11200 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Dear Chris, Howard, Ranil, Rob K & friends, By way of a diversion, let me add my own daily life experience this morning and try to make it relevant to 9-11, Holocaust, Sri Lanka’s plight and indigenous Australians later. I found out last night (by email) that a client is considering not paying quite a large fee due to me. I went to bed ‘obsessed’ and worried about this and was unable to relax or even read posts . This morning I phoned the client, hoping to sort the matter out, but in spite of best intentions, somewhat lost my ‘cool’ and probably reduced the chance of repayment further;-( It may seem (and of course I’d like to kid myself that this is so) that the problem has been caused entirely by the naughty client. Of course, as Howard says, conditions are extremely complex and if the client hadn’t sent the email and had behaved properly, there wouldn’t have been the same set of unpleasant experiences on my part. However, what unpleasant experiences were there anyway? Last night I read the email. I saw visible object only. Immeditately there were stories and proliferations and plenty of dosa and also mana (‘how dare he treat me like this’ and so on). What was the real problem, if not the dosa, mana and other kilesa arising? This morning when I spoke to him for 10mins only, I really didn’t even hear anything very unpleasant at all. He didn’t raise his voice or even speak impolitely. Again the problem was the thinking and proliferating about his bad motives and actions, the taking ‘me’ as being so very important and the clinging to this version of events with so very little awareness of any realities. ***** As Rob K recently quoted from the Vism (in his post about paticcasamuppada): > 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen > states, instead of taking the occurence of formations > to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a > self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes > action..." As Rob adds: I'd like to say that truly there is no one > who receives results but that results arise by > conditions (just to be pedantic). From the > Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere > arising of fruit (vipaka);" ***** By understanding more about different phenomena now, we’ll undersatand more about how momentary vipaka (result of kamma) is and how it is in fact not the vipaka which hurts or damages, but the mental states which follow the vipaka and makes it into a big story. Last week I tripped on some steep steps and hurt my knee. There was no client to blame, no Sri Lankan or other terrorists and yet I started getting angry with the ‘stupid steps’ and the design or the building. As Howard and Rob K have indicated, the conditions for any kamma to bring a result are very, very complicated. Whether or not we can accept the unpleasant bodily experience or seeing at this moment as being the result of kamma, we can at least begin to understand the difference between these realities and the proceeding ones which cling, grasp or are averse to the expereinces. We never know what kamma or other conditions will bring what result. Again Rob K just quoted this: ***** > ...........They say it is pretty > much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the > results will arise because of the many other > conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a > quote from the Tipitaka: > " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening > during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), > ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), > ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) > ...." (A.VI, 63). ***** Do we have an idea of national identity or group? How is this national identity experienced? Does it help us to develop any awareness to cling to this idea of identity or to find ourselves important in anyway? It may seem that groups share the same results of kamma, and indeed there may be certain factors in common, conventionally speaking. Just as there are conditions for us to all read the posts here, there are conditions for groups of people to all suffer at the same time or all hear the Buddha preach the dhamma. So conventionally, perhaps we can talk about ‘group kamma’. In fact, when we look at the same words on the computer screen, seeing sees different visible objects for each of us, and these are different at each moment too. The thinking which follows, conjures up different stories and the accumulated tendencies of ignorance, attachment and understanding will arise accordingly, dependent again on so many conditions. Beginning to understand realities little by little is the way we see that we really live alone and only ever experience the results of our own deeds and other conditioning factors. ***** > 161 "................. > So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when > it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, > saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not > a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither > transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested > here without cause from that"....... " ***** Thanks Rob for all the helpful quotes which I’ve appreciated as I write. I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of some of the issues I raised in the first paragraph of this post and I certainly haven't meant to trivialise these by discussing mundane 'mishaps', but I hope that may be some conditions for useful reflection. Please let me know if I seem to have 'missed the mark';-) Sarah ====================================================== 11201 From: Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] National/group Kamma? Hi Christine, I like this quote, "Beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and have their actions as their arbitrator. Action is what differentiates beings in terms of baseness & excellence." How it could relate to national kamma I think hinges on the concept "owner". If we read "owner" as something like "take as attribute" then we could say that most of us take our nationalities as an attribute and, to the extent that we do so, the actions of our various nations contribute to our kamma. Conversly, our own actions contribute to the kamma of our nations. The point that Robert K brought up seems to suggest that there are no innocent victims. However, all bad results result from evil done to innocent victims. So guilt and innocence are pretty much a matter of point of view, in the long run. On second thought, maybe "cling to" would be a better way of describing "owner" in "beings are owners of their actions". Larry 11202 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon... Dear Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - > > Reading this post of yours, Sarah, has confirmed my growing > realization that Abhidhamma, more even than the Sutta Pitaka, has an > overwhelmingly phenomenalist slant, which, of course, appeals to me as I > am a > rather radical phenomenalist myself. I’m glad that indirectly the Abhidhamma is becoming more and more appealing to you (even if only because it conforms with radical phenomenalism;-)) > I make the following association with this phenomenalist slant of > > Abhidhamma: It is interesting to me that a co-father of the > Vijnanavada/Yogacara school of Mahayana was Vasubandhu, originally an > Abhidharmist for the Sarvastivadin school who wrote the work Treasury of > > Abhidharma. (Sarvastivada was a sister school to Theravada with some > definite > deficiencies in the form of eternalist, substantialist doctrine.) I cannot comment further on the associations but I have often appreciated the keen study of abhidhamma by Mahayanists (especially some Tibetan Lamas) and I’m always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the Abhidhamma as being part of the Tipitaka. The extract below, with references to Mahayanist sects accepting the inclusion of the Abhidhamma at the 1st Council, is from my last post in the “Introduction to Vinaya” series which people may have missed if they didn’t get to the end of a long post;-). Sarah ====== “Without wishing to enter into any debate on the topic (about which I know nothing;-), I’ll just add a note from Geiger’s introduction to his translation of Mahavamsa concerning the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the ‘later tradition’ accounts of the First Council: ‘Among the Northern buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I mention the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is given as the originator of the coucil, the number of the bhiksus taking part is stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha. ‘There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the Tibetan Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place, according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda; 2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself..... ‘Fa-hian and Hiuen-thsang also mention the First Council. The former gives the number of the bhiksus a 500, the latter as 1,000; the former speaks in a general way of ‘a collection of sacred books’, the latter expressly mentions also the redaction of the Abhidharma by Mahakasyapa.’ ” ====================================================== 11203 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:31pm Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self. Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Thanks Kom, > > This is very interesting. I'm going to ponder on > this some more, > especially the difference between attachment to > realities and attachment > to concepts. But I'm still not clear on what > attachment itself is. It > seems a little like pleasant feeling with a > magnetic charge; I'm not > sure if this charge is concept or something else. > I can't see this very > clearly; does it make sense to you? The pleasant feeling is not attachment, but may rise with or without attachment. When we say we are happy, we often mean that we are having a pleasant feeling (mostly with attachment). The feeling is vedana (feeling) kandha, where as attachment is sankhara (voilitional formations) kandha. Vedana (unplesant, neutral, and pleasant) arise with all consciousness, whereas attachment does not. We are creatures bound to pleasant feelings, so when attachment arises with pleasant feeling, we pay attention mostly to the pleasant feeling (and don't know that the attachment is there). The really noticeable one that you may help you understand is when you desire something you do not (yet) have. This is where the feeling may be neutral, but the attachment very strong. Think of your most favorite (non dhamma!) activity. When you want to pursue such an activity, does attachment not rise? It is hard to separate the different mental co-commitants from one another. This is why it says (I think in Mirinda panha, and most likely in other places) that the Buddha did what is extremely difficult: penetrating thoroughly the different mental factors AND being able to put into words that others can understand. No other types of Arahant, Paceka Buddha or the disciple arahants, can do what a Samma-sambuddha can. Here are more definition for you (again, from Cetasikas), and a small comment at the end: The Dhammasangaùi (§1059), in the section where it deals with lobha as hetu, gives a long list of different names for lobha in order to illustrate its different shades and aspects. Lobha is compared to a creeper, it strangles its victim such as a creeper strangles a tree. It is like the ocean, it is insatiable. Lobha can be coarse or it can be more subtle such as hoping or expecting. It is a “bondage” because it binds beings in the round of births. It is a depravity because it corrupts the mind. The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 162) gives the following definition of lobha: - greed has the characteristic of grasping an object like “monkey lime”. - Its function is sticking, like meat put in a hot pan. - It is manifested as not giving up, like the dye of lamp-black. - Its proximate cause is seeing enjoyment in things that lead to bondage. - Swelling with the current of craving, it should be regarded as taking (beings) with it to states of loss, as a swift-flowing river does to the great ocean. The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 249) gives a similar definition. Greed has the characteristic of grasping like monkey lime. Monkey lime was used by hunters in order to catch monkeys. We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book III, Chapter I, §7, The monkey) that a hunter sets a trap of lime for monkeys. Monkeys who are free from “folly and greed” do not get trapped. We read: … But a greedy, foolish monkey comes up to the pitch and handles it with one paw, and his paw sticks fast in it. Then, thinking: I’ll free my paw, he seizes it with the other paw, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws he seizes them with one foot, and that too sticks fast. To free both paws and the one foot, he lays hold of them with the other foot, but that too sticks fast. To free both paws and both feet he lays hold of them with his muzzle: but that too sticks fast. So that monkey thus trapped in five ways lies down and howls, thus fallen on misfortune. I equate the above tale of the stuck monkey to our being stuck in the samsara (rebirth rounds). We like to do something (with attachment), and seek what we like in hoping that we would satisfy that attachment, not knowing that the seeking only brings more conditions to get us even more tightly stuck to this state of suffering, and not knowing that Lobha can never be satisified. I think your equation of lobha to magnetic charge is quite apt. Lobha sticks to its objecct: it doesn't what to let go. When you are doing something really enjoyable, do you want