and 
origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about 
conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then 
questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens to an 
arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for 
doubt. 
The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is no 
self, only different phenomena conditioning and being conditioned. To 
the degree that this is understood  questions such as those above 
naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts say 
all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to this 
paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha(craving) 
and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. 
robert


  Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Hi Robert K
> 
> Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you.  Is
> parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer
> similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation?
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
>  --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > ---
> Dear Kenneth,
> > You asked:
> >  Kenneth Ong 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching
> > this
> > > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
> > > "discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
> > > Parinibbana?
> > ________
> > Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha
> > talked about the 
> > extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to
> > a fire and asked 
> > vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been
> > extinguished:
> > MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II
> > II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) 
> > "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and
> > you may reply as it 
> > pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of
> > you, would you know, 
> > there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good
> > Gotama, if a fire 
> > burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire
> > burning in front 
> > of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire
> > burning in front of 
> > you, on account of what is it burning, how would you
> > reply?''Good 
> > Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front
> > of you, on account 
> > of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire
> > burning in front of 
> > me is burning on account of grass and sticks.'
> > `Vaccha, if the fire 
> > in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this
> > fire in front of 
> > me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in
> > front of me 
> > extinguishes, I would know, this fire has
> > extinguished''Vaccha, if 
> > you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in
> > which direction 
> > did it go, to the east, west, north or south?'
> > `Good, Gotama, it does 
> > not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and
> > sticks, those 
> > supports finished, no other supports were supplied,
> > without supports 
> > the fire, went out.'. 
> > `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which
> > the Thus Gone One 
> > is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm
> > stump, made a 
> > thing not to grow again."
> > You can read the full sutta at:
> >
> http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
> > Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm
> > robert
> > 

 
8493 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 10:19pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to
liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most
impt).  

Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana
doctrines.  In Mahayanas, all origination of
sufferings comes from dualism thoughts.  

All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or
Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or
right view.  The other day I remember I say that
Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is
miscontrue,  our view of self is incorrect.

Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada
definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana.  It is a
contrast with Mahayana way of thinking.  Because it
seems to me that when there is no more  cittas or rupa
or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. 
In my personal opinion this is not conforming to
Buddhist Middle Path.  I more incline to believe that
these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or
have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence
allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest.  Buddha never
say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it
is there since beginless time and it is inherent in
us.  That is why i said before, we could not obtain
things that is inherent in us.

I also never doubt that about the function of cittas
as it suppose to function because this is citta
inherent nature.  This nature of citta can never be
destroyed or eradicated.  Take for example, our nature
of seeing.  The right condition (i think need about 40
over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. 
But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see,
we could see in our dreams.  Hence bodies can slowly
age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That
is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as
they suppose to function because they can never die or
be eradicated.  That is why cittas could determine our
next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to
do that.  Even though these cittas are temporal but
they never dies.  They just come and go to perform
their inherent function.  

But where does this inherent function comes from. 
This is not said by Buddha because it is the few
things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it.


This is my point of view deriving from the
understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana).



Kind regards
kenneth Ong



 
8494 From: Howard 
Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 8:11pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Kenneth -

In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to
> liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most
> impt).  
> 
> Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana
> doctrines.  In Mahayanas, all origination of
> sufferings comes from dualism thoughts.  
> 
> All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or
> Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or
> right view.  The other day I remember I say that
> Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is
> miscontrue,  our view of self is incorrect.
> 
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Okay. We differ on that.
---------------------------------------------

> 
> Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada
> definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana.  It is a
> contrast with Mahayana way of thinking.  Because it
> seems to me that when there is no more  cittas or rupa
> or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. 
> In my personal opinion this is not conforming to
> Buddhist Middle Path.  I more incline to believe that
> these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or
> have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence
> allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest.
> 
----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description of 
the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate objects 
are discernable (though "seen through").
---------------------------------------------------
   Buddha never
> say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it
> is there since beginless time and it is inherent in
> us.
-------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it does 
not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and nibbana 
is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of existing 
at all times. 
------------------------------------------------
   That is why i said before, we could not obtain
> things that is inherent in us.
> 
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind towards 
substantialism and eternalism.
------------------------------------------------


> 
> I also never doubt that about the function of cittas
> as it suppose to function because this is citta
> inherent nature.  This nature of citta can never be
> destroyed or eradicated.
> 
--------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and eternalism. 
It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which is 
the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". 
--------------------------------------------------
   Take for example, our nature
> of seeing.  The right condition (i think need about 40
> over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. 
> But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see,
> we could see in our dreams.  Hence bodies can slowly
> age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That
> is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as
> they suppose to function because they can never die or
> be eradicated.  That is why cittas could determine our
> next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to
> do that.  Even though these cittas are temporal but
> they never dies.  They just come and go to perform
> their inherent function.  
> 
> But where does this inherent function comes from. 
> This is not said by Buddha because it is the few
> things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it.
> 
> 
> This is my point of view deriving from the
> understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana).
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> kenneth Ong
> 
==========================
       Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the sutras 
which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy 
transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses a 
substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to Buddhism, 
proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed in 
the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of 
Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna).

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8495 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:06am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Kenneth -
> 
> In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Kenneth Ong writes:
> 
> 
> > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to
> > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most
> > impt).  
> > 
> > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana
> > doctrines.  In Mahayanas, all origination of
> > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts.  
> > 
> > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or
> > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or
> > right view.  The other day I remember I say that
> > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is
> > miscontrue,  our view of self is incorrect.
> > 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Okay. We differ on that.
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada
> > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana.  It is a
> > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking.  Because it
> > seems to me that when there is no more  cittas or rupa
> > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. 
> > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to
> > Buddhist Middle Path.  I more incline to believe that
> > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or
> > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence
> > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest.
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description of 
> the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate objects 
> are discernable (though "seen through").
> ---------------------------------------------------
>    Buddha never
> > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it
> > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in
> > us.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it does 
> not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and nibbana 
> is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of existing 
> at all times. 
> ------------------------------------------------
>    That is why i said before, we could not obtain
> > things that is inherent in us.
> > 
> ------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind towards 
> substantialism and eternalism.
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > 
> > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas
> > as it suppose to function because this is citta
> > inherent nature.  This nature of citta can never be
> > destroyed or eradicated.
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and eternalism. 
> It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which is 
> the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". 
> --------------------------------------------------
>    Take for example, our nature
> > of seeing.  The right condition (i think need about 40
> > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. 
> > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see,
> > we could see in our dreams.  Hence bodies can slowly
> > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That
> > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as
> > they suppose to function because they can never die or
> > be eradicated.  That is why cittas could determine our
> > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to
> > do that.  Even though these cittas are temporal but
> > they never dies.  They just come and go to perform
> > their inherent function.  
> > 
> > But where does this inherent function comes from. 
> > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few
> > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it.
> > 
> > 
> > This is my point of view deriving from the
> > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > kenneth Ong
> > 
> ==========================
>        Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the sutras 
> which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy 
> transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses a 
> substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to Buddhism, 
> proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed in 
> the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of 
> Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna).
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-].  We really do have a lot in
common, Howard.  I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly affected by
Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta.  I find Buddhism to speak more precisely and
less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins'
understanding.

I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but what
about the tendency going the other way to fall into nihilism-annihilationism?  The
argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not wrong,
but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me.

There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a being'. 
Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the Universe other
than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why cittas
would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there was not
some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible.  Cittas
can't arise from nowhere.  There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of
themselves that should make sentience possible.  So how is it explained?  There
must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be merely a
human source.  As I recall, this is one of the questions Buddha instructed us not
to ask, but I must say that I don't find that very satisfying, since it is the
root question of why we are here in the first place.

There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans can
readily perceive.  We are certainly not responsible for it.  It makes more sense
to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake in
some ways of its properties.  It is very possible that beyond the illusion of
individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and interesting,
which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and would
only use to create new thought-forms.  The 'luminous mind defiled by incoming
defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful lot of
promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current deluded
life.  I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly
appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax.  Even when the
translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both
luminous and defiled at the same time.  It never mentioned two separate minds
[cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled.  It is hard not to see a
stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of this
statement.

To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, in a
Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me.  To see an
eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness is not
the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul.

Robert




 
8496 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  Dear Robert,
I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't understand or have the
answer to a question, that that means there is no answer.  Is the entire universe
nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses?  I doubt it.  But it is
the manifestation of something.  Why do cittas arise?  They are dependently
arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only arise in sentient
beings.  If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated coincidence that we
have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs mistaking their
mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with the body and
mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do.

I would still like to know how and why the whole thing hangs together.  Probably
never will.

Regards,
Robert Ep.

==============


--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> ---
> Dear kenneth,
> I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation and 
> origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about 
> conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then 
> questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens to an 
> arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for 
> doubt. 
> The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is no 
> self, only different phenomena conditioning and being conditioned. To 
> the degree that this is understood  questions such as those above 
> naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts say 
> all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to this 
> paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha(craving) 
> and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. 
> robert
> 
> 
>   Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> > Hi Robert K
> > 
> > Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you.  Is
> > parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer
> > similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation?
> > 
> > 
> > Kind regards
> > Kenneth Ong
> > 



 
8497 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:13am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  If, like a fire, the entire play of consciousness is merely the result of arising
conditions, then the analogy and the cessation at the end make perfect sense.  The
question is whether there is nothing to the creation of consciousness but external
causes which spark it off.  

Robert Ep.

==================

--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> --- Dear Kenneth,
> You asked:
>  Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> 
> > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this
> > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or
> > "discernment"?  Where do the Arahat go after
> > Parinibbana?
> ________
> Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha talked about the 
> extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked 
> vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished:
> MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II
> II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) 
> "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it 
> pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, 
> there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire 
> burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front 
> of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of 
> you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good 
> Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account 
> of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of 
> me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire 
> in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of 
> me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me 
> extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if 
> you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction 
> did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does 
> not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those 
> supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports 
> the fire, went out.'. 
> `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One 
> is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a 
> thing not to grow again."
> You can read the full sutta at:
> http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
> Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm
> robert



 
8498 From: m. nease   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 3:53am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hi Robert,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> I think you are very right about this, and your
> quote is quite relevant.  I think
> it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching
> functions on various levels and in
> various stages.  Rather than thinking in black and
> white terms, that if a word is
> used in a certain context in one place, it must mean
> that another usage is
> incorrect, we should look at what is required by
> that context.  

This is pretty much the way I see it.  I think it's
something like the difference between a bricklayer
talking about a brick and a particle physicist talking
about the characteristics of the particles composing
the brick. EXCEPT: The difference as I see it is that,
in this simile, both are talking about concepts.  In
conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts; in
abhidhamma speech we talk about realities.

> In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and
> disciplining action, a kind of
> conventional effort may be called for, while the
> Right Effort that Jon has
> described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment
> of a very high level of
> refinement, may be a very different effort for a
> very different refined purpose.

I think where we may disagree is not in the necessity
of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature of
it.  Even when exerting effort consciously (say to
meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series of
mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I think
the sense of it being under the control of, or the
result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure illusion. 
Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that it's
impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it
feels.

> But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort
> and other conventional terms
> may be very possible to engage in, even though there
> is actually no central 'self'
> to do these things.  

I think it just depends on how we look at it. 
Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can be
conceived of conventionally--but the same phenomena
observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no one
behind or within the effort--just the rise and fall of
conditioned naama and ruupa.  Does this make any sense
to you in this context?

> Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting
> discussion.

I agree!  

> Best,
> Robert Ep.

And the best to you, sir,

mike


 
8499 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 4:58am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  --- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> > I think you are very right about this, and your
> > quote is quite relevant.  I think
> > it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching
> > functions on various levels and in
> > various stages.  Rather than thinking in black and
> > white terms, that if a word is
> > used in a certain context in one place, it must mean
> > that another usage is
> > incorrect, we should look at what is required by
> > that context.  
> 
> This is pretty much the way I see it.  I think it's
> something like the difference between a bricklayer
> talking about a brick and a particle physicist talking
> about the characteristics of the particles composing
> the brick. EXCEPT: The difference as I see it is that,
> in this simile, both are talking about concepts.  In
> conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts; in
> abhidhamma speech we talk about realities.

To me, it seems that when you exempt Abhidhamma from being 'talk about concepts',
you reify it as a mystical object.  What I mean by this is that language is
language, and there is no language without concepts.  Language exists in the realm
of concepts, and there is language that points beyond that, but there is no
language that does not partake of conceptual activity.

When we make this mistake, and I apologize for asserting it this way, we start
thinking that somehow our deluded sense of things is transcended in this special
instance, and we trade mindfulness for a kind of obedience to the sacred word that
stops us from discerning either what is really there, or what is in the way of our
reading it clearly in our own minds.

We can't afford to be discerning and see the anatta of everything *except* the
Sutras.  They are also empty, and that is why Buddha went to a lot of trouble to
talk about getting rid of all mundane views.  When we read the Suttas, we are not
reading 'Right View'.  Right View can only be the property of the citta that
upholds it, it is not in a book.  When we read the Suttas through an akusala
citta, what we are reading is an akusula citta, yet in this instance no one seems
to be too wary of falling into this trap, and they assume they are reading not
only the Buddha's words, but a correct interpretation of his intent.  

Even relying on commentaries falls into the same category.  We read through the
filter of our beliefs and views until they are no more.  To be mindful of this
means we may transcend it at times, but we cannot transcend it by relying on what
we think we are reading.

When we depend so strongly on the Suttas, we give up the responsibility for our
own mind, which can only be corrected by mindfulness.  And when I say 'our own' I
am not assuming there is a self that has the responsibility.  It is the kusala
cittas themselves that would be awakened by the call to mindfulness and are
generated as mindful.  But we don't want to put them to sleep by telling them 'as
long as you follow the correct words, you're mindful'.  

> > In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and
> > disciplining action, a kind of
> > conventional effort may be called for, while the
> > Right Effort that Jon has
> > described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment
> > of a very high level of
> > refinement, may be a very different effort for a
> > very different refined purpose.
> 
> I think where we may disagree is not in the necessity
> of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature of
> it.  Even when exerting effort consciously (say to
> meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series of
> mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I think
> the sense of it being under the control of, or the
> result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure illusion. 
> Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that it's
> impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it
> feels.

I think it is very easy to assume that because there is no 'self' that there is
only conditioned responses.  Mindfulness, the will, effort, all of these things
are possible to generate without a 'self' doing it.  The question of whether there
is any intervention in the series of conditioned events can be asked separately
from whether or not there is a self.  I am quite sure there is no self within this
body or mind -- haven't seen one lately -- even though I am familiar with that
'feeling' you speak of that 'feels' like there's 'someone' here.  But it is
possible to look mindfully into experience and produce the will, effort,
discernment, etc. to pay more attention to objects, to meditate more, or whatever.
 It is in fact more magical that these things can have an effect even without a
self to generate this or to enjoy the fruits.

> > But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort
> > and other conventional terms
> > may be very possible to engage in, even though there
> > is actually no central 'self'
> > to do these things.  
> 
> I think it just depends on how we look at it. 
> Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can be
> conceived of conventionally--but the same phenomena
> observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no one
> behind or within the effort--just the rise and fall of
> conditioned naama and ruupa.  Does this make any sense
> to you in this context?

It makes sense, but I don't think that the series of co-arising events proves that
there is no intervention by the forces of effort, energy, or discernment,
mindfulness.  It may be that when these forces are awakened they cause changes
that are greater than the forces that originally conditioned them.  I take it,
however, that this would not be a very popular view......

> > Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting
> > discussion.
> 
> I agree!  
> 
> > Best,
> > Robert Ep.
> 
> And the best to you, sir,
> 
> mike

You know, even without a self, it's always enjoyable to talk to you.  Doesn't
really matter whether we agree or disagree either.  Thanks for the dialogue.

Robert Ep.




 
8500 From: m. nease   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:28am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hi Robert,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote:

> The difference as I see it is
> that,
> > in this simile, both are talking about concepts. 
> In
> > conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts;
> in
> > abhidhamma speech we talk about realities.
> 
> To me, it seems that when you exempt Abhidhamma from
> being 'talk about concepts',
> you reify it as a mystical object.  What I mean by
> this is that language is
> language, and there is no language without concepts.
>  Language exists in the realm
> of concepts, and there is language that points
> beyond that, but there is no
> language that does not partake of conceptual
> activity.

I see your point.  I didn't express this well.

> When we make this mistake, and I apologize for
> asserting it this way, we start
> thinking that somehow our deluded sense of things is
> transcended in this special
> instance, and we trade mindfulness for a kind of
> obedience to the sacred word that
> stops us from discerning either what is really
> there, or what is in the way of our
> reading it clearly in our own minds.

For my part, I don't think that my deluded sense of
things is transcended in any instance.  Obedience to
anything sacred is also quite alien to my way of
looking at things.

> We can't afford to be discerning and see the anatta
> of everything *except* the
> Sutras.  They are also empty, and that is why Buddha
> went to a lot of trouble to
> talk about getting rid of all mundane views.  When
> we read the Suttas, we are not
> reading 'Right View'.  Right View can only be the
> property of the citta that
> upholds it, it is not in a book.  

Obviously.

> When we read the
> Suttas through an akusala
> citta, what we are reading is an akusula citta, yet
> in this instance no one seems
> to be too wary of falling into this trap, and they
> assume they are reading not
> only the Buddha's words, but a correct
> interpretation of his intent.  

Lots of different cittas at work in reading, some
kusala, some akusala, some neither one, as I
understand it.

> Even relying on commentaries falls into the same
> category.  We read through the
> filter of our beliefs and views until they are no
> more.  To be mindful of this
> means we may transcend it at times, but we cannot
> transcend it by relying on what
> we think we are reading.
> 
> When we depend so strongly on the Suttas, we give up
> the responsibility for our
> own mind, which can only be corrected by
> mindfulness.
> And when I say 'our own' I
> am not assuming there is a self that has the
> responsibility.  It is the kusala
> cittas themselves that would be awakened by the call
> to mindfulness and are
> generated as mindful.  But we don't want to put them
> to sleep by telling them 'as
> long as you follow the correct words, you're
> mindful'.  

Obviously not.

> > > In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and
> > > disciplining action, a kind of
> > > conventional effort may be called for, while the
> > > Right Effort that Jon has
> > > described as occuring as a spontaneous
> accompaniment
> > > of a very high level of
> > > refinement, may be a very different effort for a
> > > very different refined purpose.
> > 
> > I think where we may disagree is not in the
> necessity
> > of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature
> of
> > it.  Even when exerting effort consciously (say to
> > meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series
> of
> > mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I
> think
> > the sense of it being under the control of, or the
> > result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure
> illusion. 
> > Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that
> it's
> > impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it
> > feels.
> 
> I think it is very easy to assume that because there
> is no 'self' that there is
> only conditioned responses.  Mindfulness, the will,
> effort, all of these things
> are possible to generate without a 'self' doing it.

I don't know what you mean by 'possible to generate'.
 
> The question of whether there
> is any intervention in the series of conditioned
> events can be asked separately
> from whether or not there is a self.  I am quite
> sure there is no self within this
> body or mind -- haven't seen one lately -- even
> though I am familiar with that
> 'feeling' you speak of that 'feels' like there's
> 'someone' here.  But it is
> possible to look mindfully into experience and
> produce the will, effort,
> discernment, etc. to pay more attention to objects,
> to meditate more, or whatever.
>  It is in fact more magical that these things can
> have an effect even without a
> self to generate this or to enjoy the fruits.
> 
> > > But it seems to make clear that conventional
> Effort
> > > and other conventional terms
> > > may be very possible to engage in, even though
> there
> > > is actually no central 'self'
> > > to do these things.  
> > 
> > I think it just depends on how we look at it. 
> > Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can
> be
> > conceived of conventionally--but the same
> phenomena
> > observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no
> one
> > behind or within the effort--just the rise and
> fall of
> > conditioned naama and ruupa.  Does this make any
> sense
> > to you in this context?
> 
> It makes sense, but I don't think that the series of
> co-arising events proves that
> there is no intervention by the forces of effort,
> energy, or discernment,
> mindfulness.  It may be that when these forces are
> awakened they cause changes
> that are greater than the forces that originally
> conditioned them.  I take it,
> however, that this would not be a very popular
> view......

I really don't know, and am not particularly
interested in popular opinion.

It's been nice chatting with you, Robert,

mike

> > > Very interesting and should stimulate an
> interesting
> > > discussion.
> > 
> > I agree!  
> > 
> > > Best,
> > > Robert Ep.
> > 
> > And the best to you, sir,
> > 
> > mike
> 
> You know, even without a self, it's always enjoyable
> to talk to you.  Doesn't
> really matter whether we agree or disagree either. 
> Thanks for the dialogue.
> 
> Robert Ep.
> 
> 



 
8501 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 7:57am
Subject: Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't 
understand or have the
> answer to a question, that that means there is no answer.  Is the 
entire universe
> nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses?  I doubt 
it.  But it is
> the manifestation of something.  Why do cittas arise?  They are 
dependently
> arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only 
arise in sentient
> beings.  If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated 
coincidence that we
> have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs 
mistaking their
> mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with 
the body and
> mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do.
_______________________
 Dear Robert Ep.,
Could you show me where you got the idea that I thought anything 
happens by chance?
robert
> ==============
> 





 
8502 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:07am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 10/9/01 2:15:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert E writes:


> 
> --- Howard wrote:
> > Hi, Kenneth -
> > 
> > In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > Kenneth Ong writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to
> > > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most
> > > impt).  
> > > 
> > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana
> > > doctrines.  In Mahayanas, all origination of
> > > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts.  
> > > 
> > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or
> > > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or
> > > right view.  The other day I remember I say that
> > > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is
> > > miscontrue,  our view of self is incorrect.
> > > 
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        Okay. We differ on that.
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > 
> > > 
> > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada
> > > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana.  It is a
> > > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking.  Because it
> > > seems to me that when there is no more  cittas or rupa
> > > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. 
> > > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to
> > > Buddhist Middle Path.  I more incline to believe that
> > > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or
> > > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence
> > > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest.
> > > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description 
> of 
> > the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate 
> objects 
> > are discernable (though "seen through").
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> >    Buddha never
> > > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it
> > > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in
> > > us.
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it 
> does 
> > not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and 
> nibbana 
> > is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of 
> existing 
> > at all times. 
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >    That is why i said before, we could not obtain
> > > things that is inherent in us.
> > > 
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind 
> towards 
> > substantialism and eternalism.
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas
> > > as it suppose to function because this is citta
> > > inherent nature.  This nature of citta can never be
> > > destroyed or eradicated.
> > > 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and 
> eternalism. 
> > It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which 
> is 
> > the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". 
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >    Take for example, our nature
> > > of seeing.  The right condition (i think need about 40
> > > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. 
> > > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see,
> > > we could see in our dreams.  Hence bodies can slowly
> > > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That
> > > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as
> > > they suppose to function because they can never die or
> > > be eradicated.  That is why cittas could determine our
> > > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to
> > > do that.  Even though these cittas are temporal but
> > > they never dies.  They just come and go to perform
> > > their inherent function.  
> > > 
> > > But where does this inherent function comes from. 
> > > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few
> > > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is my point of view deriving from the
> > > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Kind regards
> > > kenneth Ong
> > > 
> > ==========================
> >        Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the 
> sutras 
> > which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy 
> > transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses 
> a 
> > substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to 
> Buddhism, 
> > proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed 
> in 
> > the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of 
> > Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna).
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> 
> Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-].  We really do have a lot 
> in
> common, Howard.  I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly 
> affected by
> Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta.  I find Buddhism to speak more precisely 
> and
> less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins'
> understanding.
---------------------------------------
Howard:
       Interesting similarities, indeed, Robert. The difference is that my 
experience with Vedanta was only book learning.
---------------------------------------

> 
> I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but 
> what
> about the tendency going the other way to fall into 
> nihilism-annihilationism?
> 
----------------------------------------
Howard:
       A pitfall equally serious, but less common.
----------------------------------------
   The
> argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not 
> wrong,
> but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me.
---------------------------------------
Howard:
       Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and if 
parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an annihilation as 
far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a nibbana is 
an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of craving for 
being.
--------------------------------------
> 
> There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a 
> being'. 
> Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the 
> Universe other
> than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why 
> cittas
> would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there 
> was not
> some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible.  
> Cittas
> can't arise from nowhere.  There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of
> themselves that should make sentience possible.  So how is it explained?  
> There
> must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be 
> merely a
> human source.
------------------------------------------
Howard:
       First of all, I am not "sold" on the Abhidhammic notion of discrete 
acts of discernment. This may, indeed, be the way things actually work, but I 
just don't see that in the Sutta Pitaka, and I think the notion is 
problematical. The problem, however, may be mine and not the theory. 
       But in any case, I see vi~n~nana (or discernment of objects) as a 
function which operates within a field of awareness. For example, a moment of 
adverting consciousness, which turns towards an object, is an early stage in 
the discerning of an object. In some sense, that object must already be 
available for separating out. The field of awareness, a field of 
potentiality, in a quantum-mechanical sense, from which objects of 
discernment are "carved" out must be presumed, I think. What is discernable 
depends on what has already been discerned and on current conditions.
--------------------------------------------------
   > to 
> ask, but I must  
   > 
> root question of why we are here in the first place.
> There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans 
> can
> readily perceive.  We are certainly not responsible for it.
> 
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I think we contribute to it. The world of samsaric experience is an 
ongoing construct, I think, of the kamma of masses of sentient beings from 
the very no-beginning of time.
------------------------------------------------
   It makes more sense
> to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake 
> in
> some ways of its properties.  It is very possible that beyond the illusion 
> of
> individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and 
> interesting,
> which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and 
> would
> only use to create new thought-forms.  The 'luminous mind defiled by 
> incoming
> defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful 
> lot of
> promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current 
> deluded
> life.
> 
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       I think that the Avatamsaka Sutra (the Garland Sutra) may give some 
insight into the nature of nibbana, there being no separate objects, but 
there certainly *not* being nothing at all.
------------------------------------------------------ 
   I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly
> appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax.  Even when the
> translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both
> luminous and defiled at the same time.  It never mentioned two separate 
> minds
> [cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled.  It is hard not 
> to see a
> stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of 
> this
> statement.
> 
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
       That's as I see it.
----------------------------------------------

> 
> To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, 
> in a
> Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me.  To see an
> eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness 
> is not
> the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul.
> 
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Yes. (Although I am wary about the term 'eternal'.)
----------------------------------------------

> 
> Robert
> 
======================
With metta,
Howard


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
            
                                         



 
8503 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 0:18pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Howard,

Thanks for the explanation and I enjoy discussing abt
this.  It has been a long time, I have a good debate
on Mahayana doctrines and I love it when I have a
chance.  thanks for this opportunity

Let me use the fleeting word in Daimond Sutra.  Lets
us take for eg a human life of as a fleeting event.  
When we dies, only our body dies, but we take up
another form.  Hence nothing dies, it just changes. 

Howard, when Buddha said it is a fleeting world, it
means all things keep changing, all things are
conditioned but Buddha never say all things are
destroyed or thats the end of it.

When we say when light comes to a dark room, darkness
dissapper.  Does darkness die.  No it does not it just
disappear but it would reappear once lightness
dissappear.  If it dies, it would not reappear when
lightness dissappear.  All things never dies it just
changes form. Hence there is an inherent nature just
like what I say about the nature of seeing. This is
not an eternalism view, this is a fact about reality.

When you talk abt emptiness,  is not emptiness also an
eternalist view.  Buddha talks abt emptiness it is
beyond dualism or oneness. It is inconceivable (sad to
say).  It is beyond words as words are condition hence
cannot describe fully the meaning of emptiness.  As
such, isn't emptiness also an eternalism (ultimate)
concept for Mahayana, which is similiar to PariNibbana
that is the ultamite concept for Thervada.  Aren't all
these eternalism concepts?

The reason about Buddha never talks abt origination of
such inherent nature because there will be no end to
such questions.  Assuming that he said that there is
such origination, then we would ask what is the
originator of such origination.  In the Bible they say
that God is the Creator, so we would ask who create
God, then if we know who create God, we would ask who
is the creator of the creator of God.  It will never
ends.


There is no orgination because it is just there.  All
inherent nature is there.  It is very hard to shallow
but it is there.  It is like we part of a cycle just
that Buddha is a neutral.  He is able to get out of
the cycle and watch neutrally but he is not totally
out of existence.  He is just there and beyond any
changes as he is one with reality.  How come like
that, I also dont know.  What is this reality, how
does this reality come abt, I also do not and Buddha
does not explain or refuse to explain. (Maybe one day
when I meet him, I really going to have a very long
chat with him :))  Inherent nature is not eternalism,
it is reality.



Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong


 
 
8504 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:49pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Howard,
I think we're basically in the same place about this.  I may tend towards more
'eternalist' tendencies than you at times, which I'm happy to have chopped down. 
But your description of the 'quantum field of consciousness', a field of
possibilities, makes a lot of sense to me.

I am glad you also feel that total cessation as a goal, with nothing remaining
would be annihilationist and would be equal to the mundane relief of death.  Only
because I appreciate the company I guess.

Anyway, I appreciate your replies here, with which I accord.

As to my use of the word 'eternal', I used it mainly to counterpose eternal
'process' to eternal 'self' or 'soul'.  But it is a flowery word, and one that
isn't necessary.  An 'ongoing process or presence' is fine with me.  

Perhaps I should look at the Avatamsaka Sutra sometime.

Robert

===================================


--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
> In a message dated 10/9/01 2:15:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert E writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > --- Howard wrote:
> > > Hi, Kenneth -
> > > 
> > > In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > > Kenneth Ong writes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to
> > > > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most
> > > > impt).  
> > > > 
> > > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana
> > > > doctrines.  In Mahayanas, all origination of
> > > > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts.  
> > > > 
> > > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or
> > > > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or
> > > > right view.  The other day I remember I say that
> > > > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is
> > > > miscontrue,  our view of self is incorrect.
> > > > 
> > > -----------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        Okay. We differ on that.
> > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada
> > > > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana.  It is a
> > > > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking.  Because it
> > > > seems to me that when there is no more  cittas or rupa
> > > > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. 
> > > > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to
> > > > Buddhist Middle Path.  I more incline to believe that
> > > > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or
> > > > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence
> > > > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest.
> > > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description 
> > of 
> > > the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate 
> > objects 
> > > are discernable (though "seen through").
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > >    Buddha never
> > > > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it
> > > > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in
> > > > us.
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it 
> > does 
> > > not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and 
> > nibbana 
> > > is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of 
> > existing 
> > > at all times. 
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >    That is why i said before, we could not obtain
> > > > things that is inherent in us.
> > > > 
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind 
> > towards 
> > > substantialism and eternalism.
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas
> > > > as it suppose to function because this is citta
> > > > inherent nature.  This nature of citta can never be
> > > > destroyed or eradicated.
> > > > 
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and 
> > eternalism. 
> > > It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which 
> > is 
> > > the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". 
> > > --------------------------------------------------
> > >    Take for example, our nature
> > > > of seeing.  The right condition (i think need about 40
> > > > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. 
> > > > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see,
> > > > we could see in our dreams.  Hence bodies can slowly
> > > > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That
> > > > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as
> > > > they suppose to function because they can never die or
> > > > be eradicated.  That is why cittas could determine our
> > > > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to
> > > > do that.  Even though these cittas are temporal but
> > > > they never dies.  They just come and go to perform
> > > > their inherent function.  
> > > > 
> > > > But where does this inherent function comes from. 
> > > > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few
> > > > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > This is my point of view deriving from the
> > > > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana).
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Kind regards
> > > > kenneth Ong
> > > > 
> > > ==========================
> > >        Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the 
> > sutras 
> > > which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy 
> > > transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses 
> > a 
> > > substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to 
> > Buddhism, 
> > > proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed 
> > in 
> > > the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of 
> > > Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna).
> > > 
> > > With metta,
> > > Howard
> > 
> > Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-].  We really do have a lot 
> > in
> > common, Howard.  I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly 
> > affected by
> > Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta.  I find Buddhism to speak more precisely 
> > and
> > less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins'
> > understanding.
> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Interesting similarities, indeed, Robert. The difference is that my 
> experience with Vedanta was only book learning.
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but 
> > what
> > about the tendency going the other way to fall into 
> > nihilism-annihilationism?
> > 
> ----------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        A pitfall equally serious, but less common.
> ----------------------------------------
>    The
> > argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not 
> > wrong,
> > but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me.
> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and if 
> parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an annihilation as 
> far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a nibbana is 
> an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of craving for 
> being.
> --------------------------------------
> > 
> > There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a 
> > being'. 
> > Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the 
> > Universe other
> > than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why 
> > cittas
> > would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there 
> > was not
> > some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible.  
> > Cittas
> > can't arise from nowhere.  There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of
> > themselves that should make sentience possible.  So how is it explained?  
> > There
> > must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be 
> > merely a
> > human source.
> ------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        First of all, I am not "sold" on the Abhidhammic notion of discrete 
> acts of discernment. This may, indeed, be the way things actually work, but I 
> just don't see that in the Sutta Pitaka, and I think the notion is 
> problematical. The problem, however, may be mine and not the theory. 
>        But in any case, I see vi~n~nana (or discernment of objects) as a 
> function which operates within a field of awareness. For example, a moment of 
> adverting consciousness, which turns towards an object, is an early stage in 
> the discerning of an object. In some sense, that object must already be 
> available for separating out. The field of awareness, a field of 
> potentiality, in a quantum-mechanical sense, from which objects of 
> discernment are "carved" out must be presumed, I think. What is discernable 
> depends on what has already been discerned and on current conditions.
> --------------------------------------------------
>    > to 
> > ask, but I must  
>    > 
> > root question of why we are here in the first place.
> > There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans 
> > can
> > readily perceive.  We are certainly not responsible for it.
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        I think we contribute to it. The world of samsaric experience is an 
> ongoing construct, I think, of the kamma of masses of sentient beings from 
> the very no-beginning of time.
> ------------------------------------------------
>    It makes more sense
> > to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake 
> > in
> > some ways of its properties.  It is very possible that beyond the illusion 
> > of
> > individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and 
> > interesting,
> > which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and 
> > would
> > only use to create new thought-forms.  The 'luminous mind defiled by 
> > incoming
> > defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful 
> > lot of
> > promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current 
> > deluded
> > life.
> > 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        I think that the Avatamsaka Sutra (the Garland Sutra) may give some 
> insight into the nature of nibbana, there being no separate objects, but 
> there certainly *not* being nothing at all.
> ------------------------------------------------------ 
>    I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly
> > appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax.  Even when the
> > translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both
> > luminous and defiled at the same time.  It never mentioned two separate 
> > minds
> > [cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled.  It is hard not 
> > to see a
> > stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of 
> > this
> > statement.
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        That's as I see it.
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, 
> > in a
> > Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me.  To see an
> > eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness 
> > is not
> > the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul.
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Yes. (Although I am wary about the term 'eternal'.)
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> > 
> > Robert
> > 
> ======================
> With metta,
> Howard
> 
> 
> /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
> in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
> phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)                    
>             



 
8505 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:03pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> > Dear Robert,
> > I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't 
> understand or have the
> > answer to a question, that that means there is no answer.  Is the 
> entire universe
> > nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses?  I doubt 
> it.  But it is
> > the manifestation of something.  Why do cittas arise?  They are 
> dependently
> > arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only 
> arise in sentient
> > beings.  If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated 
> coincidence that we
> > have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs 
> mistaking their
> > mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with 
> the body and
> > mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do.
> _______________________
>  Dear Robert Ep.,
> Could you show me where you got the idea that I thought anything 
> happens by chance?
> robert
> > ==============

I was ruminating about how the human species is so meticulously designed, and that
I didn't see how this could arise from a series of essentially meaningless and
disconnected cittas. This is what I meant by 'chance'.  However, it was my own
conclusion and I wasn't trying to imply that you ever said such a thing.  Sorry if
that was not clear.  It's why I said 'one' and not 'you'.

Robert Ep.

============= 

> > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> > > ---
> > > Dear kenneth,
> > > I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation 
> and 
> > > origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about 
> > > conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then 
> > > questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens 
> to an 
> > > arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for 
> > > doubt. 
> > > The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is 
> no 
> > > self, only different phenomena conditioning and being 
> conditioned. To 
> > > the degree that this is understood  questions such as those above 
> > > naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts 
> say 
> > > all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to 
> this 
> > > paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha
> (craving) 
> > > and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. 
> > > robert
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   Kenneth Ong 



 
8506 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 3:35pm
Subject: Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  ---  Robert Epstein  wrote:
> 
> --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> > ---  Robert Epstein  
wrote:
> > > Dear Robert,
> > > I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't 
> > understand or have the
> > > answer to a question, that that means there is no answer.  Is 
the 
> > entire universe
> > > nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses?  I 
doubt 
> > it.  But it is
> > > the manifestation of something.  Why do cittas arise?  They are 
> > dependently
> > > arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they 
only 
> > arise in sentient
> > > beings.  If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated 
> > coincidence that we
> > > have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs 
> > mistaking their
> > > mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas 
with 
> > the body and
> > > mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do.
> > _______________________
> Dear Robert Ep.,
I think questions such as these are not neccesarily profitable to 
occupy ourselves with. Time is running out, soon we will die, and our 
head is on fire with  tanha(craving)and ignorance about dhammas. 
Why do cittas arise you ask? As has been explained in this forum they 
arise by conditions - see the 24paccaya that I referred you to, or 
the paticcasamupada (dependent origination). I am happy to write more 
about this. But perhaps you mean when did the original citta arise? 
That is not revealed: 
    (from the samyutta nikaya, ii, 178) The world without end is this 
round of birth and death.  No beginning can be seen of those beings 
hindered by ignorance, bound by craving running through the round of 
birth and death.  Just as if a man should chop up all of the straws, 
boughs, twigs and leaves in India and piling them together should lay 
them in a heap, square by square, saying: `This is my mother, this is 
the mother of that mother of mine', -still unsupplied would be the 
mother's of that man. Nay, to supply them all, the straw, boughs, 
twigs and leaves in this India would come to an end and be used up, 
ere this were done. "ENDQUOTE)
Again why should it be this way? Why should cittas condition other 
cittas is simply not answered. why are the lwas of nature the way 
they are? No answer. The thing is they are the way they are - and our 
job is to uncover them; not to find out why it is this way. Trying to 
figure out that is like the man who was shot with an arrow asking the 
doctor who shot the arrow, what it is made of, where it came 
from..The man might die before he gets all his answers. The Buddha is 
the doctor who can heal - his job is not to tell us about other 
things.
Nevertheless we can glean a few things about the wider universe from 
the texts. Citta is not the only conditioning factor. There is 
sometimes mentioned 5factors called niyama which are a sort of cosmic 
classification of things.
utu-niyama: the caloric order 
bija-niyama: the germinal order 
kamma-niyama: the moral order 
citta-niyama: the psychical order 
dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence 
You can read more at:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledinyma.htm#5foldniyama
robert

 
8507 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Mike

--- "m. nease"  wrote: > 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.

Just a brief comment, if I may.  If by friendliness we mean metta here, I
think the friendliness is towards (not with) the other person.  It means
actually wishing the other person well, which is a fairly straightforward
concept, whereas the term 'friendliness' in English carries other
connotations too.  There's no English expression I can think of that is
really a good translation for 'metta'.

So there can be 'friendliness' towards even one's worst enemy, but only if
metta has been sufficiently developed.

Metta towards those we come into contact with during the day can and does
arise naturally, spontaneously, even though more often there is likely to
be either lobha or dosa.  Awareness of these different realities as they
occur naturally and spontaneously in our daily life is the first step in
the development of metta, I believe.

Jon



 
8508 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS)

 
  Rob Ep,

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> 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?

This is a good question and an important one.  As might be expected, the
Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject.  Basically, the
advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas.  This advice should
not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained
everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara.  From
Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html)

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that what he
says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor with
scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the
sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify
them by the Discipline.
If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the
Discipline, one must conclude thus:
'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been
misunderstood by that bhikkhu.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject
it.
But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and
verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus:
'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well
understood by that bhikkhu." [ends]

> We have to trust our 'good friend' to have access to
> the original view, since we can't verify it ourselves.

It's not, I believe, a matter of trusting the 'good friend'.  That would
not be a safe approach, for reasons that I think must be obvious.

> 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.

It is of course neither simple nor easy to verify whether what someone
proclaims to be the teaching is indeed to be found in the Tipitaka, and it
may also take a long time.  Some of the questions we might ask ourselves
could include the following: 

- Does the person acknowledge the importance of understanding being in
accordance with the teachings as found in the Tipitaka, or does he/she
suggest that what is in the Tipitaka is not the whole teaching anyway?
- Do they encourage us to read and study the Tipitaka for ourselves, or do
they say, for example, that certain sections of the Tipitaka are of little
or no use?
- Do they encourage questions and discussion on the teachings, or do they
take the approach that discussion and inquiry into the teachings is of
little use or practical benefit?
- Are they able to give references to support what they have said, or do
they say that it may not be found in the Tipitaka or commentaries but it
amounts to the same thing?

> 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?

For the reasons given above, I think the 2 are quite different.

> 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?

I'm not familiar with any passage that refers to people reaching Nibbana
at an ever-increasing rate as time goes on.  In fact, my understanding is
that the opposite is said.

> 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....?

The understanding diminishes first, I believe, and with lack of
appreciation in the texts (because of the increase of wrong view), the
texts themselves are gradually lost or become corrupted (parts of the
commentaries have already been lost).

> > 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.

I'm sure there's some truth in what you say, Rob, but unless I've misread
you it doesn't address my request -- could you give examples of instances
where you consider the teachings to be not whole and complete and needing
to be supplemented by one's own understanding.

> 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??    <g>         :]

No need to brace yourself this time.  I'm trying to keep detail to a
minimum and get up-to-date before I leave, so you're being let off
lightly!

Jon




 
8509 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:27pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...

 
  Ken O

--- KennethOng  wrote: > 
> 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)

I think your point is that all realities should be known, not just one's
we see as being 'problem' ones (or 'good' ones), and I would agree with
this.  'All realities' of course includes rupas, too -- they are as
equally to be known as namas.


> "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)

I agree with what you say about the difference between prompted and
unprompted kusala.  I also agree that kusala 'needs' prompting, in the
sense that it is so weak in us.  

But the idea that we can prompt kusala by 'determined effort to have
kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the Buddha.  The Buddha
clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning factors for the arising
of kusala and the development of understanding, and they do not include
so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding).

Jon





 
8510 From: Herman 
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:46pm
Subject: Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS)

 
  John,

The Discourses mentioned in your reply to Robert Ep, to be used in 
the vetting of what people tell you, which Discourses are they? I am 
assuming that the Tipitaka did not exist when the event described in 
this Sutta took place. 

Thanks in advance

Herman



---  Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Rob Ep,
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> > 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?
> 
> This is a good question and an important one.  As might be 
expected, the
> Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject.  
Basically, the
> advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas.  This advice 
should
> not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained
> everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara.  
From
> Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta
> (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html)
> 
> "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that 
what he
> says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor 
with
> scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying 
the
> sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and 
verify
> them by the Discipline.

 
8511 From: Howard 
Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 4:35pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Ken -

       In the following you have articulated your position very well. It is a 
fine position, time honored and world honored, but, in my opinion, while that 
position does, indeed, represent a current within Mahayana, it is just one 
such current, and is one which, as I see it, is not really Buddhadhamma. I 
could go on to reiterate why I think it is not, but that would just be 
repetitive of ideas expressed in previous posts of mine. 
       I think that there are backwaters of eternalism and substantialism (as 
well as nihilism) to be found within all the main branches of Buddhism, but 
these backwaters diverge from the central Dhammic stream, being closer to 
Vedanta than to Buddhadhamma. This is simply the way I see it. I have no 
doubt that you strongly disagree. Well, these are just opinions, on each of 
our parts. When our practice takes us far enough, then we will really know. 
Until then, I wish you, and me, and all of us a good path-faring.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 10/10/01 12:20:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> Thanks for the explanation and I enjoy discussing abt
> this.  It has been a long time, I have a good debate
> on Mahayana doctrines and I love it when I have a
> chance.  thanks for this opportunity
> 
> Let me use the fleeting word in Daimond Sutra.  Lets
> us take for eg a human life of as a fleeting event.  
> When we dies, only our body dies, but we take up
> another form.  Hence nothing dies, it just changes. 
> 
> Howard, when Buddha said it is a fleeting world, it
> means all things keep changing, all things are
> conditioned but Buddha never say all things are
> destroyed or thats the end of it.
> 
> When we say when light comes to a dark room, darkness
> dissapper.  Does darkness die.  No it does not it just
> disappear but it would reappear once lightness
> dissappear.  If it dies, it would not reappear when
> lightness dissappear.  All things never dies it just
> changes form. Hence there is an inherent nature just
> like what I say about the nature of seeing. This is
> not an eternalism view, this is a fact about reality.
> 
> When you talk abt emptiness,  is not emptiness also an
> eternalist view.  Buddha talks abt emptiness it is
> beyond dualism or oneness. It is inconceivable (sad to
> say).  It is beyond words as words are condition hence
> cannot describe fully the meaning of emptiness.  As
> such, isn't emptiness also an eternalism (ultimate)
> concept for Mahayana, which is similiar to PariNibbana
> that is the ultamite concept for Thervada.  Aren't all
> these eternalism concepts?
> 
> The reason about Buddha never talks abt origination of
> such inherent nature because there will be no end to
> such questions.  Assuming that he said that there is
> such origination, then we would ask what is the
> originator of such origination.  In the Bible they say
> that God is the Creator, so we would ask who create
> God, then if we know who create God, we would ask who
> is the creator of the creator of God.  It will never
> ends.
> 
> 
> There is no orgination because it is just there.  All
> inherent nature is there.  It is very hard to shallow
> but it is there.  It is like we part of a cycle just
> that Buddha is a neutral.  He is able to get out of
> the cycle and watch neutrally but he is not totally
> out of existence.  He is just there and beyond any
> changes as he is one with reality.  How come like
> that, I also dont know.  What is this reality, how
> does this reality come abt, I also do not and Buddha
> does not explain or refuse to explain. (Maybe one day
> when I meet him, I really going to have a very long
> chat with him :))  Inherent nature is not eternalism,
> it is reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 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)                    
            
                                         



 
8512 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 0:31am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...

 
  Hi Jon

" But the idea that we can prompt kusala by
 'determined effort to have
 kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the
 Buddha.  The Buddha
 clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning
 factors for the arising
 of kusala and the development of understanding, and
 they do not include
 so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding)."
 
But I thought there should be some kind of deliberate
effort.  Take for eg, letting a seat in a public to
another person.  It takes a lot of my deliberate
effort to let the seat due to my fear of embrassment
if that the person not willing to accept the seat. I
believe there should be some kind of deliberate effort
for our practise.  What do you think?  How do we
develop kusala without such "determined effort".  

Kind regards
Kenneth Ong


 
8513 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:20am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hi, Ken,

Sorry for the late reply!

--- Ken Howard wrote:
> Mike
> You are way ahead of me in this Dhamma-study
> business, so the
> following is not presumed to be telling you anything
> that is, in the
> least bit, new to you.  I'm just verbalising my
> shaky understanding
> and proving to Sarah that I'm still awake.

I have a feeling 'your' understanding is 'way ahead of
'mine'.  Trust me, Ken, I'm so new to this stuff that
I probably should just be listening and not even
talking about it.  There are teachers here, but I am
truly just a learner (that's on a GOOD day).

> 
> You wrote:
> "I do understand and agree. There are instances in
> the
> Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly
> encourages
> effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
> recently, e.g. 
> 
> "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts
> --
> connected with desire, aversion, or delusion --
> arise
> in a monk while he is referring to and attending to
> a
> particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
> apart from that one, connected with what is
> skillful.
> When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
> that one, connected with what is skillful, then
> those
> evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
> aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
> With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
> within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates
> it." <end quote>
> 
> 
> My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered
> and taught
> the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the
> absolutely real way,
> not the conventionally real way.  When he describes
> conventional
> wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta
> dhammas.  Even if
> he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we
> shouldn't think
> for a moment that the conventional meaning of those
> conventional
> terms, forms a part of the Dhamma.  
> 
> Is that the way you see it?

Not sure.  In some suttas the Buddha gives advice to
laypeople, for example, about how to handle their
money--or in the vinaya, to bhikkhus about brushing
their teeth.  This is pretty practical, conventional
stuff, but I do see it as a part of the Dhamma.

> While I'm at it; You also wrote:
> 
> "If 'one' can strive for mere morality,
> jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one'
> to
> strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of
> ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one'
> discarded
> as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the
> abhidhamma floors?"<end quote>
> 
> I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego
> I perceive that
> which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred
> to in Robert
> K's message # 8019. (?)
> 

Ken, this really was a kind of crackpot simile.  I
disown it!  However I wasn't thinking of ego, but of a
way of looking at the teachings.  Personally I think
that the more analytical and refined, the more
accurate the conceptual understanding--this I think of
as abhidhamma--not satipatthaana, needless to say.  

Great to hear from you Ken.  Post more!

mike


 
8514 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 6:33am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Kenneth,

Please forgive the slow response.

--- KennethOng  wrote:
> 
>  Dear Mike and Robert Ep,
> "So that using the term "luminous mind" can
> easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in
> our Western culture, still
> haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into
> equating it with an immortal soul,
> thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory
> conception of "self." "
> Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this
> word self.  I think the problem is the definition of
> self.  Buddha never rejects self, it only says the
> self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the five
> aggregates.  In fact all beings in the six realms,
> form by at least one of the five aggregates.  Hence
> I think that why they could be also known as
> ultimate condition in Abidharma.  
> The word realizing Nibbana already means there is
> something to grasp, to hold on (technically
> speaking).    

Not sure if I understood you correctly here, but
Nibbaana, as I understand it, is simply the cessation
of dukkha.  Nothing to grasp or hold onto there.

> Nibbana could be equate to word like
> "god" or "soul"  because it is the ultimate reality
> of Buddism in Thervada terms.  

This sounds something like the Hindu Atman to me--but
nothing like Nibbaana.  From a Theravada viewpoint I
don't think it can be equated with 'god' or 'soul' in
any way.  Also it is only one of the four 'ultimate
realities'--citta, cetasika, ruupa, nibbaana.

> Hence Nibbana is
> utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain.

I don't believe there is any parallel here.
 
> Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists.

Not from the Theravada perspective, as I understand
it.

> We should not be afraid of words like immortal soul
> or self.  

Fear itself is a kind of akusala and never a good
thing.  However it is good to see danger in wrong
views, such as the various kinds of self view
(including 'I have no self', among many others).

> Because Buddha never rejects self, he only
> says this self is not as what we see.  

This does not concur with my reading of the Pali
Canon.

> There is more
> than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he would
> be in the extreme left view. 
> Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be
> misleading because it is a rightist view as it is
> the ultimate reality of Abidharma. 

I don't see it as left, right or center--just the
Theravada, which is quite different from the Mahayana.

> Sorry no offence
> here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of
> Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements.

I do understand this concept.  As I understand it, it
is alien to the Theravada.

> This definition does not cling to left or right
> views.

No offence taken and none intended.  Thanks for
helping to define our differences.
 
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong

To you too, sir,

mike




 
8515 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 9:04am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Mike,

Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman.  But the
difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman
is unconditional.  At first I also believe that
Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain
facts are there and they  are talking abt eternalism. 
You could see this in the post between me and Howard. 
Why are we so afraid of eternalism?  Why are we so
afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman?  Isn't Buddha
enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman?  Isn't this the
ultimate reality?  To me there is no need to be afraid
of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and if
we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing to
be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just like
that.  I always believe we must be open to ideas even
those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism.  Only
through such investigation, then we could anchor our
believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock
conviction.   

 
Kind regards
Kenneth Ong





 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Dear
Kenneth,
> 
> Please forgive the slow response.
> 
> --- KennethOng  wrote:
> > 
> >  Dear Mike and Robert Ep,
> > "So that using the term "luminous mind" can
> > easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in
> > our Western culture, still
> > haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into
> > equating it with an immortal soul,
> > thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory
> > conception of "self." "
> > Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this
> > word self.  I think the problem is the definition
> of
> > self.  Buddha never rejects self, it only says the
> > self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the
> five
> > aggregates.  In fact all beings in the six realms,
> > form by at least one of the five aggregates. 
> Hence
> > I think that why they could be also known as
> > ultimate condition in Abidharma.  
> > The word realizing Nibbana already means there is
> > something to grasp, to hold on (technically
> > speaking).    
> 
> Not sure if I understood you correctly here, but
> Nibbaana, as I understand it, is simply the
> cessation
> of dukkha.  Nothing to grasp or hold onto there.
> 
> > Nibbana could be equate to word like
> > "god" or "soul"  because it is the ultimate
> reality
> > of Buddism in Thervada terms.  
> 
> This sounds something like the Hindu Atman to
> me--but
> nothing like Nibbaana.  From a Theravada viewpoint I
> don't think it can be equated with 'god' or 'soul'
> in
> any way.  Also it is only one of the four 'ultimate
> realities'--citta, cetasika, ruupa, nibbaana.
> 
> > Hence Nibbana is
> > utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain.
> 
> I don't believe there is any parallel here.
>  
> > Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists.
> 
> Not from the Theravada perspective, as I understand
> it.
> 
> > We should not be afraid of words like immortal
> soul
> > or self.  
> 
> Fear itself is a kind of akusala and never a good
> thing.  However it is good to see danger in wrong
> views, such as the various kinds of self view
> (including 'I have no self', among many others).
> 
> > Because Buddha never rejects self, he only
> > says this self is not as what we see.  
> 
> This does not concur with my reading of the Pali
> Canon.
> 
> > There is more
> > than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he
> would
> > be in the extreme left view. 
> > Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be
> > misleading because it is a rightist view as it is
> > the ultimate reality of Abidharma. 
> 
> I don't see it as left, right or center--just the
> Theravada, which is quite different from the
> Mahayana.
> 
> > Sorry no offence
> > here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of
> > Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements.
> 
> I do understand this concept.  As I understand it,
> it
> is alien to the Theravada.
> 
> > This definition does not cling to left or right
> > views.
> 
> No offence taken and none intended.  Thanks for
> helping to define our differences.
>  
> > Kind regards
> > Kenneth Ong
> 
> To you too, sir,
> 
> mike
> 


 
8516 From: m. nease   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 10:08am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Kenneth, 

Beautiful post, thanks.

--- Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman.  

I think not.  True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I
think not for our poor little lesser vehicle.

> But the
> difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman
> is unconditional.  

Isn't Atman also described as being beyond conditions?

> At first I also believe that
> Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain
> facts are there and they  are talking abt
> eternalism.

I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of the
Theravada.  Of course, I am no authority on either of
these subjects, and could well be wrong.  These are
just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means
ANYONE's teacher.
 
> You could see this in the post between me and
> Howard. 
> Why are we so afraid of eternalism?  Why are we so
> afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman?  Isn't Buddha
> enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman?  Isn't this the
> ultimate reality?  To me there is no need to be
> afraid
> of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and
> if
> we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing
> to
> be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just
> like
> that.  I always believe we must be open to ideas
> even
> those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism.  Only
> through such investigation, then we could anchor our
> believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock
> conviction.   

I have no belief in Buddhism at all.  'Buddhism' means
millions of things to millions of different people. 
My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali canon
is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha (the
real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his
human lifetime.  I have yet to find anything that
rocks that foundation.

Again, no offense!  And always great to talk to you,
Kenneth.

mike
 


 
8517 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 5:19pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Hi Mike

It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy
talking to every one in the list.  I learn from you
and pple here even though our views are different.  It
is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple
here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most
importantly practise the right speech.  In fact,
Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me
to read.  I am touch. The pple here are sincere and
they wish to share Buddhism with me.  This is the
first time in my life that I experience the spirit of
a Buddhist community.

Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a bit
too tilted but i just like to take out this idea that
is in my mind.  Hmm, I would refrain from discussing
such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue.

Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call me
pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher
here.  I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great and
actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise
than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist).  I
learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers.




Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong

 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Kenneth, 
> 
> Beautiful post, thanks.
> 
> --- Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> > Mike,
> > 
> > Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman.  
> 
> I think not.  True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I
> think not for our poor little lesser vehicle.
> 
> > But the
> > difference between us and Hinduism is that our
> Atman
> > is unconditional.  
> 
> Isn't Atman also described as being beyond
> conditions?
> 
> > At first I also believe that
> > Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain
> > facts are there and they  are talking abt
> > eternalism.
> 
> I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of
> the
> Theravada.  Of course, I am no authority on either
> of
> these subjects, and could well be wrong.  These are
> just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means
> ANYONE's teacher.
>  
> > You could see this in the post between me and
> > Howard. 
> > Why are we so afraid of eternalism?  Why are we so
> > afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman?  Isn't Buddha
> > enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman?  Isn't this
> the
> > ultimate reality?  To me there is no need to be
> > afraid
> > of such concepts as they are just mere concepts
> and
> > if
> > we use the principle of emptiness, there is
> nothing
> > to
> > be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just
> > like
> > that.  I always believe we must be open to ideas
> > even
> > those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism. 
> Only
> > through such investigation, then we could anchor
> our
> > believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock
> > conviction.   
> 
> I have no belief in Buddhism at all.  'Buddhism'
> means
> millions of things to millions of different people. 
> My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali
> canon
> is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha
> (the
> real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his
> human lifetime.  I have yet to find anything that
> rocks that foundation.
> 
> Again, no offense!  And always great to talk to you,
> Kenneth.
> 
> mike


 
8518 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 4:38am
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Kenneth,

I would like to support your comments about the atmosphere of support 
and learning on this List.  I do not post often, but read most posts, 
and learn much.  After the turmoil elsewhere on another list, DSG is 
an oasis and refuge with its kind, well-mannered list-members, well-
versen in Dhamma.
Thank you all.
metta,
Christine

---  Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy
> talking to every one in the list.  I learn from you
> and pple here even though our views are different.  It
> is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple
> here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most
> importantly practise the right speech.  In fact,
> Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me
> to read.  I am touch. The pple here are sincere and
> they wish to share Buddhism with me.  This is the
> first time in my life that I experience the spirit of
> a Buddhist community.
> 
> Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a bit
> too tilted but i just like to take out this idea that
> is in my mind.  Hmm, I would refrain from discussing
> such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue.
> 
> Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call me
> pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher
> here.  I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great and
> actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise
> than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist).  I
> learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kindest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
>  --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Kenneth, 
> > 
> > Beautiful post, thanks.
> > 
 
8519 From: axtran 
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:05am
Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Mike,

   Good answers to good questions.  I enjoyed your posts.

Thanks,
AT

---  "m. nease"  wrote:
> Kenneth, 
> 
> Beautiful post, thanks.
> 
> --- Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> > Mike,
> > 
> > Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman.  
> 
> I think not.  True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I
> think not for our poor little lesser vehicle.
> 
> > But the
> > difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman
> > is unconditional.  
> 
> Isn't Atman also described as being beyond conditions?
> 
> > At first I also believe that
> > Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain
> > facts are there and they  are talking abt
> > eternalism.
> 
> I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of the
> Theravada.  Of course, I am no authority on either of
> these subjects, and could well be wrong.  These are
> just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means
> ANYONE's teacher.
>  
> > You could see this in the post between me and
> > Howard. 
> > Why are we so afraid of eternalism?  Why are we so
> > afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman?  Isn't Buddha
> > enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman?  Isn't this the
> > ultimate reality?  To me there is no need to be
> > afraid
> > of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and
> > if
> > we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing
> > to
> > be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just
> > like
> > that.  I always believe we must be open to ideas
> > even
> > those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism.  Only
> > through such investigation, then we could anchor our
> > believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock
> > conviction.   
> 
> I have no belief in Buddhism at all.  'Buddhism' means
> millions of things to millions of different people. 
> My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali canon
> is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha (the
> real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his
> human lifetime.  I have yet to find anything that
> rocks that foundation.
> 
> Again, no offense!  And always great to talk to you,
> Kenneth.
> 
> mike

 
8520 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:06am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Kenneth (and Christine),

--- Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Hi Mike
> 
> It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy
> talking to every one in the list.  I learn from you
> and pple here even though our views are different.

The pleasure is mutual, Kenneth.  It's always good to
hear from you and I really appreciate that we can
exchange differing views without arousing ill-will. 
This is fairly rare in my experience outside this
group.
 
> It
> is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple
> here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most
> importantly practise the right speech.  

I couldn't agree more.  Maybe careful consideration of
the Dhamma just naturally conditions careful speech.

> In fact,
> Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for
> me
> to read.  I am touch. 

So am I.  Sukin is a great friend to us all.

> The pple here are sincere and
> they wish to share Buddhism with me.  This is the
> first time in my life that I experience the spirit
> of
> a Buddhist community.

I'm really glad you've found us, Kenneth.  So
important to have good friends.

> Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a
> bit
> too tilted but i just like to take out this idea
> that
> is in my mind.  Hmm, I would refrain from discussing
> such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue.
> 
> Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call
> me
> pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher
> here.  

Good heavens Kenneth, I hardly even qualify as a
beginning student--certainly not as a teacher!  Thanks
for the compliment just the same.

> I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great
> and
> actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise
> than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist). 
> I
> learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers.

Yes, the more I study the Pali Canon the more
attached(!) I become to it (also and again, no offense
to the Mahayanists!).  Some danger in this of course. 
Still I'm really glad you've found merit in these
great teachings.

Cheers back at you, Kenneth,

mike


 
8521 From: Ken Howard 
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  ---  "m. nease"  wrote:
> Hi, Ken,


>  <snip>


. . . . . >> we
> > shouldn't think
> > for a moment that the conventional meaning of those
> > conventional
> > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma.  
> > 
> > Is that the way you see it?
> 
> Not sure.  In some suttas the Buddha gives advice to
> laypeople, for example, about how to handle their
> money--or in the vinaya, to bhikkhus about brushing
> their teeth.  This is pretty practical, conventional
> stuff, but I do see it as a part of the Dhamma.
> 
> 

Hello Mike

Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative message.  Just
as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over my head, so too
your views on the conventional advice given by the Buddha might
be too deep for my level of understanding.  However, it seems safe
to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did sometimes teach
conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your teeth").

Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to the teaching
of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no teeth and no cleaning
of teeth, that there is only the present, conditioned citta arising 
and immediately falling away?

I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances were,
essentially, well chosen conditions.  They were the conditions
which he knew had the best possible chance of combining with
other prevailing conditions in a way that would bring about some
moments of right understanding for his audience.  

Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or nothing.  I can't
see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way, moonlighting as a
teacher of conventional wisdom. 

I would respectfully suggest that your lingering inclination to see
courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might be a symptom of a
failure to see conditionality in absolutely everything -- a complaint
we all suffer from.  

Kind regards
Ken Howard

 
8522 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:59pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O

 
  --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:

> Nevertheless we can glean a few things about the wider universe from 
> the texts. Citta is not the only conditioning factor. There is 
> sometimes mentioned 5factors called niyama which are a sort of cosmic 
> classification of things.
> utu-niyama: the caloric order 
> bija-niyama: the germinal order 
> kamma-niyama: the moral order 
> citta-niyama: the psychical order 
> dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence 
> You can read more at:
> 
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledinyma.htm#5foldniyama
> robert

thanks.
I understand your answer and thanks for the link!

Robert Ep.



 
8523 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa..

 
  Hi Ken Howard

You said that
> My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered
and taught
> the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the
absolutely real way,
> not the conventionally real way.  When he describes
conventional
> wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta
dhammas.  Even if
> he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we
shouldn't think
> for a moment that the conventional meaning of those
conventional
> terms, forms a part of the Dhamma.  
> 
> Is that the way you see it?

I think we should think of the difference in terms of
beneficial and non-beneficial. I feel that to classify
under conventional and absolute is like "enshrining"
Buddha's teachings. 

To my understanding this "absolute" (mindfulness) has
to be practise in "conventional" (daily) life
activities, hence such classification might lead to
confusions.

For your comments please


Kindest Regards
Kenneth Ong



8524 From: Sarah   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:29pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard

 
  Dear Ken O,

 --- Kenneth Ong  wrote: > Hi Mike
> 
> It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy
> talking to every one in the list.  I learn from you
> and pple here even though our views are different.  It
> is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple
> here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most
> importantly practise the right speech.  In fact,
> Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me
> to read.  I am touch. The pple here are sincere and
> they wish to share Buddhism with me.  This is the
> first time in my life that I experience the spirit of
> a Buddhist community.

This is a really touching and special note and you also offer us a very fine
example of sincere and considerate speech, Ken. I'm very glad to hear of your
good experience.

I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech and other
excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these. 

Anumodana,
Sarah 



 
8525 From: Sarah   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 8:00pm
Subject: a bit of a rave to Christine

 
  Dear Christine,

 --- Christine Forsyth  wrote: > Dear Kenneth,
> 
> I would like to support your comments about the atmosphere of support 
> and learning on this List.  I do not post often, but read most posts, 
> and learn much.  After the turmoil elsewhere on another list, DSG is 
> an oasis and refuge with its kind, well-mannered list-members, well-
> versen in Dhamma.
> Thank you all.

In appreciation too, Christine..... you're one of the excellent examples and I
always appreciate your posts and look forward to hearing from you..(lots of
lobha;-)

We're in a little 'turmoil' here right now, having both just finished work and
needing to check everything is in order for Jon's trip to Bkk tomorrow (after
the morning in the office, Hong Kong style!) and then onto India on Sunday with
the group. 

There were meant to be about 150 people in the group, but I know that some have
had to cancel because of family concerns about safety. I really feel a  lot of
sympathy for these people and those of you who follow here, like Betty, please
share dhamma with us instead! I know Kom is already in Bkk and ready to go, but
haven't heard news of the others joining from the States. We never know what
will happen, no matter what plans we make......2 years ago Jon was the one who
had to cancel at the very last minute (for health reasons), so I'm really happy
at this stage that he's still going....

Best wishes,

Sarah

p.s  All- pls remember to 'cut' non-relevant posts and yahoo blurb from your
replies....many thanks.






 
8526 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 8:58pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hello, Ken,

Interesting!

--- Ken Howard wrote:

> Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative
> message.  Just
> as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over
> my head, so too
> your views on the conventional advice given by the
> Buddha might
> be too deep for my level of understanding.  However,
> it seems safe
> to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did
> sometimes teach
> conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your
> teeth").

Yes, that's what I was suggesting.

> Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to
> the teaching
> of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no
> teeth and no cleaning
> of teeth, that there is only the present,
> conditioned citta arising 
> and immediately falling away?

Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana is
'absolutely untrue'.  'All compounded phenomena are
subject to decay', e.g., is a conceptual statement.  I
wouldn't say, though, that it's absolutely untrue.

> I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances
> were,
> essentially, well chosen conditions.  They were the
> conditions
> which he knew had the best possible chance of
> combining with
> other prevailing conditions in a way that would
> bring about some
> moments of right understanding for his audience.  

Yes, I would agree with that.

> Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or
> nothing.  I can't
> see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way,
> moonlighting as a
> teacher of conventional wisdom. 

'Moonlighting' seems a strange way of putting it, of
course.  Certainly some of his audiences were capable
of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even of
being encouraged to direct insight), while others were
not.  To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya
suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to
them, leading in the right direction obviously.

> I would respectfully suggest that your lingering
> inclination to see
> courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might
> be a symptom of a
> failure to see conditionality in absolutely
> everything -- a complaint
> we all suffer from.  

Maybe so, maybe so!  I'll have to investigate this
carefully.  I'm out of time at the moment.  Would you
like some examples of expressions by the Buddha that I
take to be 'prescribed courses of action'?  By the
way, I wouldn't exactly call them 'prescribed'--he
more often simply explains that one course of action
will lead to bad results and that others will lead to
good results.

> Kind regards

Thanks for your consideration,

mike


 
8527 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:11pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Rob

--- Robert Epstein  wrote: 

> Dear Jon,
> I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct.
>  <g>   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.

Just to clarify, I believe I said the suttas were complete, but needed
elucidation in order to be understood by us.  I was referring to the
elucidation that is to be gained from a familiarity with and understanding
of all the suttas, of all the other parts of the Tipitaka (including the
Abhidhamma) and of the ancient commentaries, down to and including the
Visuddhimagga and the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  As regards the 2
last-mentioned, they claim to be, and are widely accepted as being,
compilations of the commentaries available in their time, and made without
the interpolation of the compiler's own views.

I am not able in the short time that remains to give detailed references
or quotes for the points you have raised, but I think you can find
references to these topics in the archive posts listed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.  I will
however try to give one or two relevant references in my comments that
follow.

> 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

I am not sure it is useful to talk in generalities like this, without
reference to particular passages from the suttas.  I am happy to discuss a
particular passage if you would like to mention one. 

But I certainly was not imputing any inaccuracy to the words in the
suttas.  I was alluding to the fact that what may be clear and meaningful
to those of highly developed understanding (ie. to the listeners in the
Buddha's time) would not necessarily be so to those of considerably less
understanding (ie. to us now).

> 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.

It depends on the sense in which you are using 'volitional' here.  I have
said quite a bit on this subject in other posts lately, so I'll spare
everyone the agony of going over the same ground again.  I am of course
happy to elaborate on any particular aspects.

The essential question in any case is, what was meant by the Buddha when
he used the particular term (in the instance you give above, 'strive').  I
seems to me naive, and perhaps even presumptuous, to assume that this
question can be answered purely by reference to our own experience in this
life to date.  After all, that would assume understanding that was on a
par with those listening to the Buddha when he gave the sutta in question.
 This is not an assumption I would rush to make in my own case (and for
obvious reasons, I can hear you say!).

Let me just say that in many parts of the texts and commentaries one can
find references to conventional terms used by the Buddha such as
intention, energy, etc that are explained in terms of mental factors
arising with a moment of consciousness and performing a function in the
context of that moment only.  I give one example in answer to your
question on right effort below.  This explains how the Requisites of
Enlightenment known as the four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa) are in
fact the single mental factor (cetasika) of energy.

> 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.

Here are 2 passages from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation and
commentary summary ('Guide') known as Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma--

VII, 30
"Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, right view
(sammaaditthi) is the cetasika of wisdom exercised in understanding the
Four Noble Truths.  Right intention (sammasmakappa) is the cetasika of
initial application (vitakka) directed towards renunciation, good will,
and harmlessness.  Path-factors (3)-(5) are identical with the three
abstinences.  Right effort is the same as the four supreme efforts.  Right
mindfulness is the same as the four foundations of mindfulness.  Right
concentration is defined in terms of the four jhanas of the Suttanta
system."

VII, 38
"The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.
It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of
enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or
supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are
exclusively supramundane."

You mention the view of the Noble Eightfold Path as being a 'sequence of
separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately
to Nibbana'.  The Buddha did indeed tell us what the 'factors towards
wisdom' are (aka factors for stream entry), and I have mentioned these
also in recent posts.  They are not anything like the factors of the
eightfold Path taken separately and individually.

> 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. 

My 'interpretation' of deliberate effort vs. right effort is along the
same lines as my recent comments about volitional intention vs. the
cetasika 'cetana'.  There is a 'type 1' and a 'type 2', and the 2 should
not be confused.  Here is another reference from the
Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation:

CMA VII, 25
"There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to
discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the
arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen
wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states.
Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions.  This
fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the
Noble Eightfold Path."

> 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.

These are understandable assumptions, but the picture one gets by looking
into the texts and commentaries is a rather different one.

> 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.  

On the question of 'letting go', Rob, I think you may have misread an
earlier post of mine.  I have not made any comments on letting go as a
term used by the Buddha -- only on that expression as a term used by
someone (Ken O, I believe) in a description of their understanding of the
practice.

I hope I've responded on most of your points.

Jon

PS  I am hoping that on the trip through India I will have access to a
computer from time to time, and will try to keep in touch.  So please
don't hold back on replies just because I'm away from home base.

> 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.
> 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.




 
8528 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:17pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Mike

--- "m. nease"  wrote: 

> > 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.
> 
> I do understand and agree.  There are instances in the
> Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages
> effort in the conventional sense we've talked about
> recently, e.g.  

What the Buddha encourages throughout the Tipitaka, consistently and
constantly, is the development of kusala of all kinds, but particularly of
the level that leads out of samsara (ie, satipatthana/vipassana).  So any
reference to, say, effort should be read in the light of these ever
present themes.

We tend to overlook the fact that moments of so-called 'effort to have
kusala' must be either kusala or akusala -- they cannot be of some
indeterminate and harmless quality.  The Buddha must of course be taken as
referring to the wholesome one (I'm sure no-one would seriously suggest
otherwise).  But then, if the moment of 'effort to have kusala' is itself
kusala, it's not really effort *to have* kusala because it already *is*
kusala.

The passage you quote below is an interesting one.  As you say, it refers
to the development of samatha at very high levels, and so has no immediate
application to our present situation.  Insofar as it is prescriptive, it
seems to me to be cautionary more than anything else.

> "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts --
> connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise
> in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a
> particular theme. He should attend to another theme,
> apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
> When he is attending to this other theme, apart from
> that one, connected with what is skillful, then those
> evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire,
> aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside.
> With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
> within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

What the Buddha is saying here, I think, is that even though a monk may be
developing samatha ("while he is referring to and attending to a
particular theme") it is still possible for akusala to arise ("unskilful
thoughts --  connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise") and,
if it does, he should drop the particular object ("attend to another
theme") rather than continue with the one to which he usually attends.

The object that replaces it should be one that does not similarly
condition akusala to arise (it should be an object that is "connected with
what is skilful"), otherwise the mind is not concentrated in a kusala
manner.

Here, the attention/effort referred to is plainly meant to be kusala
effort/intention only.

Actually, there is an even more graphic example in the same sutta. 
Further on it says (trans. MLDB, p. 213)

"If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of
those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts
connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then, with his teeth
clenched and with his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he
should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind."

It would be easy to think that there is no plainer reference to deliberate
effort/intention than this one ("with his teeth clenched and with his
tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down,
constrain, and crush mind with mind").  However, when we read the
commentary to this passage (MLDB p. 1206, n.243), it becomes clear that
again it is a reference to the effort/intention that arises with kusala
citta:

"He should crush the unwholesome state of mind with a wholesome state of
mind."

So even the teeth-clenching must be kusala teeth-clenching!

Finally, to return to the original passage you quoted, it mentions that
akusala thoughts are of 3 kinds, ie connected with desire, with aversion
or with delusion.  Delusion is, of course, ignorance, the opposite of
wisdom.  The commentary says that for one in whom thoughts are connected
with delusion (and guess who that means, folks), the remedy is "living
under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into its meaning,
listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes".

I was struck how similar that 'remedy' is to the factors for the growth of
wisdom that I quoted in a post to Howard recently (which, just to recap,
were " association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper
attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma").

So even in the context of samatha, the Buddha stressed the importance of
satipatthana/vipassana

Jon


 
8529 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:25pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon]

 
  Howard

--- Howard wrote: 
> 
> > To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something
> > (type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is
> being
> > alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other
> > moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention.  Of
> course,
> > both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as
> > intention.
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Well, Jon, I can't say very much at all with regard to the
> cetasikas 
> accompanying individual cittas, because I doubt very much that I am
> aware of 
> them in any first-hand manner. I do make the following distinctions
> based on 
> personal experience: I distinguish thoughts about doing something, a 
> wish/hope to do something (in the sense of a rather neutral
> chanda[sp?]), the 
> desire/craving to do something, and the willing/volition/intention to do
>  something, which I think of as being a kind of motive force. I think
> these 
> are all related, but that the last of these comes closest to what I 
> understand cetana to be.

What you say about cetasikas accompanying individual cittas applies I am
sure to everyone -- we don’t know them by direct experience, only from a
study of the texts and commentaries, whereas we are very familiar with
volitional intention.  But what we are seeking to uncover, in the first
place, is the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha as part of the
process leading to the realisiation of the truths of which he spoke.

It seems to me that to attempt to limit the meaning of anything said by
the Buddha to something within our own experience is bound to lead to
misinterpretations.  Given the extent of the Buddha's understanding of
things, should we not be open to the possibility that his words have
meaning on a level other than the plainly obvious?

Of course, I do not give this as a reason for adopting one particular
interpretation, but simply by way of explanation why I value and respect
the elucidation that is available to us through the abhidhamma and
commentaries.

Jon



 
8530 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 10:26pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Jon,

My understanding of the passage in question agrees
completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less
detailed and well-informed, as usual.

Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only
to very advanced levels of samatha.  Is this stated
clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical
inference?

--- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:

> What the Buddha encourages throughout the Tipitaka,
> consistently and
> constantly, is the development of kusala of all
> kinds, but particularly of
> the level that leads out of samsara (ie,
> satipatthana/vipassana).  So any
> reference to, say, effort should be read in the
> light of these ever
> present themes.

Understood--I do accept this.

> We tend to overlook the fact that moments of
> so-called 'effort to have
> kusala' must be either kusala or akusala -- they
> cannot be of some
> indeterminate and harmless quality.  The Buddha must
> of course be taken as
> referring to the wholesome one (I'm sure no-one
> would seriously suggest
> otherwise).  But then, if the moment of 'effort to
> have kusala' is itself
> kusala, it's not really effort *to have* kusala
> because it already *is*
> kusala.

True--I assume it may be effort *to have* a kusala
different from the present kusala.

> The passage you quote below is an interesting one. 
> As you say, it refers
> to the development of samatha at very high levels,
> and so has no immediate
> application to our present situation.  Insofar as it
> is prescriptive, it
> seems to me to be cautionary more than anything
> else.
> 
> > "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts
> --
> > connected with desire, aversion, or delusion --
> arise
> > in a monk while he is referring to and attending
> to a
> > particular theme. He should attend to another
> theme,
> > apart from that one, connected with what is
> skillful.
> > When he is attending to this other theme, apart
> from
> > that one, connected with what is skillful, then
> those
> > evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with
> desire,
> > aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and
> subside.
> > With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right
> > within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates
> it.
> 
> What the Buddha is saying here, I think, is that
> even though a monk may be
> developing samatha ("while he is referring to and
> attending to a
> particular theme") it is still possible for akusala
> to arise ("unskilful
> thoughts --  connected with desire, aversion, or
> delusion -- arise") and,
> if it does, he should drop the particular object
> ("attend to another
> theme") rather than continue with the one to which
> he usually attends.

This is exactly as I read it.

> The object that replaces it should be one that does
> not similarly
> condition akusala to arise (it should be an object
> that is "connected with
> what is skilful"), otherwise the mind is not
> concentrated in a kusala
> manner.

Again, exactly as I understood it.

> Here, the attention/effort referred to is plainly
> meant to be kusala
> effort/intention only.

Of course.

> Actually, there is an even more graphic example in
> the same sutta. 
> Further on it says (trans. MLDB, p. 213)
> 
> "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the
> thought-formation of
> those thoughts, there still arise in him evil
> unwholesome thoughts
> connected with desire, with hate and with delusion,
> then, with his teeth
> clenched and with his tongue pressed against the
> roof of his mouth, he
> should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with
> mind."
> 
> It would be easy to think that there is no plainer
> reference to deliberate
> effort/intention than this one ("with his teeth
> clenched and with his
> tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he
> should beat down,
> constrain, and crush mind with mind").  However,
> when we read the
> commentary to this passage (MLDB p. 1206, n.243), it
> becomes clear that
> again it is a reference to the effort/intention that
> arises with kusala
> citta:
> 
> "He should crush the unwholesome state of mind with
> a wholesome state of
> mind."
> 
> So even the teeth-clenching must be kusala
> teeth-clenching!

Right!

> Finally, to return to the original passage you
> quoted, it mentions that
> akusala thoughts are of 3 kinds, ie connected with
> desire, with aversion
> or with delusion.  Delusion is, of course,
> ignorance, the opposite of
> wisdom.  The commentary says that for one in whom
> thoughts are connected
> with delusion (and guess who that means, folks), the
> remedy is "living
> under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into
> its meaning,
> listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes".

Yes!

> I was struck how similar that 'remedy' is to the
> factors for the growth of
> wisdom that I quoted in a post to Howard recently
> (which, just to recap,
> were " association with superior persons, hearing
> the good Dhamma, proper
> attention and practice in accordance with the
> Dhamma").
> 
> So even in the context of samatha, the Buddha
> stressed the importance of
> satipatthana/vipassana

Naturally--samadhi meditation was commonplace before
Gotama was born.  It never awakened anyone. 
Satipatthaana vipassanaa is clearly the key, by my
understanding.

Thanks Jon, and bon voyage to you and all on the India
trip.  I'll see some of you in Bangkok in a month or
so, conditions permitting.

mike


 
8531 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  ---  "m. nease"  wrote:
> Jon,
> 
> My understanding of the passage in question agrees
> completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less
> detailed and well-informed, as usual.
> 
> Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only
> to very advanced levels of samatha.  Is this stated
> clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical
> inference?
_______

Dear Mike (and Jon),
Sorry Mike I forget where and in what context I indicated this - do 
you remember?
I am a little out of my depth in this discussion between you, ken H. 
and Jon. I am following it with interest though.
robert k.
.com

 
8532 From: m. nease   
Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:34pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Hi Robert,

--- robertkirkpatrick wrote:

> ---  "m. nease"
>  wrote:
> > Jon,
> > 
> > My understanding of the passage in question agrees
> > completely with yours, though my grasp of it is
> less
> > detailed and well-informed, as usual.
> > 
> > Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers
> only
> > to very advanced levels of samatha.  Is this
> stated
> > clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical
> > inference?
> _______
> 
> Dear Mike (and Jon),
> Sorry Mike I forget where and in what context I
> indicated this - do 
> you remember?
> I am a little out of my depth in this discussion
> between you, ken H. 
> and Jon. I am following it with interest though.
> robert k.

On second thought I think you were referring to the
Dvedhavitakka sutta, in a post several months back.  A
similar theme, I think--but I haven't been able to put
my finger on the post.

Sorry about the bad reference...

mike


 
8533 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 0:19am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis

 
  Jon,

Right you are.  What I meant by 'friendliness' was
definitely not mettaa (I was equivocating the two).

Thanks for the correction.

mike

--- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Mike
> 
> --- "m. nease"  wrote: > 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.
> 
> Just a brief comment, if I may.  If by friendliness
> we mean metta here, I
> think the friendliness is towards (not with) the
> other person.  It means
> actually wishing the other person well, which is a
> fairly straightforward
> concept, whereas the term 'friendliness' in English
> carries other
> connotations too.  There's no English expression I
> can think of that is
> really a good translation for 'metta'.
> 
> So there can be 'friendliness' towards even one's
> worst enemy, but only if
> metta has been sufficiently developed.
> 
> Metta towards those we come into contact with during
> the day can and does
> arise naturally, spontaneously, even though more
> often there is likely to
> be either lobha or dosa.  Awareness of these
> different realities as they
> occur naturally and spontaneously in our daily life
> is the first step in
> the development of metta, I believe.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
>


 
 
8534 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 3:28am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Sarah and Howard,

I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?

Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard was
referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at
Anguttara Nikaya III.103.  Ven. Thanissaro's
translation is at 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html

I think it will be good if anyone can come up with any
commentarial material on this sutta.  Intuitively I
can see how it might support Howard's argument (much
to my chagrin).

mike

--- Sarah  wrote:

> Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of
> paticcasamuppada, nama has a
> particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas)
> and so indeed as Howard
> says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions
> nama and rupa and vice
> versa.

>  Howard:
> 
> >        Again, I apologize for not being a sutta
> quoter! As I recall, the 
> > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not
> like pure gold, but rather 
> > like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements",
> and that refinement of 
> > that ore is required for the brilliance of the
> gold to manifest. But, of 
> > course, it is understood in that simile that the
> pure gold is present from 
> > the outset.
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> Sarah:
> 
> I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The
> Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the
> Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again
> there are probably others
> too:.
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html
> 
> The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and
> discussing further by
> anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here:
> 
> ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas.
> Which three? The Uposatha of a
> cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha
> of the Noble Ones. 
> 
> "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones?
> It is the cleansing of the
> defiled mind through the proper technique. And how
> is the defiled mind cleansed
> through the proper technique? 
> 
> ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is
> the cleansing of the mind
> through the proper technique. And how is the defiled
> mind cleansed through the
> proper technique? 
> 
> ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is
> calmed, and joy arises; the
> defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when
> a gold is cleansed through
> the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed
> through the proper technique?
> Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk,
> a blow-pipe, tongs, & the
> appropriate human effort. This is how gold is
> cleansed through the proper
> technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is
> cleansed through the proper
> technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed
> through the proper technique?
> There is the case where the disciple of the noble
> ones recollects the devas...
> As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is
> cleansed, and joy arises; the
> defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ <end quote>
> ....................
> I can see straight away how we would interpret this
> sutta or simile to ‘gold
> cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be
> understood in the light of
> all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to
> the natural (or original)
> state of mind being one that as full of defilements
> which should be understood
> and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be
> interested to hear anything
> from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. 



 
8535 From: Victor 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 6:33am
Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah

 
  Sarah,

I am going to reply in context below.

---  Sarah  wrote:
> Dear Victor,
> 
> Good to see you around again;-)
> 
> --- Victor wrote: > Friends,
> > 
> > If interested, you might want to refer to
> > Dhammapada 12, The Self
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html
> > 
> > Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include
> > 
> > 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch 
oneself. 
> > Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of 
the 
> > night. 
> > 
> > 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then 
only 
> > should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be 
reproached. 
> > 
> > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would 
train 
> > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, 
is 
> > self-control. 
> > 
> > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the 
> > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery 
that 
> > is hard to gain. 
> > 
> > I think these verses are some good examples of how the 
word "self" is 
> > used.
> ....................
> Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used `conventionally' 
by the
> Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self 
exists.


Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by the 
Buddha? :-)


> 
> .................... 
> > As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the 
> > Buddha taught.  If interested, you might want to refer to 
> > Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self 
Characteristic,
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html
> 
> ....................
> This sutta clearly shows that what is taken for the self are merely 
the 5
> khandhas and that there is no self anywhere in these khandhas. It 
also clearly
> shows how these realities are conditioned and cannot be controlled 
by self.
> 
> ...................
> > and 
> > Ananda Sutta, To Ananda
> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html
> 
> ....................
> What is not self are the khandhas, i.e the realities that make up 
our lives. As
> this sutta shows, it is not that there used to be a self which no 
longer
> exists, which might lead to the idea that `death is the 
annihilation of
> consciousness'. Whether there is or is not any right understanding, 
seeing now,
> hearing now and all other cittas and realities now are not self.
> 
> In your next post you ask this question:
> 
> ....................
> > Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
> > that "there is no self"?
> 
> ....................
> As I read and understand the Tipitaka, the Buddha is talking about 
anatta (not
> self) with regard to all realities in all the discourses.


So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
that "there is no self".


> 
> I may be being dense but I'm having a little trouble understanding 
what is at
> the back of your mind and what your understanding is here, Victor. 
Perhaps you
> would elaborate in more detail as these are very important points 
and I know
> you've raised them before. I'm also not quite sure how you see the 
suttas you
> quoted as relating to Rob's discussion with Ken O. Would you 
elaborate on this
> too.

For reference, I was responding to message 8447
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8447

In that message, Robert K wrote:
"There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by 
controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various 
factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at 
deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." 

Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is no 
self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view.  

Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of 
context. :-)

> 
> Look forward to hearing more from you,
> 
> Sarah

Metta,
Victor

 
8536 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:18am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Mike (and Sarah) -

In a message dated 10/12/01 3:32:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
mike writes:


> Hi Sarah and Howard,
> 
> I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
> underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
> vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?
> 
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe 
that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions 
naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various 
*objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned objects, 
and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are mutually 
conditioning - they arise together.
------------------------------------------------------


> Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard was
> referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at
> Anguttara Nikaya III.103.  Ven. Thanissaro's
> translation is at 
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard:
       Well, it does express similar ideas, but I don't think that is the 
exact sutta I had in mind, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think it will be good if anyone can come up with any
> commentarial material on this sutta.  Intuitively I
> can see how it might support Howard's argument (much
> to my chagrin).
> 
> mike
> 
> --- Sarah  wrote:
> 
> > Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of
> > paticcasamuppada, nama has a
> > particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas)
> > and so indeed as Howard
> > says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions
> > nama and rupa and vice
> > versa.
> 
> >  Howard:
> > 
> > >        Again, I apologize for not being a sutta
> > quoter! As I recall, the 
> > > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not
> > like pure gold, but rather 
> > > like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements",
> > and that refinement of 
> > > that ore is required for the brilliance of the
> > gold to manifest. But, of 
> > > course, it is understood in that simile that the
> > pure gold is present from 
> > > the outset.
> > >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Sarah:
> > 
> > I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The
> > Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the
> > Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again
> > there are probably others
> > too:.
> >
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html
> > 
> > The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and
> > discussing further by
> > anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here:
> > 
> > ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas.
> > Which three? The Uposatha of a
> > cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha
> > of the Noble Ones. 
> > 
> > "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones?
> > It is the cleansing of the
> > defiled mind through the proper technique. And how
> > is the defiled mind cleansed
> > through the proper technique? 
> > 
> > ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is
> > the cleansing of the mind
> > through the proper technique. And how is the defiled
> > mind cleansed through the
> > proper technique? 
> > 
> > ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is
> > calmed, and joy arises; the
> > defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when
> > a gold is cleansed through
> > the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed
> > through the proper technique?
> > Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk,
> > a blow-pipe, tongs, & the
> > appropriate human effort. This is how gold is
> > cleansed through the proper
> > technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is
> > cleansed through the proper
> > technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed
> > through the proper technique?
> > There is the case where the disciple of the noble
> > ones recollects the devas...
> > As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is
> > cleansed, and joy arises; the
> > defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ <end quote>
> > ....................
> > I can see straight away how we would interpret this
> > sutta or simile to ‘gold
> > cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be
> > understood in the light of
> > all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to
> > the natural (or original)
> > state of mind being one that as full of defilements
> > which should be understood
> > and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be
> > interested to hear anything
> > from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. 
> 
> 



/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)                    
            
                                         



 
8537 From: Larry 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 0:11pm
Subject: consciousness><namarupa

 
  One semi plausible explanation of how consciousness conditions namarupa
is that namarupa, in this case of the dependent arising sequence, is the
fertilized egg or possibly as late as the fetus before the development
of the sense organs. Consciousness is the consciousness made up of
formations conditioned by ignorance of some complete stranger who has
died. This means that the first moment of consciousness of the fetus is
the moment of karmic injection. The reason they are mutually
conditioning is because they each exist independently before they meet
and become an individual. The mother and father have to do their part
and the consciousness of the dead one has to do its part. In Tibetan
rebirth theory there are conscious events and even volitional activity
between death and rebirth.

Larry

 
8538 From: m. nease   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 0:40pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Sorry Howard--0 for 2, I guess.

mike

--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Mike (and Sarah) -
> 
> In a message dated 10/12/01 3:32:42 PM Eastern
> Daylight Time, 
> mike writes:
> 
> 
> > Hi Sarah and Howard,
> > 
> > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how
> vi~n~naana
> > conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems
> obvious
> > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> > abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
> > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
> > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?
> > 
>
-----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of
> an object. I believe 
> that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that
> vi~n~nana conditions 
> naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as
> consisting of the various 
> *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning
> without discerned objects, 
> and there are no objects discerned without the
> discernment. They are mutually 
> conditioning - they arise together.
>
------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard
> was
> > referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at
> > Anguttara Nikaya III.103.  Ven. Thanissaro's
> > translation is at 
> > 
> >
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Well, it does express similar ideas, but I
> don't think that is the 
> exact sutta I had in mind, Mike.
>
---------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > I think it will be good if anyone can come up with
> any
> > commentarial material on this sutta.  Intuitively
> I
> > can see how it might support Howard's argument
> (much
> > to my chagrin).
> > 
> > mike
> > 
> > --- Sarah  wrote:
> > 
> > > Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of
> > > paticcasamuppada, nama has a
> > > particular meaning (only referring to the
> cetasikas)
> > > and so indeed as Howard
> > > says, in this connection, vinnana/citta
> conditions
> > > nama and rupa and vice
> > > versa.
> > 
> > >  Howard:
> > > 
> > > >        Again, I apologize for not being a
> sutta
> > > quoter! As I recall, the 
> > > > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is
> not
> > > like pure gold, but rather 
> > > > like gold ore, with an admixture of
> "defilements",
> > > and that refinement of 
> > > > that ore is required for the brilliance of the
> > > gold to manifest. But, of 
> > > > course, it is understood in that simile that
> the
> > > pure gold is present from 
> > > > the outset.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Sarah:
> > > 
> > > I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The
> > > Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the
> > > Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think.
> Again
> > > there are probably others
> > > too:.
> > >
> >
>
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html
> > > 
> > > The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading
> and
> > > discussing further by
> > > anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections
> here:
> > > 
> > > ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas.
> > > Which three? The Uposatha of a
> > > cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the
> Uposatha
> > > of the Noble Ones. 
> > > 
> > > "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble
> Ones?
> > > It is the cleansing of the
> > > defiled mind through the proper technique. And
> how
> > > is the defiled mind cleansed
> > > through the proper technique? 
> > > 
> > > ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones]
> is
> > > the cleansing of the mind
> > > through the proper technique. And how is the
> defiled
> > > mind cleansed through the
> > > proper technique? 
> > > 
> > > ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind
> is
> > > calmed, and joy arises; the
> > > defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as
> when
> > > a gold is cleansed through
> > > the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed
> > > through the proper technique?
> > > Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red
> chalk,
> > > a blow-pipe, tongs, & the
> > > appropriate human effort. This is how gold is
> > > cleansed through the proper
> > > technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is
> > > cleansed through the proper
> > > technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed
> > > through the proper technique?
> > > There is the case where the disciple of the
> noble
> > > ones recollects the devas...
> > > As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is
> > > cleansed, and joy arises; the
> > > defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ <end
> quote>
> > > ....................
> > > I can see straight away how we would interpret
> this
> > > sutta or simile to ‘gold
> > > cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has
> to be
> > > understood in the light of
> > > all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer
> to
> > > the natural (or original)
> > > state of mind being one that as full of
> defilements
> > > which should be understood
> > > and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d
> be
> > > interested to hear anything
> > > from the commentaries and from you or anyone
> else. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> /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)                    
>             



 
8539 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 1:00pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS)

 
  Herman

Thanks for bringing this up.  They are, as I understand it, the discourses
given by the Buddha during his lifetime.  Although the Tipitaka did not
then exist in printed form, it existed in an oral form, in that discourses
were apparently memorised by monks and repeated among themselves or to
others, in the tradition of the time.  Later on, of course, they came to
be arranged into the various Nikayas as they come to us today.

Jon

 --- Herman wrote: > John,
> 
> The Discourses mentioned in your reply to Robert Ep, to be used in 
> the vetting of what people tell you, which Discourses are they? I am 
> assuming that the Tipitaka did not exist when the event described in 
> this Sutta took place. 
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Herman
> 
> 
> 
> ---  Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> > Rob Ep,
> > 
> > --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > 
> > > 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?
> > 
> > This is a good question and an important one.  As might be 
> expected, the
> > Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject.  
> Basically, the
> > advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas.  This advice 
> should
> > not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained
> > everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara.  
> From
> > Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta
> > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html)
> > 
> > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that 
> what he
> > says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor 
> with
> > scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying 
> the
> > sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and 
> verify
> > them by the Discipline.
> 


 
8540 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 1:38pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...

 
  Ken O

Thanks for bringing up this question, and for doing so in the context of a
daily life example.  This is a helpful way to go.

 --- Kenneth Ong  wrote: > Hi Jon
> 
> " But the idea that we can prompt kusala by
>  'determined effort to have
>  kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the
>  Buddha.  The Buddha
>  clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning
>  factors for the arising
>  of kusala and the development of understanding, and
>  they do not include
>  so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding)."
>  
> But I thought there should be some kind of deliberate
> effort.  Take for eg, letting a seat in a public to
> another person.  It takes a lot of my deliberate
> effort to let the seat due to my fear of embrassment
> if that the person not willing to accept the seat. I
> believe there should be some kind of deliberate effort
> for our practise.  What do you think?  How do we
> develop kusala without such "determined effort".  
> 
> Kind regards
> Kenneth Ong

There are times when kusala will not arise without this kind of
'prompting', but there are also times when kusala arises spontaneously. 
In either case, it is kusala citta and is accompanied by the mental factor
that is energy/effort (viriya).  At such kusala moments the energy/effort
factor is 'right'.

However, even with the prompting of deliberate effort, kusala can only
arise if the conditions for its arising have been sufficiently developed. 
The deliberate effort is not given as one of the conditions for the
development of kusala, whereas the 'right' effort is (to my
understanding).

Taking the example of giving up the seat, one may in fact be naturally
inclined to such gestures, but then hesitate to do so for the reasons you
have given.  Thus the initial intention arises as unprompted kusala, but
if doubts/embarrassment (=akusala) intervene this intention may not be
carried through, or may only be carried through with prompting.

Or, to take another example, if the same situation occurs but in
circumstances where the hesitation/doubt does not arise (eg, if there's no
3rd person around to be the object of our embarrassment), then the
natural, spontaneous instinct (kusala mental state) may condition kusala
action through the body (rising to offer the seat), with little or no
prompting (your 'deliberate intention') necessary.

In any event, I would distinguish the deliberate effort in these
circumstances, where an opportunity for kusala presents itself and one
essentially reminds oneself of the value of seizing that opportunity, with
the idea that akusala mind-states now arising can be replaced with
kusala-states by the exercise of deliberate effort.

I don't know if this makes sense.

Jon


 
8541 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Mike

A quick reply from the airport.

 --- "m. nease"  wrote: > Jon,
> 
> My understanding of the passage in question agrees
> completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less
> detailed and well-informed, as usual.
> 
> Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only
> to very advanced levels of samatha.  Is this stated
> clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical
> inference?

It was something I got from the notes to the MLDB tranlsation (Vens
Nanamoli and Bodhi), which quoted from the commentary, if I remember
correctly.  Sorry, but I don't have access to the translation now.

<snip>

> > So even in the context of samatha, the Buddha
> > stressed the importance of
> > satipatthana/vipassana
> 
> Naturally--samadhi meditation was commonplace before
> Gotama was born.  It never awakened anyone. 
> Satipatthaana vipassanaa is clearly the key, by my
> understanding.
> 
> Thanks Jon, and bon voyage to you and all on the India
> trip.  I'll see some of you in Bangkok in a month or
> so, conditions permitting.
> 
> mike

Thanks, Mike.  It should be a good trip.  And I'm really looking forward
to meeting you after your move to Bangkok.  Do keep us all posted on
progress on that front.

Jon




 
8542 From: Jonothan Abbott 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:33pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?> </td> </tr> </table> <table width=

 
  Hi, Howard

I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
previously.

> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
if 
> parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
annihilation as 
> far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
nibbana is 
> an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
craving for 
> being.
> --------------------------------------

I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely

Just a thought.

Must run.  Got a plane to catch.

Jon

 
8543 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 3:12pm
Subject: sunyatta

 
  There was a question about the meaning of 'sunyatta' on another
list. This 
is not as common as anatta in the texts but has (originally) a 
similar or almost identical  meaning. The world is said to be
sunna(pronounced sunnya) 
(empty, void) because it is  empty of self and of what belongs
to the 
self  Samyutta nikaya salayatanna vagga (35)85 "Empty is the
world": 
The Buddha said to ananda "'empty is the world'. And what is
empty of 
the self and of what belongs to the self? the eye Ananda is
empty of 
self and of what belongs to self. Visible object is empty of
self and 
what belongs to self. Eye consciousness is empty of self and
what 
belongs to self. Eye contact is empty of self and what belongs
to 
self. whatever feeling arising from that contact is empty of
self..
[and the same for all the other doors]"
Thus we see that sunnata is simply another way of explaining the

conditioned and  anattaness nature of all dhammas.
I think the term has taken on a more radical meaning in some
mahayana 
schools and hence some Theravada teachers may avoid using the
term,
robert 
unless there is an opportunity to explain it thoroughly.


 
8544 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ...

 
  Hi Jon,

Let us look at the other way round, how abt looking at akusala.  Usually
akusala is unprompted, for eg, looking at a beautiful lady (no offence
here for ladies).  I more incline to believe this unprompted akusala arise
due to our past habits at looking at things.  Then we apply the Abidhamma
method, then slowly this "looking" is just successive cittas.  Then
eventually as the practise becomes finer and finer, this successive cittas
is seen as it is, the akusala now has not become unprompted.   Next time
when looking at a beaufiful lady, the akusala is just a sucessive cittas. 
The unprompted has been "slow" down to a point of prompted.  Hence we are
able to see our successive cittas in an objective manner.


Similarly, I assuming that kusala actions that are unprompted could be our
past karma habits.  Hence to develop further kusala habbit there should be
some determined effort involved, until such habit becomes unprompted. Take
for example again abt the letting of my seat in the public for other pple.
If I constantly do a deliberate effort to let my seat to others, next time
it will become naturally to me.  There is no need for deliberate or
determine effort.  Hence this deliberate effort has become right effort in
a sense.  It has become natural, unprompted, arises spontaneously


Let us use your reference in one of your email.
CMA VII, 25
"There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to
discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the
arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen
wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states.
Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions.  This
fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the
Noble Eightfold Path."


I interpret No (3) as a deliberate effort.  Take for eg the Karaniiya
Metta Sutta , to me the words in the sutta seems to point that there is a
need of an deliberate effort to do metta.  One particular sentence seems
to support this notion "In anger or ill will let him not wish another
ill." 


I do not know whether you classify a calm mind as kusala. In order to
practise the breathing method to calm the mind, it does not come easily,
one got to be discipline, notice the breath, able at first to endure the
muscle and body pains etc....  It becomes naturally after constant and
deliberate effort in the first place.  


What do you think? But I have to wait a while before you are back.
Sigh.....




With kindest regards
Kenneth Ong


 
8545 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:59pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?> </td> </tr> </table> ...

 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 10/13/01 2:34:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Jonothan Abbott writes:


> Hi, Howard
> 
> I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
> to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
> previously.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
> if 
> > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
> annihilation as 
> > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
> nibbana is 
> > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
> craving for 
> > being.
> > --------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
> you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
> with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
> life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
> whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
> that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
> question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Must run.  Got a plane to catch.
> 
> Jon
> 
========================
       No, I'm not confusing the two. My point was the following:
       1) A materialist believes that the body is all that there is, that 
consciousness is a function of the body, and that when the body dies nothing 
remains, there is no continuation of awareness *in any sense*.
       2) Some Theravadins believe that the five khandas are all that there 
is *in the sense* that these are clusters of functions operating "in a 
vacuum", and not within a field of sentient potentiality (so that, for 
example, adverting to an object somehow occurs without the object being 
potentially available for discerning). Thus, in this view, when parinibbana 
occurs, that is, when there is the final dissolution and cessation of that 
cluster of functions, nothing whatsoever remains, there is no continuation of 
awareness *in any sense*.
       These positions strike me as similar. In both cases, after (what is 
viewed as) a final cessation, there remains, not an emptiness, but a total 
nothingness. That being the case, and if such annihilation is "good", then 
the materialist view would be the more hopeful of the two. The materialist 
needn't follow any practice whatsoever, but just live his/her one and only 
life which then automatically ends in "freedom" (a.k.a. annihilation). 
Nibbana-as-annihilation seems to have appeal to some folks. I don't know why 
unless the appeal is due to a form of suicidal desire.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8546 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:12pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  Howard

Hello from Bangkok.  I have access to a computer just long enough for a
quick post.

Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod
the context.

You say that "a materialist  believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ...

I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding
of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. 
Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on
parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's
teaching?

Jon

 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> 
> In a message dated 10/13/01 2:34:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Howard
> > 
> > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
> > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
> > previously.
> > 
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
> > if 
> > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
> > annihilation as 
> > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
> > nibbana is 
> > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
> > craving for 
> > > being.
> > > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
> > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
> > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
> > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
> > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
> > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
> > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Must run.  Got a plane to catch.
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> ========================
>        No, I'm not confusing the two. My point was the following:
>        1) A materialist believes that the body is all that there is,
> that 
> consciousness is a function of the body, and that when the body dies
> nothing 
> remains, there is no continuation of awareness *in any sense*.
>        2) Some Theravadins believe that the five khandas are all that
> there 
> is *in the sense* that these are clusters of functions operating "in a 
> vacuum", and not within a field of sentient potentiality (so that, for 
> example, adverting to an object somehow occurs without the object being 
> potentially available for discerning). Thus, in this view, when
> parinibbana 
> occurs, that is, when there is the final dissolution and cessation of
> that 
> cluster of functions, nothing whatsoever remains, there is no
> continuation of 
> awareness *in any sense*.
>        These positions strike me as similar. In both cases, after (what
> is 
> viewed as) a final cessation, there remains, not an emptiness, but a
> total 
> nothingness. That being the case, and if such annihilation is "good",
> then 
> the materialist view would be the more hopeful of the two. The
> materialist 
> needn't follow any practice whatsoever, but just live his/her one and
> only 
> life which then automatically ends in "freedom" (a.k.a. annihilation). 
> Nibbana-as-annihilation seems to have appeal to some folks. I don't know
> why 
> unless the appeal is due to a form of suicidal desire.
> 
> 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)              
>      
>             
>                                          


 
8547 From: Howard 
Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:34pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 10/13/01 9:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Jonothan Abbott writes:


> Howard
> 
> Hello from Bangkok.  I have access to a computer just long enough for a
> quick post.
> 
> Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod
> the context.
> 
> You say that "a materialist  believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ...
> 
> I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding
> of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. 
> Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on
> parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's
> teaching?
> 
> Jon
> 
=========================
       Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think that 
such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8548 From: David Progosh   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:54am
Subject: 31 planes of existence

 
  I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. Since there is no 
transmigration of a soul after death in Buddhism, what moves between the 
planes?

Also, the movement between the planes is based on kamma-- good, bad, or 
indifferent. Given that at a single moment the cycle of birth and death occurs 
thousands of times with many shades of different kammic effect,  what factors 
determine which plane one enters (if one can say this) upon the next birth? Is 
it a matter of taking the average of good  or bad kamma, and whichever one 
tops out that determines the next plane of existence? 

Please explain.

Gaga Dhamma 

(Actually I find the Ven. Buddadasa Bikkhu's explanation of the 
Paticcasamuppada [law of dependent origination] a useful way to observe 
the notion of birth, death, and rebirth. He suggests that this notion of birth 
death and rebirth is not referenced to a lifetime of a human, as has been 
interpreted by Buddhagosa, but rather the wheel of kamma turns-- birth and 
death (arising and falling)-- occur so rapidly at every moment, so  thatfor 
example  in 5 minutes one can become mindful of the entire samsaric cycle 
thousands of times.  Perhaps when the Buddha claimed he witnessed 
hundreds of thousands of past lives he was referring to Paticcasamuppada in 
the way the Ven. Buddhadassa suggests. thought?)

 
 
8549 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:54am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Dear Ken,
Wouldn't it also be a failure to see conditionality in everything to see 'absolute
teachings' as separate from 'conditional ones'?  If everything is merely a
condition which combines with other conditions to have a beneficial or
non-beneficial effect, than why could not the Buddha use seemingly conditional
statements to have such effects just as well as he could use seemingly 'absolute'
statements?

Since any statement, whether pointing to conditional or absolute reality will by
virtue of being in language be a conceptual act, the only way that Buddha could
refrain from participating in conventional reality would be to refrain from
teaching altogether.

Even by the act of teaching people, he has taken those who have no permanent or
actual existence as entities, and has treated them as 'real' for the purposes of
teaching.  Rather than say that this somehow compromises Buddha's absolute
standpoint, I would rather say that he is skillfully straddling the line between
using conditionality and denying its actuality, a line which only a World-Teacher
could maintain effectively.  The Absolute is what there is to transmit, and the
Conditional is the field of skillful means he uses to transmit it.  There is
nothing in my opinion, from how someone ties their shoes to how they look upon the
final cittas preceding entry into Nibbana, that is not potentially part of the
Buddha's pallette.  And there is almost nothing in human existence that he didn't
talk about.

Best,
Robert Ep.

========================================

--- "m. nease"  wrote:
> Hello, Ken,
> 
> Interesting!
> 
> --- Ken Howard wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative
> > message.  Just
> > as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over
> > my head, so too
> > your views on the conventional advice given by the
> > Buddha might
> > be too deep for my level of understanding.  However,
> > it seems safe
> > to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did
> > sometimes teach
> > conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your
> > teeth").
> 
> Yes, that's what I was suggesting.
> 
> > Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to
> > the teaching
> > of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no
> > teeth and no cleaning
> > of teeth, that there is only the present,
> > conditioned citta arising 
> > and immediately falling away?
> 
> Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana is
> 'absolutely untrue'.  'All compounded phenomena are
> subject to decay', e.g., is a conceptual statement.  I
> wouldn't say, though, that it's absolutely untrue.
> 
> > I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances
> > were,
> > essentially, well chosen conditions.  They were the
> > conditions
> > which he knew had the best possible chance of
> > combining with
> > other prevailing conditions in a way that would
> > bring about some
> > moments of right understanding for his audience.  
> 
> Yes, I would agree with that.
> 
> > Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or
> > nothing.  I can't
> > see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way,
> > moonlighting as a
> > teacher of conventional wisdom. 
> 
> 'Moonlighting' seems a strange way of putting it, of
> course.  Certainly some of his audiences were capable
> of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even of
> being encouraged to direct insight), while others were
> not.  To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya
> suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to
> them, leading in the right direction obviously.
> 
> > I would respectfully suggest that your lingering
> > inclination to see
> > courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might
> > be a symptom of a
> > failure to see conditionality in absolutely
> > everything -- a complaint
> > we all suffer from.  
> 
> Maybe so, maybe so!  I'll have to investigate this
> carefully.  I'm out of time at the moment.  Would you
> like some examples of expressions by the Buddha that I
> take to be 'prescribed courses of action'?  By the
> way, I wouldn't exactly call them 'prescribed'--he
> more often simply explains that one course of action
> will lead to bad results and that others will lead to
> good results.
> 
> > Kind regards
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> 
> mike



 
8550 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:11am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa...

 
  Dear Jon,
Hi.  Hope you're having a great trip.  I won't say too much to burden your reading
time while away.

On re-reading my original posts, my tone wasn't all that pleasant.  It's sometimes
easier to see this in retrospect.  At the time, I was very intent on trying to
seek clarification, and that led to a somewhat combatative tone.  Anyway, I enjoy
interacting with you on these issues, and I appreciate your gentle tone in
response to my 'challenges'.

I appreciate the effort you went to in quoting from the Abhidhamma commentaries. 
I guess my real question is still a general one.  One can certainly read and
understand, with a bit of work [!] what is being said in the commentaries and how
they explain the mechanism implied by the Buddha's teachings on the Eight-fold
Path.  My general question is:  did the Buddha himself use this kind of language
about the 'path factors' and about Energy handling the four 'supreme efforts' and
these sorts of things.  I am sure the system hangs together very well and makes a
lot of sense after some study.

What I am asking is whether there is a basis for this analysis in the Buddha's
words himself?  Is there a Sutra where he talks about the 'four supreme efforts'
and that they are handled by the single factor of Energy?  Is there a place where
Buddha himself talks about the 'path factors' arising in the advanced moments
before enlightenment?  Is there a place in the sutras where Buddha talks about the
'mundane Eightfold Path and the Supramundane Eightfold path'?  

If there is, I would like to be directed to what part of the Tipitaka, not
counting the commentaries, I might read some of these things.  If there is not, I
would still like to know on what basis these kinds of extrapolations have been
made.

I feel quite confident that following Abhdhamma and its analysis of arising
cittas, that one would reach a great understanding of how realities are
constituted and regarding the nature of mind and dhamma.  It seems like a very
thorough analysis.  But I don't think it's unfair to ask whether there is a basis
for this analysis in the direct statements of the Buddha.

If the analysis is in the commentaries but not in the Suttas, I would just like to
know this so I can proceed accordingly.

Thanks,
Robert Ep.

===========================================

--- Jonothan Abbott  wrote:
> Rob
> 
> --- Robert Epstein  wrote: 
> 
> > Dear Jon,
> > I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct.
> >  <g>   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.
> 
> Just to clarify, I believe I said the suttas were complete, but needed
> elucidation in order to be understood by us.  I was referring to the
> elucidation that is to be gained from a familiarity with and understanding
> of all the suttas, of all the other parts of the Tipitaka (including the
> Abhidhamma) and of the ancient commentaries, down to and including the
> Visuddhimagga and the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha.  As regards the 2
> last-mentioned, they claim to be, and are widely accepted as being,
> compilations of the commentaries available in their time, and made without
> the interpolation of the compiler's own views.
> 
> I am not able in the short time that remains to give detailed references
> or quotes for the points you have raised, but I think you can find
> references to these topics in the archive posts listed at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts.  I will
> however try to give one or two relevant references in my comments that
> follow.
> 
> > 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
> 
> I am not sure it is useful to talk in generalities like this, without
> reference to particular passages from the suttas.  I am happy to discuss a
> particular passage if you would like to mention one. 
> 
> But I certainly was not imputing any inaccuracy to the words in the
> suttas.  I was alluding to the fact that what may be clear and meaningful
> to those of highly developed understanding (ie. to the listeners in the
> Buddha's time) would not necessarily be so to those of considerably less
> understanding (ie. to us now).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It depends on the sense in which you are using 'volitional' here.  I have
> said quite a bit on this subject in other posts lately, so I'll spare
> everyone the agony of going over the same ground again.  I am of course
> happy to elaborate on any particular aspects.
> 
> The essential question in any case is, what was meant by the Buddha when
> he used the particular term (in the instance you give above, 'strive').  I
> seems to me naive, and perhaps even presumptuous, to assume that this
> question can be answered purely by reference to our own experience in this
> life to date.  After all, that would assume understanding that was on a
> par with those listening to the Buddha when he gave the sutta in question.
>  This is not an assumption I would rush to make in my own case (and for
> obvious reasons, I can hear you say!).
> 
> Let me just say that in many parts of the texts and commentaries one can
> find references to conventional terms used by the Buddha such as
> intention, energy, etc that are explained in terms of mental factors
> arising with a moment of consciousness and performing a function in the
> context of that moment only.  I give one example in answer to your
> question on right effort below.  This explains how the Requisites of
> Enlightenment known as the four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa) are in
> fact the single mental factor (cetasika) of energy.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Here are 2 passages from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation and
> commentary summary ('Guide') known as Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma--
> 
> VII, 30
> "Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, right view
> (sammaaditthi) is the cetasika of wisdom exercised in understanding the
> Four Noble Truths.  Right intention (sammasmakappa) is the cetasika of
> initial application (vitakka) directed towards renunciation, good will,
> and harmlessness.  Path-factors (3)-(5) are identical with the three
> abstinences.  Right effort is the same as the four supreme efforts.  Right
> mindfulness is the same as the four foundations of mindfulness.  Right
> concentration is defined in terms of the four jhanas of the Suttanta
> system."
> 
> VII, 38
> "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
> Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
> collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
> arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.
> It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of
> enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or
> supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are
> exclusively supramundane."
> 
> You mention the view of the Noble Eightfold Path as being a 'sequence of
> separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately
> to Nibbana'.  The Buddha did indeed tell us what the 'factors towards
> wisdom' are (aka factors for stream entry), and I have mentioned these
> also in recent posts.  They are not anything like the factors of the
> eightfold Path taken separately and individually.
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> My 'interpretation' of deliberate effort vs. right effort is along the
> same lines as my recent comments about volitional intention vs. the
> cetasika 'cetana'.  There is a 'type 1' and a 'type 2', and the 2 should
> not be confused.  Here is another reference from the
> Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation:
> 
> CMA VII, 25
> "There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to
> discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the
> arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen
> wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states.
> Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions.  This
> fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the
> Noble Eightfold Path."
> 
> > 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.
> 
> These are understandable assumptions, but the picture one gets by looking
> into the texts and commentaries is a rather different one.
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> On the question of 'letting go', Rob, I think you may have misread an
> earlier post of mine.  I have not made any comments on letting go as a
> term used by the Buddha -- only on that expression as a term used by
> someone (Ken O, I believe) in a description of their understanding of the
> practice.
> 
> I hope I've responded on most of your points.
> 
> Jon
> 
> PS  I am hoping that on the trip through India I will have access to a
> computer from time to time, and will try to keep in touch.  So please
> don't hold back on replies just because I'm away from home base.
> 
> > 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.
> > 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.



 
8551 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:44am
Subject: Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  ---  "David Progosh"  wrote:
> I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. Since 
there is no 
> transmigration of a soul after death in Buddhism, what moves 
between the 
> planes?
> 
> Also, the movement between the planes is based on kamma-- good, 
bad, or 
> indifferent. Given that at a single moment the cycle of birth and 
death occurs 
> thousands of times with many shades of different kammic effect,  
what factors 
> determine which plane one enters (if one can say this) upon the 
next birth? Is 
> it a matter of taking the average of good  or bad kamma, and 
whichever one 
> tops out that determines the next plane of existence? 
> 
> Please explain.
> 
> Gaga Dhamma 
> 
> (Actually I find the Ven. Buddadasa Bikkhu's explanation of the 
> Paticcasamuppada [law of dependent origination] a useful way to 
observe 
> the notion of birth, death, and rebirth. He suggests that this 
notion of birth 
> death and rebirth is not referenced to a lifetime of a human, as 
has been 
> interpreted by Buddhagosa, but rather the wheel of kamma turns-- 
birth and 
> death (arising and falling)-- occur so rapidly at every moment, so  
thatfor 
> example  in 5 minutes one can become mindful of the entire samsaric 
cycle 
> thousands of times.  Perhaps when the Buddha claimed he witnessed 
> hundreds of thousands of past lives he was referring to 
Paticcasamuppada in 
> the way the Ven. Buddhadassa suggests. thought?)

Dear David,
Hello from another who is trying to understand Anatta (no-soul, no-
self). In my opinion  it's probably necessary to understand 
Anatta, before one can understand Kamma - however, as I am still 
blundering around on the Misty Flats, maybe I'm incorrect in this 
assumption. Others on this list will be able to help.
I can only offer a couple of links that I found a beginning help:

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/nynatlo1.htm
"Egolessness" by Nyanatiloka Mahathera

"There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the 
existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the 
eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches 
a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is 
the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches 
neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha. 
The Buddha teaches that, what we call ego, self, soul, personality 
etc., are merely conventional terms not referring to any real 
independent entity. And he teaches that there is only to be found 
this psycho-physical process of existence changing from moment to 
moment. Without understanding the egolessness of existence, it is not 
possible to gain a real understanding of the Buddha-word; and it is 
not possible without it, to realize that goal of emancipation and 
deliverance of mind proclaimed by the Buddha."

and 

"No Inner Core - Anatta" U Silananda, of which I am only on the first 
chapter called "Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul" 
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html

However, I am already being brought face to face with some 
unconscious beliefs I held, for example:

'we can certainly say that there is no atta or self which realises 
Nibbana.  What realizes Nibbana is insight-wisdom, Vipassana-panna.  
It is not the property of a personal OR A UNIVERSAL SELF, but is 
rather a power developed 'through meditative penetration of 
phenomena.'
and
'One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not 
only for the actual realisation of the goal of Nibbana, but also for 
a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary 
condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the egolessness and 
insubstantiality of all forms of existence.  Without such an 
understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbana - according 
to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as 
annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of existence into which 
an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT MERGES. 
(The capitals show  the unconscious belief I have just realised I 
had.)

Keep on keeping on with your learning - that's all we can do,
metta,
Christine

 
8552 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:47am
Subject: Fwd: Re: [d-l] Abhidhamma and understanding (1)

 
  ---  robertkirkpatrick wrote:
--- Dear David,
Thanks. Comments below :

> I have also seen people (on other lists) be ego oriented about
> study of Abhidhamma (I study Abhidhamma). So I have been afraid to 
look
> at it (More ego) therefore avoidance.
__________
Right. Well the fact is some people do get conceited about their 
knowledge of Abhidhamma.
The thing is we are full of conceit and it doesn't so much get 
bigger  by studying a hard subject such as Abhidhamma - rather the 
innate conceit takes Abhidhamma as an object. 
It is not right for one who studies correctly to keep on with their 
conceited ways, though. If so they are not sincere, they are just 
having book learning and they are almost insulting the Dhamma with 
such behaviour.
_______
> 
> For whatever reason forest tradition has always attracted me. Tan 
Achaan
> Chah was once asked if he had his students study Abhidhamma. He 
said, "of
> course." Then he was asked, "what books on Abhidhamma do you 
recomended
> to start with?" "Only here," as he pointed to his heart.
> 
___________
With due respect to Acharn Cha - and perhaps it was just an off-hand 
comment that has been seized on by some of his students, I don't know-
 I think this is not a wise thing to say.
We have been 'looking into our own "heart" since beginningless time. 
It is only by learning the Buddha's Dhamma - which goes utterly 
against the flow of deeply held 'commonsense' ideas that profound 
insight develops. 
In the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society)
Iggelden writes
"It is all very well to say 'I know what needs to be done to break 
the continuity of rebirth and death'. In fact very few people know of 
even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let 
alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and 
reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so 
much care in putting before us.
It is all very well to say 'What do I want to know all these 
definitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?'The question is, 
though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the 
extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, 
hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and 
manifestations within their own thoughts and actions..This the 
scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest 
reader.."Endquote. He goes on in a similar vein for pages.

The Dhamma is above all for practising; but if practice is not 
informed by correct theory one is likely to follow paths that come to 
deadends. One might not even know one has been following the wrong 
way. One might even think they have now fathomed the matter and 
take 'wrong release' for the real thing.
I wrote most of this for other readers, David, as I know you see the 
advantage of study already.
best wishes
robert
--- End forwarded message ---

 
8553 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:15am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --- Howard wrote:

> > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> > conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> > abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
> > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
> > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?
> > 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
>        No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe 
> that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions 
> naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various 
> *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned objects, 
> and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are mutually 
> conditioning - they arise together.
> ------------------------------------------------------

Hi Howard.
If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually conditioning,
does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental activity, or am
I understanding this incorrectly?

Thanks,
Robert Ep.

  


 
8554 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:57am
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<table_width=

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Hi, Howard
> 
> I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
> to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
> previously.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
> if 
> > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
> annihilation as 
> > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
> nibbana is 
> > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
> craving for 
> > being.
> > --------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
> you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
> with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
> life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
> whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
> that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
> question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Must run.  Got a plane to catch.
> 
> Jon

Dear Jon,
I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a complete
cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as a goal
would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and associated
experience destroyed.  I think he is saying that if that is the actual description
of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being, just as
clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being.

I have to agree with this.  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not from
awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a Buddha. 
There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of suffering. 
Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable goal, only
cessation of suffering and attachment.     

Best,
Robert Ep.




 
8555 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:58am
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<table_width=

 
  --- Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> Hi, Howard
> 
> I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
> to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
> previously.
> 
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
> if 
> > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
> annihilation as 
> > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
> nibbana is 
> > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
> craving for 
> > being.
> > --------------------------------------
> 
> I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
> you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
> with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
> life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
> whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
> that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
> question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Must run.  Got a plane to catch.
> 
> Jon

Dear Jon,
I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a complete
cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as a goal
would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and associated
experience destroyed.  I think he is saying that if that is the actual description
of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being, just as
clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being.

I have to agree with this.  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not from
awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a Buddha. 
There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of suffering. 
Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable goal, only
cessation of suffering and attachment.     

Best,
Robert Ep.



 
8556 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:06am
Subject: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  -Dear Robert E--  Robert Epstein 
 wrote:
.  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
> of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, 
not from
> awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one 
is a Buddha. 
> There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of 
suffering. 
> Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a 
desireable goal, only
> cessation of suffering and attachment.     
> 
_____________
Dear Robert E.
There are three kinds of dukkha.
Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation 
p.1299) 'Suffering'
"There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due  
to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to 
formations.."Endquote
Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha 
teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the 
way to the cessation of dukkha.
It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is.
I can write more if you like, Robert .
robert

 
8557 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:29am
Subject: Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  Sorry the sutta should have said ..
"...suffering due to formations, suffering due to CHANGE"
robert--- 
 robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> -Dear Robert E--  Robert Epstein 
>  wrote:
> .  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
> > of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and 
desire, 
> not from
> > awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if 
one 
> is a Buddha. 
> > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of 
> suffering. 
> > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a 
> desireable goal, only
> > cessation of suffering and attachment.     
> > 
> _____________
> Dear Robert E.
> There are three kinds of dukkha.
> Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation 
> p.1299) 'Suffering'
> "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering 
due  
> to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to 
> formations.."Endquote
> Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha 
> teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches 
the 
> way to the cessation of dukkha.
> It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is.
> I can write more if you like, Robert .
> robert

 
8558 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:33am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Jon -
> 
> In a message dated 10/13/01 9:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Jonothan Abbott writes:
> 
> 
> > Howard
> > 
> > Hello from Bangkok.  I have access to a computer just long enough for a
> > quick post.
> > 
> > Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod
> > the context.
> > 
> > You say that "a materialist  believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ...
> > 
> > I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding
> > of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. 
> > Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on
> > parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's
> > teaching?
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> =========================
>        Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think that 
> such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on parinibbana.  The
question is whether there is anything that does not cease on parinibbana, that is
not the kandhas.  

  


 
8559 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:43am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> -Dear Robert E--  Robert Epstein 
>  wrote:
> .  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
> > of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, 
> not from
> > awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one 
> is a Buddha. 
> > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of 
> suffering. 
> > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a 
> desireable goal, only
> > cessation of suffering and attachment.     
> > 
> _____________
> Dear Robert E.
> There are three kinds of dukkha.
> Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation 
> p.1299) 'Suffering'
> "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due  
> to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to 
> formations.."Endquote
> Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha 
> teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the 
> way to the cessation of dukkha.
> It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is.
> I can write more if you like, Robert .
> robert

Thanks, Robert.  I believe there is a difference between unmodified awareness and
consciousness which is involved in formations and modifications.  If there is only
consciousness that is involved with an object then I would understand
consciousness creating dukkha.  I will be happy to hear further on your sense of
what the Buddha said about the relationship of consciousness and dukkha.

Robert Ep.




 
8560 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:44am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  --- robertkirkpatrick wrote:
> Sorry the sutta should have said ..
> "...suffering due to formations, suffering due to CHANGE"

got it.

thanks,
Robert Ep.


 
8561 From: Gaga   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:15pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query.

Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa.  Then what exists in the 31
planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane?

--- Christine Forsyth  wrote:

> 
> Dear David,
> Hello from another who is trying to understand Anatta (no-soul, no-
> self). In my opinion  it's probably necessary to understand 
> Anatta, before one can understand Kamma - however, as I am still 
> blundering around on the Misty Flats, maybe I'm incorrect in this 
> assumption. Others on this list will be able to help.
> I can only offer a couple of links that I found a beginning help:
> 
> http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/nynatlo1.htm
> "Egolessness" by Nyanatiloka Mahathera
> 
> "There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the 
> existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the 
> eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches 
> a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is 
> the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches 
> neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha. 
> The Buddha teaches that, what we call ego, self, soul, personality 
> etc., are merely conventional terms not referring to any real 
> independent entity. And he teaches that there is only to be found 
> this psycho-physical process of existence changing from moment to 
> moment. Without understanding the egolessness of existence, it is not 
> possible to gain a real understanding of the Buddha-word; and it is 
> not possible without it, to realize that goal of emancipation and 
> deliverance of mind proclaimed by the Buddha."
> 
> and 
> 
> "No Inner Core - Anatta" U Silananda, of which I am only on the first 
> chapter called "Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul" 
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html
> 
> However, I am already being brought face to face with some 
> unconscious beliefs I held, for example:
> 
> 'we can certainly say that there is no atta or self which realises 
> Nibbana.  What realizes Nibbana is insight-wisdom, Vipassana-panna.  
> It is not the property of a personal OR A UNIVERSAL SELF, but is 
> rather a power developed 'through meditative penetration of 
> phenomena.'
> and
> 'One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not 
> only for the actual realisation of the goal of Nibbana, but also for 
> a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary 
> condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the egolessness and 
> insubstantiality of all forms of existence.  Without such an 
> understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbana - according 
> to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as 
> annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of existence into which 
> an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT MERGES. 
> (The capitals show  the unconscious belief I have just realised I 
> had.)
> 
> Keep on keeping on with your learning - that's all we can do,
> metta,
> Christine



 
8562 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:02pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Mike

 
  Dear Mike (& Howard),

Let me add a few ‘sinippets’ here to the other helpful replies.

> I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> abhidhamma).
....................

As discussed, in this context of paticca samuppada (dependent origination),
nama is referring to the cetasikas only. As you’ll remember, when we were
discussing the relationship between cittas and cetasikas, we discussed how
cittas ‘lead’ in experiencing objects and cittas condition cetasikas and vice
versa. Also we know there are 4 conditions or causes for rupas to arise: namely
kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment.

I was just re-reading the detailed chapter on Dpendent Orig. in the Vism (ch
XV11) and interestingly, came across the ‘sheaves of reeds’ to describe (para
196)here the support given by the different kinds of originated rupa:
....................

‘Now although this kamma-born materiality is the first to find a footing in the
several kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station of consciousness, and
abode of beings, it is nevertheless unable to carry on without being
consolidated by materiality of triple origination <by consciousnes,
temperature, and nutriment>, nor can that of triple origination do so without
being consolidated by the former.  But when they thus give consolidating
support to each other, they can stand up without falling, like sheaves of reeds
propped together on all four sides, even though battered by the wind......’<end
quote>
....................

A little later in the same chapter, after a discussion on rebirth consciousness
we read (para 201):
....................

‘All the remaining kinds of consciousness from the time of the first
life-continuum <consciousness following rebirth-linking> onwards should be
understood as a condition for some kind of mentality-materiality as
apporopriate.  But since the whole contents of the Patthana must be cited in
order to show how it acts in detail, we do not undertake that (end quote)
....................
I won’t undertake it either then;-))!!

Mike, on a very simple level, I think we can know for ourselves that if there
is no seeing or hearing, there is no attachment to what is seen or heard and no
pleasant or unpleasant feeling on account of the visible object or sound. In
fact there is no visible object or sound appearing at all if there is no seeing
or hearing now. Likewise, we can know that when it is an unwholesome citta
which thinks, it’s accompanied by say dosa and the rupas, such as those that
constitute our facial expressions, are conditioned immediately.
.....................

Let me add one more quote from the Vism (para 202):
....................

‘Here it may be asked: ‘But how is it to be known that the
mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its condition?’. 
From the Suttas and from logic.  For in the Suttas it is established in many
places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way beginning
‘States with paallel occurrence through consciousness’ (Dhs 1522). But as to
logic:

From matter seen here to be born
Of consciousness a man can tell
That consciousness is a condition
for matter when unseen as well.

Whether consciousness likes it or not, (certain) material instances are seen to
arise in conformity with it.  And the unseen is inferred from the seen.  So it
can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is seen, that
consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of
rebirth-linking....’<end quote>
....................

That was a little more typing in than I intended at the start;-) I’ll have to
leave the Nimitta sutta for another post.

Sarah

p.s The Group all left on time for New Delhi, including several dsg lurkers who
had come from U.S. via Bkk.  Apparently several people who had ‘dropped out’,
‘dropped in’ again at the last minute;-). Jon was very happy to see a lot of
old friends and one or two, like dear Kom, for the first time. 




 
8563 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:52pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] 31 planes of existence

 
  Dear David,

Good to hear from you and your challenging question. I'll pass for now  as I'm
out of time (even though I don't need to share the computer today!). Hope to
hear plenty more from you and any introduction would be interesting.

(Glad your name isn't Rob, but i'm still getting a bit confused between David
and Gaga;-)

Welcome to dsg,

Sarah

 --- David Progosh  wrote: > I am a bit confused by this
notion of 31 planes of existence. ..........


 
 
8564 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:49pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  Hi Robert E

> I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on
> parinibbana.  The
> question is whether there is anything that does not cease on
> parinibbana, that is
> not the kandhas.  

I got this naughty thougts when you said quote the question above, what
are you hoping for :)?  When there is something after parinibbana, isn't
it eternalism or materialism, but if there is nothing, why would Buddha go
into Parinibbana in the first place.  Then what is it, I really do not
know, i more incline to believe that it should be similiar to the
definition of Nibbana :)

Cheers 
Kenneth Ong


 
8565 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:02pm
Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<table_width=

 
  Hi,

Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports parinibbana concept
of cessation of consciousness.  So far I know that there is description of
Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any sutta on the
definition of parinibbana.  I would be most delightful if anyone could
pinpoint to me. Thanks

Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong

 --- Robert Epstein  wrote: > ---
Jonothan Abbott wrote:
> > Hi, Howard
> > 
> > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted 
> > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here 
> > previously.
> > 
> > > ---------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and 
> > if 
> > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an 
> > annihilation as 
> > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the 
> > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a 
> > nibbana is 
> > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of 
> > craving for 
> > > being.
> > > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if 
> > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance 
> > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very 
> > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, 
> > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect 
> > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely.  There can be no 
> > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Must run.  Got a plane to catch.
> > 
> > Jon
> 
> Dear Jon,
> I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a
> complete
> cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as
> a goal
> would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and
> associated
> experience destroyed.  I think he is saying that if that is the actual
> description
> of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being,
> just as
> clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being.
> 
> I have to agree with this.  I do not understand total cessation as the
> final goal
> of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not
> from
> awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a
> Buddha. 
> There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of
> suffering. 
> Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable
> goal, only
> cessation of suffering and attachment.     
> 
> Best,
> Robert Ep.
> 
>  


 
8566 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:51pm
Subject: bangkok rendezvous?

 
  Dear Nina, Kom, Jon and all,
Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get
to the net.
Sarah,
Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok
after India? If so I might book a flight and have a weekend
there. Perhaps it  coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and
it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. I haven't seen Nina
and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing
Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. 
All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to
T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing.
robert


 
8567 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:05pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  Hi Robert K,

I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of dukkha
and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha.

Thanks in advance and kindest regards
Kenneth Ong



 --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > -Dear Robert E-- In
<>, Robert Epstein 
>  wrote:
> .  I do not understand total cessation as the final goal
> > of the spiritual path.  Suffering comes from attachment and desire, 
> not from
> > awareness.  It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one 
> is a Buddha. 
> > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of 
> suffering. 
> > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a 
> desireable goal, only
> > cessation of suffering and attachment.     
> > 
> _____________
> Dear Robert E.
> There are three kinds of dukkha.
> Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation 
> p.1299) 'Suffering'
> "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due  
> to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to 
> formations.."Endquote
> Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha 
> teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the 
> way to the cessation of dukkha.
> It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is.
> I can write more if you like, Robert .
> robert
> 


 
8568 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:32pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah

 
  Hi Victor,

 --- Victor wrote: > Sarah,
> 
> I am going to reply in context below.

Good, glad to 'talk';-)

> > Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used `conventionally' 
> by the
> > Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self 
> exists.
> 
> 
> Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by the 
> Buddha? :-)

When he explains repeatedly that what we take for a 'self' are in fact the 5
khandhas only or just nama and rupa (mental and physical phenomena), this is
the 'unconventional' usage, or rather the description of paramattha dhammas
(absolute realities) as opposed to conventional truths such as Victor, computer
and so on :-)
> 
> So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught 
> that "there is no self".

On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha to be
teaching ‘there is no self’. He teaches about realities to be known as not
self. 

If you say to me, does he ever say ‘there is no self’ other than with regard to
the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the question doesn’t
make any sense to me. For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or
attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any concept as having
no self because they are only concepts. Likewise, we cannot talk about a
‘blank’ or a ‘nothing’ having no self  or being no self:-)

I’m still not sure we’re on the same ‘wavelength’ and would like to pursue this
further......

> 
> In that message, Robert K wrote:
> "There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by 
> controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various 
> factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at 
> deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." 
> 
> Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is no 
> self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view.  

If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being aware (as
above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct understanding
of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the Buddha. In
what way is it a ‘speculative view’? What do you mean by ‘speculative view’
here? Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self?
> 
> Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of 
> context. :-)

Not at all, Victor...I think these are important points and in fact anatta is
the essence of the Teachings, so let’s check we’re on the same wavelength
here....I’m actually not sure at all whether you are just questioning the use
of words  or whether you have a different understanding of what anatta means. 

I’m sorry I was rather butting in here, but these are points I was interested
to discuss sometime back that have been raised by you again.

Look forward to more,

Sarah



 
8569 From: Howard 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:52am
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 10/13/01 10:17:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Robert E writes:


> --- Howard wrote:
> 
> > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> > > conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> > > abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
> > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
> > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?
> > > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> >        No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe 
> > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions 
> > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various 
> > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned 
> objects, 
> > and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are 
> mutually 
> > conditioning - they arise together.
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Howard.
> If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually 
> conditioning,
> does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental 
> activity, or am
> I understanding this incorrectly?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert Ep.
> 
==========================
       I see it as almost that, but not quite. My interpretation is a kind of 
radical phenomenalism, a bit like William James' "radical empiricism", but 
not an idealism. To me, objects do not exist independently of being observed, 
yet they are not *created* by discernment. To exist is to be *able* to be 
discerned. Existence (such as it is) is conditional, and dependent on 
conditions, both previous in time and co-existing, and including being 
discernable as one of those conditions. That an object, A , "exists" means to 
me that if certain experiences were to occur (or be made to occur),  then the 
experiencing of A would occur. Moreover, things are not observed only by a 
single sentient being; a realm of experience is a shared realm, formed by the 
kammic traces of those who "share" that realm. 
       To me an object that is in principle unable to be observed is as good 
as no object at all. A nonobservable is nonexistent. 

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8570 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:09pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  Hi Robert Ep
> I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on
> parinibbana.  The
> question is whether there is anything that does not cease on
> parinibbana, that is
> not the kandhas.  

Thinking of it again, unless Buddha defines what is Parinibbana to us,
whatever that is written or spoken even those written by Elders are just
mere speculations.  Why do I say that, because even Buddha enter into
PariNibbana, hence how could we know abt it unless he come out and tell us
abt it. Furthermore, when he is still alive, he cannot describe it because
he has not gone into PariNibbana.  These are also my speculations and no
offence are meant.




Kind regards
Kenneth Ong  


 
8571 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:09pm
Subject: Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  --- 
Dear Kenneth and Rob. E,
You certainly have an approach that encourages everyone to respond.
Dukkha is one of those subjects that we can write and write about.
Let me just say a little for now:
The sammohavinodani (Dispeller of delusion) SaccaVibhanga 
(classification of the truths)p112 Notes that the first two noble 
truths (dukkhasacca and samudayasacca) are "profound because hard to 
grasp" p111 notes that all 4 truths are similar because they 
are "void of self and difficult to penetrate".

Dukkha-dukkhata is the usual daily life pains we all know so well and 
also includes ones that are coming such as death and old age. The 
woes in animal and hell realms are much more. This type of dukkha is 
understood by all religions and philosophies.
Viparinama-dukkhata is the pleasant feeling which is suffering 
because it changes.
Sankhara-dukkhata is all conditioned phenomena of all planes of 
existence. It is Dukkha because it oppresses by rise and fall. It 
never stops coming. This is the hard one to see. 

How can this truth of Dukkha (ariya dukkha sacca) be known? 
The "Patisambhidamagga" . The First or Great Division, I, Treatise on 
Knowledge, Ch XV, Defining Internally, says that one "defines" or 
develops understanding of the ayatanas . 
"How is it that understanding of defining internally is knowledge of 
difference in the physical bases? 
How does he define dhammas internally? 
He defines the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the 
mind internally."Endquote 

    Nina Van gorkom commenting on this says "When panna is developed 
in vipassana one does not confuse the different doorways with each 
other, there is only one reality appearing at a time through one 
doorway." 
We then read that he considers the conditions for the arising of the 
bases, namely ignorance and craving. He considers the characteristics 
of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. In the course of the development 
of panna clinging to the bases is abandoned. 

    The Commentary, the Saddhammappakasini, states that the eye does 
not exist before its arising, that it is there after its arising, 
that after its falling away it will not return. The commentary states 
that it is not stable, that it cannot last, that it is unsure and 
insignificant (viparinama). 

The eye is so fleeting. It seems to last but this is an illusion. if 
we could see the conditioned arising and passing away of this and of 
all phenomena we would turn away from such insignificant and 
oppressive phenomena because then we would see the real meaning of 
dukkha. That is sankharadukkha.
Now we cling to the eye, we enjoy seeing and we cling to the objects 
that are seen. Why? Because dukkha is not understood yet.
robert

   
 Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Hi Robert K,
> 
> I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of 
dukkha
> and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha.
> 
> Thanks in advance and kindest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
> 
> mail.yahoo.ie

 
8572 From: Gaga   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:13pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] 31 planes of existence

 
  Dear Sarah,

Nice to meet you too!

Sorry for not introducing myself to the group.  Here it is then:

David Progosh, Canadian. Pen name is Gaga, which I prefer in correspondences. 

I have lived abroad now for 12 years (6 in Japan, 1 in the United States, 1 in
Hong Kong, 2 in France, 2 in Thailand).  I came into contact with Zen Buddhism
in the 70s, but started meditation and vipassana seriously in the Thai Forest
tradition (Theravadan) 3 years ago.

I occasionally work with the folks at Suan Mokkh (http://www.suanmokkh.org/)
editing and preparing their more recent dhamma books.

I am in Canada for the time being. I hope to take some time in the new year to
study the dhamma more closely with the sangha at Wat Pa Nanachat in
Northeastern Thailand. 

I look forward too hearing back from you and the others regarding my query.

All the best,

Be well,

Gaga





--- Sarah  wrote:
> Dear David,
> 
> Good to hear from you and your challenging question. I'll pass for now  as
> I'm
> out of time (even though I don't need to share the computer today!). Hope to
> hear plenty more from you and any introduction would be interesting.
> 
> (Glad your name isn't Rob, but i'm still getting a bit confused between David
> and Gaga;-)
> 
> Welcome to dsg,
> 
> Sarah
> 
>  --- David Progosh  wrote: > I am a bit confused by this
> notion of 31 planes of existence. ..........



 
8573 From: Sarah   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:18pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous?

 
  Rob,

 --- Robert Kirkpatrick  wrote: > Dear Nina,
Kom, Jon and all,
> Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get
> to the net.

Just got a quick call to say thy've all arrived safely at the hotel and Nina
and Lodevick were there at the entrance to greet them;-) In the old days, we'd
go off to India for weeks or months and have no tel or email
communication...now it's so easy....I'm passing on these snippets as I know one
or two people like you and Betty  and Sukin (& Ivan if he's listening) will be
glad to hear. 

> Sarah,
> Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok
> after India?

I'm pretty sure that she won't be....they may be spending a little more time in
India or Nepal and then back to Holland.

 If so I might book a flight and have a weekend
> there. Perhaps it  coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and
> it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. 

Certainly worthwhile to see Mike and Kom.

I haven't seen Nina
> and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing
> Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. 
> All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to
> T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing.

You'd miss Jon's icing too as he's just connecting flights in Bkk and back to
HK on the Sunday eve ready to get back to drafting laws on the Monday
morning;-)  (Only academics get these lovely long hols.....) I'm missing his
icing already (just dosa, I know), but I'm just so glad to have you all to talk
to and listen to;-)

By the way, are you still in NZ or back in Japan..I've lost track, but then
only another story!

Sarah

p.s I appreciated your comments to David about conceit with regard to
Abhidhamma. It was a good reminder. It can arise even though what we say may be
correct, but the abhidhamma shouldn't just be book-learning. 

Actually I listened today to a tape in which K.Sujin was talking about the
purpose of studying dhamma and 'being respectful'. if one just reads and hears
and accumulates knowledge without developing understanding of the unwholesome
tendencies at this very moment when we're studying, we're not being
'respectful' to the Teachings. This was very similar to what you mentioned
about 'insulting the Dhamma'. Sometimes (I find) it's easy to see and point out
the other's conceit or attachment, but what about now, is there any real
understanding of 'our own' cittas? There can be conceit now when we think we
don't have the same conceit as others even...(just 'caught out' with this
one;-)

I've also appreciated Rob Ep's reminders in this regard while reading the
Suttas....understanding the realities at these very times when we're reading
the reminders is a good test. 'if not now, then when?' as K.Sujin says.
Studying the Abhidhamma and anatta should be a condition for more humility and
honesty with ourselves, rather than the reverse. 

Btw, Rob Ep, with regard to a comment in your last post to Jon, we often
comment on how very pleasant it is talking to you. I think we all get a 'tad
impatient' at times, but we both really appreciate your sincerity and
willingness to consider these aspects.

Very tired, probably not making any sense, must stop!
Sarah





 
8574 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:43pm
Subject: Re: bangkok rendezvous?

 
  --- 
Dear sarah,
thanks for the extra comments a bout conceit,. So nice to hear about 
Nina and Loedwijk meeting jon (wish I was there)
Hmmm, A little bird told me that Cybele might be arriving in bangkok 
about that time too.
 But still if nina is not going to be there that takes an awful lot 
of icing away. Not sure I can justify the journey. Might have to wait 
until January.
best wishes
robert

 Sarah  wrote:
> Rob,
>

 
8575 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:58pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Mike

 
  Hi Sarah,

Is the conscious you are writing below refer to bhavanga citta?  Could you
kindly explain what is the series of cittas in a rebirth process? And also
if you do not mind, what is the series of cittas in a sense process.  I
know there are 40 or more cittas in seeing but I do not know which come
first.  Another question do you need the organ of eye in order to see?


thanks and kindest regards
Kenneth Ong



 --- Sarah  wrote: > Dear Mike (& Howard),
> 
> Let me add a few ‘sinippets’ here to the other helpful replies.
> 
> > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> > conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> > abhidhamma).
> ....................
> 
> As discussed, in this context of paticca samuppada (dependent
> origination),
> nama is referring to the cetasikas only. As you’ll remember, when we
> were
> discussing the relationship between cittas and cetasikas, we discussed
> how
> cittas ‘lead’ in experiencing objects and cittas condition cetasikas and
> vice
> versa. Also we know there are 4 conditions or causes for rupas to arise:
> namely
> kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment.
> 
> I was just re-reading the detailed chapter on Dpendent Orig. in the Vism
> (ch
> XV11) and interestingly, came across the ‘sheaves of reeds’ to describe
> (para
> 196)here the support given by the different kinds of originated rupa:
> ....................
> 
> ‘Now although this kamma-born materiality is the first to find a footing
> in the
> several kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station of
> consciousness, and
> abode of beings, it is nevertheless unable to carry on without being
> consolidated by materiality of triple origination <by consciousnes,
> temperature, and nutriment>, nor can that of triple origination do so
> without
> being consolidated by the former.  But when they thus give consolidating
> support to each other, they can stand up without falling, like sheaves
> of reeds
> propped together on all four sides, even though battered by the
> wind......’<end
> quote>
> ....................
> 
> A little later in the same chapter, after a discussion on rebirth
> consciousness
> we read (para 201):
> ....................
> 
> ‘All the remaining kinds of consciousness from the time of the first
> life-continuum <consciousness following rebirth-linking> onwards should
> be
> understood as a condition for some kind of mentality-materiality as
> apporopriate.  But since the whole contents of the Patthana must be
> cited in
> order to show how it acts in detail, we do not undertake that (end
> quote)
> ....................
> I won’t undertake it either then;-))!!
> 
> Mike, on a very simple level, I think we can know for ourselves that if
> there
> is no seeing or hearing, there is no attachment to what is seen or heard
> and no
> pleasant or unpleasant feeling on account of the visible object or
> sound. In
> fact there is no visible object or sound appearing at all if there is no
> seeing
> or hearing now. Likewise, we can know that when it is an unwholesome
> citta
> which thinks, it’s accompanied by say dosa and the rupas, such as those
> that
> constitute our facial expressions, are conditioned immediately.
> .....................
> 
> Let me add one more quote from the Vism (para 202):
> ....................
> 
> ‘Here it may be asked: ‘But how is it to be known that the
> mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its
> condition?’. 
> From the Suttas and from logic.  For in the Suttas it is established in
> many
> places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way
> beginning
> ‘States with paallel occurrence through consciousness’ (Dhs 1522). But
> as to
> logic:
> 
> From matter seen here to be born
> Of consciousness a man can tell
> That consciousness is a condition
> for matter when unseen as well.
> 
> Whether consciousness likes it or not, (certain) material instances are
> seen to
> arise in conformity with it.  And the unseen is inferred from the seen. 
> So it
> can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is
> seen, that
> consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of
> rebirth-linking....’<end quote>
> ....................
> 
> That was a little more typing in than I intended at the start;-) I’ll
> have to
> leave the Nimitta sutta for another post.
> 
> Sarah
> 
> p.s The Group all left on time for New Delhi, including several dsg
> lurkers who
> had come from U.S. via Bkk.  Apparently several people who had ‘dropped
> out’,
> ‘dropped in’ again at the last minute;-). Jon was very happy to see a
> lot of
> old friends and one or two, like dear Kom, for the first time. 
> 


 
8576 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:20pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E)

 
  Hi Robert K,

Thanks for your kind patience in explaining dukkha, could you point to a
link or would you like to write more on Sankhara-dukkhata.


Kind regards
Kenneth Ong



 --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- 
> Dear Kenneth and Rob. E,
> You certainly have an approach that encourages everyone to respond.
> Dukkha is one of those subjects that we can write and write about.
> Let me just say a little for now:
> The sammohavinodani (Dispeller of delusion) SaccaVibhanga 
> (classification of the truths)p112 Notes that the first two noble 
> truths (dukkhasacca and samudayasacca) are "profound because hard to 
> grasp" p111 notes that all 4 truths are similar because they 
> are "void of self and difficult to penetrate".
> 
> Dukkha-dukkhata is the usual daily life pains we all know so well and 
> also includes ones that are coming such as death and old age. The 
> woes in animal and hell realms are much more. This type of dukkha is 
> understood by all religions and philosophies.
> Viparinama-dukkhata is the pleasant feeling which is suffering 
> because it changes.
> Sankhara-dukkhata is all conditioned phenomena of all planes of 
> existence. It is Dukkha because it oppresses by rise and fall. It 
> never stops coming. This is the hard one to see. 
> 
> How can this truth of Dukkha (ariya dukkha sacca) be known? 
> The "Patisambhidamagga" . The First or Great Division, I, Treatise on 
> Knowledge, Ch XV, Defining Internally, says that one "defines" or 
> develops understanding of the ayatanas . 
> "How is it that understanding of defining internally is knowledge of 
> difference in the physical bases? 
> How does he define dhammas internally? 
> He defines the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the 
> mind internally."Endquote 
> 
>     Nina Van gorkom commenting on this says "When panna is developed 
> in vipassana one does not confuse the different doorways with each 
> other, there is only one reality appearing at a time through one 
> doorway." 
> We then read that he considers the conditions for the arising of the 
> bases, namely ignorance and craving. He considers the characteristics 
> of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. In the course of the development 
> of panna clinging to the bases is abandoned. 
> 
>     The Commentary, the Saddhammappakasini, states that the eye does 
> not exist before its arising, that it is there after its arising, 
> that after its falling away it will not return. The commentary states 
> that it is not stable, that it cannot last, that it is unsure and 
> insignificant (viparinama). 
> 
> The eye is so fleeting. It seems to last but this is an illusion. if 
> we could see the conditioned arising and passing away of this and of 
> all phenomena we would turn away from such insignificant and 
> oppressive phenomena because then we would see the real meaning of 
> dukkha. That is sankharadukkha.
> Now we cling to the eye, we enjoy seeing and we cling to the objects 
> that are seen. Why? Because dukkha is not understood yet.
> robert
> 
>    
>  Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> > Hi Robert K,
> > 
> > I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of 
> dukkha
> > and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance and kindest regards
> > Kenneth Ong
> > 


 
8577 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:31pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa

 
  Hi Jon, 

This reference that you have quoted,
VII, 38
"The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble
Eightfold Path.  In the teaching of the four truths, this is the
collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors
arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths.
It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of
enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or
supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are
exclusively supramundane."

Could you kindly comment why is the Four Noble Truths are exlusively
supramudane.  My confusion is that the Four Noble Truths is exlusively
supramundanee, how is it going to be supramundance if the eight path
factors which is part of the Four Noble Truth could be mundane. 
Furthermore if it is supramundane, how are we going to learn or practise
using mundane effort or understanding.  



Kindest regards
Kenneth Ong



 
8578 From: Jonothan Abbott   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 0:29am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous?

 
  Rob

 --- Robert Kirkpatrick  wrote: > Dear
Nina, Kom, Jon and all,
> Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get
> to the net.

Thanks.  As Sarah has mentioned, we have just arrived in India and checked
in.  It has been a long day, but great to catch up with some of our
lurking list members, including Jack and Oi, Oh and Jaran from California
whom Sarah and I met last year on the Cambodia trip, and Tom and Beverly
also from the States whom I first knew in BAngkok and last saw about 20
years ago, and to meet Kom in person for the first time, and of course
Nina and her husband.

I will try to give some news or reports as we go along, but am already
learning that getting and sustaining a connection here can be a dicy
thing.

Nina is not planning to go to Bangkok after the trip.  I think she stays
in India for a while and then returns to Holland.

Long day.  Must get some rest.

Jon

> Sarah,
> Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok
> after India? If so I might book a flight and have a weekend
> there. Perhaps it  coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and
> it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. I haven't seen Nina
> and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing
> Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. 
> All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to
> T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing.
> robert
> 


 
 
8579 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:36am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  Hi, Gaga (and Christine) -

In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P 
writes:


> Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query.
> 
> Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa.  Then what exists in the 
> 31
> planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane?
> 
======================
       How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves 
anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - 
each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8580 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:47am
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  Hi, Kenneth -

In a message dated 10/14/01 9:22:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kenneth Ong writes:


> Hi,
> 
> Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports parinibbana concept
> of cessation of consciousness.  So far I know that there is description of
> Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any sutta on the
> definition of parinibbana.  I would be most delightful if anyone could
> pinpoint to me. Thanks
> 
> Kindest regards
> Kenneth Ong
> 
========================
       This is an interesting and important question, I think. Someone who is 
not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web site raised 
the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta entitled "The All"  
states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever (conventionally) 
exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these do not 
continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume that there 
is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there is no 
annihilation with parinibbana.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8581 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:33am
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  Dear Howard,
would you mind quoting the sutta you mention "The All"
thanks
robert
---
  Howard wrote:
> Hi, Kenneth -
> 
> In a message dated 10/14/01 9:22:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> <> writes:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports 
parinibbana concept
> > of cessation of consciousness.  So far I know that there is 
description of
> > Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any 
sutta on the
> > definition of parinibbana.  I would be most delightful if anyone 
could
> > pinpoint to me. Thanks
> > 
> > Kindest regards
> > Kenneth Ong
> > 
> ========================
>        This is an interesting and important question, I think. 
Someone who is 
> not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web 
site raised 
> the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta 
entitled "The All"  
> states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever 
(conventionally) 
> exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these 
do not 
> continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume 
that there 
> is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there 
is no 
> annihilation with parinibbana.
> 
> 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)                    

 
8582 From: Victor 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:17am
Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah

 
  Sarah,

I am going to reply in context below.

---  Sarah  wrote:
> Hi Victor,
> 
>  --- Victor wrote: > Sarah,
> > 
> > I am going to reply in context below.
> 
> Good, glad to 'talk';-)
> 
> > > Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used 
`conventionally' 
> > by the
> > > Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any 
self 
> > exists.
> > 
> > 
> > Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by 
the 
> > Buddha? :-)
> 
> When he explains repeatedly that what we take for a 'self' are in 
fact the 5
> khandhas only or just nama and rupa (mental and physical 
phenomena), this is
> the 'unconventional' usage, or rather the description of paramattha 
dhammas
> (absolute realities) as opposed to conventional truths such as 
Victor, computer
> and so on :-)
> > 
> > So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha 
taught 
> > that "there is no self".
> 
> On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha 
to be
> teaching `there is no self'. 
He teaches about realities to be known as not
> self. 


Sarah, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: 
Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.

Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
This I am not.  This is not my self.'"*


> 
> If you say to me, does he ever say `there is no self' other than 
with regard to
> the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the 
question doesn't
> make any sense to me.  

Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: 
Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.

Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
This I am not.  This is not my self.'"

For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or
> attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any 
concept as having
> no self because they are only concepts. 


Rupa is impermanent.

A computer is impermanent.  

Nama is impermanent.

A concept is impermanent.


Likewise, we cannot talk about a
> `blank' or a `nothing' having no self  or being no self:-)
> 

Again, let's focus on what the Buddha taught:
Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.

Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
This I am not.  This is not my self.'"

> I'm still not sure we're on the same `wavelength' and would like to 
pursue this
> further......
> 
> > 
> > In that message, Robert K wrote:
> > "There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by 
> > controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by 
various 
> > factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at 
> > deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." 
> > 
> > Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is 
no 
> > self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view.  
> 
> If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being 
aware (as
> above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct 
understanding
> of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the 
Buddha. In
> what way is it a `speculative view'? What do you mean 
by `speculative view'
> here? 


By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and 
speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha.


>Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self?

Sati is not self.  Sati is to be seen as it actually is with right 
discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  This I am not.  This is not my 
self.'"  

> > 
> > Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of 
> > context. :-)
> 
> Not at all, Victor...I think these are important points and in fact 
anatta is
> the essence of the Teachings, so let's check we're on the same 
wavelength
> here....I'm actually not sure at all whether you are just 
questioning the use
> of words  or whether you have a different understanding of what 
anatta means. 

Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding.

Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught:
Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.

Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
This I am not.  This is not my self.'"

> 
> I'm sorry I was rather butting in here, but these are points I was 
interested
> to discuss sometime back that have been raised by you again.
> 


Butting in here is no problem with me.  :-)


> Look forward to more,
> 
> Sarah

Sarah, also check out SN.18 Rahulasamyutta.  :-)

Metta,
Victor

*Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html

 
8583 From: Gaga   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:35am
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  Much thanks for your analogy to flipping channels for tackling this notion of
31 planes Howard. In essence then there is no moral or ethical ramification (a
good or bad!) then to be at any plane-- some might be "hot", others "sensual",
and so on and so forth... 

A naive question as a follow up: is there a cosmology from whence Gotama
derived these planes, or did he envision these through insight alone? In other
words, on what basis are these 31 planes identified and characterized?

May you be well,

Gaga 
 

 




--- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Gaga (and Christine) -
> 
> In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P 
> writes:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query.
> > 
> > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa.  Then what exists in the 
> > 31
> > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane?
> > 
> ======================
>        How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves 
> anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - 
> each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience.
> 
> 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)                   
> 



 
8584 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:11am
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  Hi, Robert -

In a message dated 10/14/01 7:35:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
<> writes:


> Dear Howard,
> would you mind quoting the sutta you mention "The All"
> thanks
> robert
> ---
>  Howard wrote:
> > Hi, Kenneth -
> > 
> > In a message dated 10/14/01 9:22:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > <> writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports 
> parinibbana concept
> > > of cessation of consciousness.  So far I know that there is 
> description of
> > > Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any 
> sutta on the
> > > definition of parinibbana.  I would be most delightful if anyone 
> could
> > > pinpoint to me. Thanks
> > > 
> > > Kindest regards
> > > Kenneth Ong
> > > 
> > ========================
> >        This is an interesting and important question, I think. 
> Someone who is 
> > not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web 
> site raised 
> > the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta 
> entitled "The All"  
> > states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever 
> (conventionally) 
> > exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these 
> do not 
> > continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume 
> that there 
> > is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there 
> is no 
> > annihilation with parinibbana.
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> 
==============================
       I can't find it on Access to Insight. It occurs early in the 
Salayatanasamyutta. It is the first piece under the section also entitled 
"The All". It is quite short, so I will type it out: 

23 (1) The All

At Saavatthi. "Bhikkus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that ....
       "And whatm bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and 
sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile 
objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all.
       "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I 
shall make known another all" - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. 
If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would 
meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be 
within his domain."

       Does sound rather definitive, doesn't it! The question in my mind is: 
"Where does nibbana fit in?".

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8585 From: Howard 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:23am
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  Hi again, Robert K -

In a message dated 10/14/01 10:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes:


> The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?".
========================
       One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing but the 
cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), leaving 
the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the cessation of the 
five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an annihilation. So, 
accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and not just 
the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes great 
importance.

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)                    
            
                                         



 
8586 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 11:44am
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  ---
Howard,
I think there might be a sutta where the Buddha explains that he 
teaches Dukkha and the cause of dukkha and the way to the cessation 
of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is parinibbana. Dukkha is all 
conditioned dhammas - i.e the five aggregates, the ayatanas, the 
dhatus. 
We can say the buddha teaches the anihilation of dukkha. But he 
doesnt have the slightest thread of anililationsim as a doctrine of 
self that is being anilihilated. You wrote earlier that you thought 
he cessation of the khandas sounded like a suicide wish. This idea 
comes from a belief that there is something to be anihilated. Dhammas 
are really nothing - just fleeting conditioned phenomenena without a 
trace of self. Nothing lasting, nothing worth clinging to. Because of 
deep delusion though WE cling. Such a long path to comprehend this 
properly. 
robert

  Howard wrote:
> Hi again, Robert K -
> 
> In a message dated 10/14/01 10:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Upasaka writes:
> 
> 
> > The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?".
> ========================
>        One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing 
but the 
> cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), 
leaving 
> the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the 
cessation of the 
> five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an 
annihilation. So, 
> accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and 
not just 
> the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes 
great 
> importance.
> 

 
8587 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:50pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah

 
  Victor,

--- Victor wrote: > Sarah,
> 
> I am going to reply in context below.
....................

Likewise.....I’m going to give the points a number as i have a feeling (before
I start) that I may end up going in a circle.....
....................

(1) > > On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha 
> to be
> > teaching `there is no self'. 
> He teaches about realities to be known as not
> > self. 
....................

> Sarah, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.
> 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
> as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
> This I am not.  This is not my self.'"*
....................

Do you agree that feeling, perception and so on are realities (paramattha
dhammas)?

If yes, in what way do my words in (1) not reflect what the Buddha taught as
implied?
....................

(2) > > If you say to me, does he ever say `there is no self' other than 
> with regard to
> > the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the 
> question doesn't
> > make any sense to me.  
....................
 
> Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.
> 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
> as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
> This I am not.  This is not my self.'"
....................

Can we agree that feeling and so on are 4 of the 5 khandhas?

If so, where is the difference in meaning?
....................

(3) > For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or
> > attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any 
> concept as having
> > no self because they are only concepts. 
....................

> Rupa is impermanent.
> 
> A computer is impermanent.  
> 
> Nama is impermanent.
> 
> A concept is impermanent.
....................

Is a computer a concept (pa~n~natti). Is a concept a rupa? Where does the
Buddha say a concept is impermanent or has the characteristic of anicca
(impermanence)?>
 ....................

(4) >> Likewise, we cannot talk about a
> > `blank' or a `nothing' having no self  or being no self:-)
....................
 
> Again, let's focus on what the Buddha taught:
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.
> 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
> as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
> This I am not.  This is not my self.'"
....................

Victor, do we agree here? If not why?
....................

(5)> > If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being 
> aware (as
> > above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct 
> understanding
> > of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the 
> Buddha. In
> > what way is it a `speculative view'? What do you mean 
> by `speculative view'
> > here? 
....................

> By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and 
> speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha.
....................

Would you say my comments above are speculative views (using your definition)
and do not lead to the cessation of dukkha? If so, why?
....................

(6)> >Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self?
....................

> Sati is not self.  Sati is to be seen as it actually is with right 
> discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  This I am not.  This is not my 
> self.'"  
....................

So where is the disagreement? Where is the speculation?
...................

(7)> > ....I'm actually not sure at all whether you are just 
> questioning the use
> > of words  or whether you have a different understanding of what 
>> anatta means. 
....................
 
> Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding.
> 
> Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught:
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self.
> 
> Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen 
> as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine.  
> This I am not.  This is not my self.'"
....................

Victor, we all agree that all the khandhas (these ones plus rupa) are not self.
We have all read suttas where this is confirmed many times  Please indicate
what has been said that does not conform with this Teaching and where any
difference is.
....................

(8)> Butting in here is no problem with me.  :-)
....................

Good! We agree :-) 

(aside to others- Must say, I like the contrast in styles on the list.....the
minimalist one is quite a refreshing change and challenge - may become
addictive;-)
....................

(9)> Sarah, also check out SN.18 Rahulasamyutta.  :-)
....................

What is your point, Victor?
....................
 
> Metta,
> Victor
...................

best wishes and metta too, Sarah
.....................

(10)> *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html
....................

Please indicate what I’ve said (or someone else has said) that you don’t
believe conforms with the understanding (rather than the exact words) taught
here. We both agree with your point stated in (7) that how we use ‘self’
reflects the understanding and that it is the understanding that is important.
(Of course, as the Buddha emphasised, we have to talk to someone quite a lot to
get an idea of their understanding when they use certain words......and you’re
not giving much away, Victor, but I'm in no hurry ;-)

(aside to others - lost the minimalist approach here...<sigh>  --- 


 
8588 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:11pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?

 
  --- Kenneth Ong  wrote:
> Hi Robert E
> 
> > I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on
> > parinibbana.  The
> > question is whether there is anything that does not cease on
> > parinibbana, that is
> > not the kandhas.  
> 
> I got this naughty thougts when you said quote the question above, what
> are you hoping for :)?  When there is something after parinibbana, isn't
> it eternalism or materialism, but if there is nothing, why would Buddha go
> into Parinibbana in the first place.  Then what is it, I really do not
> know, i more incline to believe that it should be similiar to the
> definition of Nibbana :)

right!

Robert



 
8589 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:26pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Robert -
> 
> In a message dated 10/13/01 10:17:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Robert E writes:
> 
> 
> > --- Howard wrote:
> > 
> > > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana
> > > > conditions naama-ruupa.  The converse seems obvious
> > > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very
> > > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other
> > > > abhidhamma).  Howard, is your idea that this
> > > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the
> > > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa?
> > > > 
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > > Howard:
> > >        No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe 
> > > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions 
> > > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various 
> > > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned 
> > objects, 
> > > and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are 
> > mutually 
> > > conditioning - they arise together.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Hi Howard.
> > If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually 
> > conditioning,
> > does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental 
> > activity, or am
> > I understanding this incorrectly?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Robert Ep.
> > 
> ==========================
>        I see it as almost that, but not quite. My interpretation is a kind of 
> radical phenomenalism, a bit like William James' "radical empiricism", but 
> not an idealism. To me, objects do not exist independently of being observed, 
> yet they are not *created* by discernment. To exist is to be *able* to be 
> discerned. Existence (such as it is) is conditional, and dependent on 
> conditions, both previous in time and co-existing, and including being 
> discernable as one of those conditions. That an object, A , "exists" means to 
> me that if certain experiences were to occur (or be made to occur),  then the 
> experiencing of A would occur. Moreover, things are not observed only by a 
> single sentient being; a realm of experience is a shared realm, formed by the 
> kammic traces of those who "share" that realm. 
>        To me an object that is in principle unable to be observed is as good 
> as no object at all. A nonobservable is nonexistent. 
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of being
discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent?

Regards,
Robert



 
8590 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:35pm
Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______</td>____</tr>____</table>________<t...

 
  Hi Robert K and Howard,

I think the problem is the word "cessation" (anymore knows what is the
Pali word used).  When kandhas cease, it does not mean that they are
annihilated or totally obligated.  I think this is the perspective we
should look at. They could be just there and maybe they would not rise
anymore.  Hence there is no total annihilation when one enter PariNibbana.




Kindest regards 
Kenneth Ong


 --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > ---
> Howard,
> I think there might be a sutta where the Buddha explains that he 
> teaches Dukkha and the cause of dukkha and the way to the cessation 
> of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is parinibbana. Dukkha is all 
> conditioned dhammas - i.e the five aggregates, the ayatanas, the 
> dhatus. 
> We can say the buddha teaches the anihilation of dukkha. But he 
> doesnt have the slightest thread of anililationsim as a doctrine of 
> self that is being anilihilated. You wrote earlier that you thought 
> he cessation of the khandas sounded like a suicide wish. This idea 
> comes from a belief that there is something to be anihilated. Dhammas 
> are really nothing - just fleeting conditioned phenomenena without a 
> trace of self. Nothing lasting, nothing worth clinging to. Because of 
> deep delusion though WE cling. Such a long path to comprehend this 
> properly. 
> robert
> 
>   Howard wrote:
> > Hi again, Robert K -
> > 
> > In a message dated 10/14/01 10:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Upasaka writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?".
> > ========================
> >        One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing 
> but the 
> > cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), 
> leaving 
> > the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the 
> cessation of the 
> > five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an 
> annihilation. So, 
> > accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and 
> not just 
> > the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes 
> great 
> > importance.
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard
> > 


 
8591 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:39pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous?

 
  --- Sarah  wrote:

> Btw, Rob Ep, with regard to a comment in your last post to Jon, we often
> comment on how very pleasant it is talking to you. I think we all get a 'tad
> impatient' at times, but we both really appreciate your sincerity and
> willingness to consider these aspects.

Thanks Sarah, your welcoming attitude is very much appreciated.  

Robert Ep.




 
8592 From: Kenneth Ong   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:42pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã

 
  Hi Robert E

Honestly, my grasp of the English language is not good.   Could you kindly
assist in explain in simpler terms what is your question below?

Kind regards
Kenneth Ong


 
> Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of
> being
> discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent?
> 
> Regards,
> Robert
> 
> 


 
8593 From: Robert Epstein   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 3:00pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  --- Howard wrote:
> Hi, Gaga (and Christine) -
> 
> In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P 
> writes:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query.
> > 
> > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa.  Then what exists in the 
> > 31
> > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane?
> > 
> ======================
>        How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves 
> anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - 
> each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard

Well, wouldn't it be simpler to say that awareness experiences the different
planes of existence, and that this is what is common to all the experiences of
living?  It seems to me that if you have to torture and bend the definitions of
things in order to make them fit, that there is probably a simpler explanation. 
We want to make sense of why we can't find a self upon inquiry, and yet we keep
conveniently referring to one.  So it makes sense to say 'well this is a concept
which has feelings attached to it, and interpretations which are fed by the senses
which are subtly being shaped by mental factors.  That is why we have a sense of
self even though there is no self to be found.  If a self could be found, we would
say 'well there is a self' but that's not the way it is.  The analysis of kandhas
breaks down the components of experience very nicely.  The problem we are left
with is the continuity of experiences.  Well, we say, that is just a question of
memories being stored in the brain and referred back to by various arising cittas
which give a sense of continuity.  Well, that's okay.  But when we start saying
that reincarnation really means the reincarnation from moment to moment, or that
different planes that are referred to are not really planes but are just mental
experiences and don't really exist, it seems to start taking what is said in
sutras and just twisting them around to fit one's own conception.  Not that I
don't possibly do this myself.  But I just think we should try to be good
detectives who don't avoid the obvious in order to make the convoluted make sense,
and if the Buddha refers to different planes we might want to say 'well what does
that then necessitate' rather than trying to deny what is there.  To me it once
again seems to necessitate 'something' that is capable of experiencing those
planes.  The something must be either awareness itself, or a consciousness of some
kind that is able to exist independent of the physical body.  Does that make
sense?

Robert Ep.




 
 
8594 From: Sarah   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 3:34pm
Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Mike

 
  Hi Ken O,

 --- Kenneth Ong  wrote: > Hi Sarah,
> 
> Is the conscious you are writing below refer to bhavanga citta?  Could you
> kindly explain what is the series of cittas in a rebirth process? And also
> if you do not mind, what is the series of cittas in a sense process.  I
> know there are 40 or more cittas in seeing but I do not know which come
> first.  Another question do you need the organ of eye in order to see?
> 

Thanks for your qus.

When I talk about consciousness, I usually put citta or vi~n~naana in brackets.
Let me just make it clear. I know you know most these details, but there maybe
others listening in who have not studied so much. (I was quite sure which
paragraph or quote of mine you were referring to, so pls re-quote it if I don't
answer your question adequately.)

All the realities or phenomena that can be understood, or which can be the
objects of awareness, are classified into nama and rupa. Namas consists of
consciousness (citta or vinnana) and mental factors (cetasikas).  At every
instant of life there is a citta accompanied by a minimum of 7 cetasikas
experiencing either another nama, a rupa or a concept.There is no difference at
all between citta and vinnana, but different terms are sometimes used in
different classifications (or in the Abhidhamma and the Suttas). Unless  a
reality is experienced by cittas (consciousness), it cannot be known. 

Even when we talk about nibbana, it has to be experienced by cittas to be known
 or realized. It's not a case of 'entering in' or 'staying in' it , as i
understand. As the cittas fall away, the objects are no longer experienced. At
parinibbana, there are no conditions for cittas to continue, so there is no
more consciousness or experiencing.

Rupas consist of realities which can only ever be experienced. For example,
sound or hardness are rupas. They are experienced by cittas (hearing and
body-sense experiencing in this case, followed perhaps by mind-door
experiencing cittas), but never experience other phenomena themselves.

So, to answer your question, when I refer to cittas or vinnana  in general,
these will include bhavanga (life-continuum cittas) amongst many, many
others.When there is seeing or thinking, for example, there are no bhavanga
cittas.

Ken, I’m a little pressed for time. Let me give you some homework to help with
your next questions;-) Would you kindly go to ‘Abhid in Daily Life’:
http://www.abhidhamma.org/
which I quoted from last time to you, and quote back the series of cittas
involved in a rebirth process and sense-door process with any
questions....thanks. (Also under ‘useful posts’ Processes of Cittas, some of
Kom’s details have been saved):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts

Finally, yes, if there is no eye-sense, there is no seeing. Just as when our
eyes are closed, there is no seeing. People think they see in their dreams or
in their mind’s eye, but this is only thinking. There are many, many suttas
where the Buddha talks about eye-sense and visible object as conditions for
seeing:

‘Bhikkhus! Dependent on a certain cause, consciousness 
arises; and through that and that cause alone consciousness is called 
as such. Dependent on eye and visible object, consciousness arises; 
then it is simply called eye-consciousness.’

Please let me know if there is anything you wish to discuss further. I have to
admit that I’m more interested (read patient) in discussing details (and
particularly in discussing different understandings) than in copying
lists;-)Hope this isn’t too naughty;-))

Sarah



 
8595 From: Christine Forsyth   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 4:28pm
Subject: Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  Hi Gaga and All,

Thanks for giving me the excuse to poke around the Web on this 
topic.  Seems Jhana states have a fair bit to do with getting out of 
the realms dominated by the five senses.

metta,
Christine

"It is pointless to debate whether these realms are real or whether 
they are merely fanciful metaphors describing the various mind-states 
we might experience in this lifetime. The real message of this 
cosmology is simply this: unless we take steps to break free of the 
iron grip of kamma, we are doomed to wander aimlessly, with genuine 
peace and satisfaction always out of reach. The Buddha's Noble 
Eightfold Path provides us with precisely the tools we need to break 
out of this cycle, once and for all, to true freedom." 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html
"The 31 Planes of existence."

"The realms of existence are customarily divided into three 
distinct "worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of 
refinement: 

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are 
accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless 
jhanas. 
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose 
inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees of 
mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have 
attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed to 
(temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to possess 
extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these realms, 
the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have attained 
to "non-returning", the third stage of Awakening. The Fine-Material 
World and the Immaterial World together constitute the "heavens" 
(sagga). 
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which 
experience -- both pleasurable and not -- is dominated by the five 
senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include 
our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The 
lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the 
animal and hell realms."

 
8596 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 5:35pm
Subject: Nibbana

 
  Dear Group,
Just some more to help with the understanding of nibbana.

Howard kindly quoted the ALL from the samyutta nikaya.
23 (1) The All
At Saavatthi. "Bhikkus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that
....
       "And what bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the
ear and 
sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and
tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called
the all.
       "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected
this all, I shall make known another all" - that would be a mere
empty boast on his part. 
If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and,
further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because,
bhikkhus, that would not be 
within his domain."

There has been some debate on this list with some members
suggesting that Nibbana is some type of unmanifestative
awareness or something similar that a arahant enters into. 
However, this is not the position put forward in the Pali texts.
In the Khandhasamyutta nikaya. XXII. 94 (p949 of Bodhi trans.)
The Buddha said :A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a
perception, a mental
formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent,
eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in
this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no
such thing.{endquote]

It is hard to see these things because of the obstructions of
view, especially self view. Christine quoted an excellent
article yesterday which states:'One cannot too often and too
emphatically stress the fact that not 
only for the actual realisation of the goal of Nibbana, but also
for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable
preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the
egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. 
Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive
Nibbana - according to one's either materialistic or
metaphysical leanings - either as 
annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of existence into
which an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT MERGES."endquote 
Christine adds: "The capitals show  the unconscious belief I
have just realised I 
had."
Christine it is really to be applauded that you see this
wrongview. If you hadn't studied you might have clung to this
view without even knowing it was present.It is indeed by seeing
our views that they are let go of. I have even met people who
hold such views who believe they have experienced wisdom to the
degree of vipassana nana !
I hope this clarifies the nature of nibbana (in theory) and
shows the necessity of understanding the khandas, ayatanas and
dhatus as they are now. The quote from the patisambhimagga that
I gave yesterday mentions that insight develops by defining and
discerning the characteristics of all the ayatanas. Seeing is
surely appearing now; is there study(directly) of the nature of
seeing?
robert






 
8597 From: Robert Kirkpatrick   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 5:36pm
Subject: Paramattha dhammas exist?

 
  Dear Howard, 
 You might remember a discussion a while back where you seemed
concerned about the idea of paramattha dhammas or the words
"exist' in the abhidhamma and commentaries. I think you accepted
the explanations of this. Anyway just to confirm that the
suttanta also has this, the Buddha says:
SnXXII 94
Rupa that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this
the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say it
EXISTS. Feeling...perception..volitional
formations..consciouness..that is impermanent, suffering and
subject to change..I too say that it exists."
robert



 
8598 From: robertkirkpatrick 
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:05pm
Subject: Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  ---  "David Progosh"  wrote:
> I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. Since 
there is no 
> transmigration of a soul after death in Buddhism, what moves 
between the 
> planes?
> 
_______________
Dear gaga,
here is a link that might help.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid20.html
robert

 
8599 From: Gaga   
Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:40pm
Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence

 
  Hi Christine,

I had a look at that info you point to too following my text here. Helpful to
some degree ;-)

The use of adjectives in the blurb cited is revealing to some degree; words
like "doomed", "aimlessly", "bad", and their opposites. Is not the breaking
free of kamma the cessation of these types of desires--good, bad, or
indifferent?

So why are these loka described as  "desireable" or "undesireable"? What
difference would it make? It's all the kamma cycle, and none are true freedom,
so what matter whether a loka is more painful or less painful? It is as folly
to "strive to attain" a less painful existence as it is not to strive at all,
by what is written.

I was of the mind that Nibbana is not something one "strives" toward anyway--
like it is a sort of goal. It is more of a realization. The jhana states seem
to suggest a process towards some state qualified as being good or bad, or more
refined than another, and this is where I find the whole cosmology a bit
problematic.

I suppose then for me  having the cosmology as an object for meditation is
leading to the wrong end, so I suppose I shall put an end to it!

I still would like to hear from others what you make of the significance of
slicing up states of existence into 31 pieces all about, and then qualifying
them in terms of dualistic shadings.

All the best,

Gaga 



-- Christine Forsyth  wrote:
> Hi Gaga and All,
> 
> Thanks for giving me the excuse to poke around the Web on this 
> topic.  Seems Jhana states have a fair bit to do with getting out of 
> the realms dominated by the five senses.
> 
> metta,
> Christine
> 
> "It is pointless to debate whether these realms are real or whether 
> they are merely fanciful metaphors describing the various mind-states 
> we might experience in this lifetime. The real message of this 
> cosmology is simply this: unless we take steps to break free of the 
> iron grip of kamma, we are doomed to wander aimlessly, with genuine 
> peace and satisfaction always out of reach. The Buddha's Noble 
> Eightfold Path provides us with precisely the tools we need to break 
> out of this cycle, once and for all, to true freedom." 
> 
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html
> "The 31 Planes of existence."
> 
> "The realms of existence are customarily divided into three 
> distinct "worlds" (loka), listed here in descending order of 
> refinement: 
> 
> The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are 
> accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless 
> jhanas. 
> The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose 
> inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees of 
> mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have 
> attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed to 
> (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to possess 
> extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these realms, 
> the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have attained 
> to "non-returning", the third stage of Awakening. The Fine-Material 
> World and the Immaterial World together constitute the "heavens" 
> (sagga). 
> The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which 
> experience -- both pleasurable and not -- is dominated by the five 
> senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include 
> our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The 
> lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the 
> animal and hell realms."