to interrupt your activities so that you may help others? Attachment leads to being, where as panna that sees realities as they are leads to the end of being. kom 11204 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas Dear Nina, > >Dear Num, Which book your aunt is helping to translate? > This was also studied in the Board meeting in Bgk (Sunday afternoon). > All > the Pali experts are there, it will be interesting for you after June > when > you live there. You could report to us directly then. I've left out all the details about ayatanas which I need to study when I have a little time to pull out texts and look at all your posts;-) I don't think I know Num's aunt, K. Krisana, but Jon does from the Thai sessions. On our last visit he and Jaran were invited to join the Board meeting and K.Krisana was one of the 'experts' there...Like you say, it's great to have her input here and we look forward to Num's direct reports too;-) Sarah =============== 11205 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: photos - sarah's lucky day Dear Chris and Frank, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Frank, > > For one brief moment, I thought you were wearing an Akubra on your > head. Of course, that would have meant Ken, Herman, Azita and I (and > any lurking members from Oz) would have had to adopt you. This may, > or may not have been a good thing! However....on closer look, you > seem to have escaped that fate. :-) I had to show my ignorance and get a translation from Jon (whom I notice you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia team;-)) Anyway, he was able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat. > Great to see you, Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found the 'convict on the run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after one's turned one's computer on its side;-) Thanks Frank....you can relax now and help us nag anyone else who tries to come up with all the non-attachment or other excuses;-) Sarah ======== 11206 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re.namas and rupas Dear Azita, Good to see you posting and to see the sharp reminders about rupas (even if you're still having to work out the concepts and names;-)) Ranil, I first met Azita in Sri Lanka too (1979) when she was there with her baby....which makes Zoe (that baby) in her early 20s now....Photo of you both for the album, Azita? Sarah ==================== --- azita gill wrote: > > > > > Hello egberdina - who is really Herman, yes? I > haven't quite nutted out the Who's who, yet. > my 2 cents worth on the above. > i understand rupas to be arising and falling away > continuously whether "we" experience them or not. we > learn about the 28 rupas [i think its 28]in > Abhidhamma. These rupas are part of the conditions > that get "us" here. We like some, we hate some. e.g. > attachment arises when the air is pleasantly cool[i > would love some pleasantly cool air right now]. Maybe > Dosa [aversion] arises when smelling smells a bad > odour. > There are these 5 sense doorways,which are here > predominately bce of Kamma, which are the bases for > citta to experience an object, be it tactile e.g. > hardness/softness, hot/cold, motion/pressure.; > be it sound, smell, taste or visibleobject. > Maybe its me that's missing something in this, but I > find it easy to think of n. & r. and theoretically > know one from the other. But to really KNOW nama from > rupa - uh.uhh. > Cheers Azita. > 11207 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Robert Dear Robert, Thank you for your concern... I hope this country will understand the pretious values it has. Otherwise, the meat can you open will have the lable "Made in Sri Lanka". Symptoms are there that ofcourse will happen in the near future. Now things are happening in this country with no one knowing... You should read the news papers to see how the media is trying to fool the people... Anyway... hoping for the best... ~with much meththa Ranil >From: "robertkirkpatrick.rm" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Attn Michael, Sujin, Nina and Sarah >Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:42:34 -0000 > >--- >Dear Ranil, >I liked your post. I was in Sri Lanka in 1989 for a month. At that >time the Tamil tiger problem had diminished and the government were >in a fierce battle with the JVP. >I have read the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa many times and your letter >reminds me of the halcyon days when arahants walked Sri lanka even in >the hundreds of thousands. The Mahavihara, that you mention, kept the >Theravada tradition pristine; even when threatened by hostile kings. >They had such compassion for future generations and would rather die >than change the doctrine. > >robert 11208 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 3:37am Subject: Re: photos - sarah's lucky day Dear Sarah,and All, This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't........ I actually DID include Jon (initially) in the Down Under mafia (what do you know about Herman, Azita or Ken that I don't??) but decided that he might get picky and object on the grounds that a Resident of Hong Kong may not be able to join in a group adoption under Australian Law of a citizen of the United States who just happens also to be an adult, and who may also strenuously object to the process. Possibly even take out a suit against us for assault, battery and deprivation of liberty.........come to think of it, a lawyer might have just had something to offer here...... But this is all just papanca.... :-) It wasn't an akubra anyway. Cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Chris and Frank, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Frank, > > > > For one brief moment, I thought you were wearing an Akubra on your > > head. Of course, that would have meant Ken, Herman, Azita and I (and > > any lurking members from Oz) would have had to adopt you. This may, > > or may not have been a good thing! However....on closer look, you > > seem to have escaped that fate. :-) > > I had to show my ignorance and get a translation from Jon (whom I notice > you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia team;-)) Anyway, he was > able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat. > > > Great to see you, > > Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found the 'convict on the > run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after one's turned one's computer > on its side;-) > > Thanks Frank....you can relax now and help us nag anyone else who tries to > come up with all the non-attachment or other excuses;-) > > Sarah > ======== > > > 11209 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: photos - sarah's lucky day Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah,and All, > > This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if you don't........ It's a hard life isn't it? For a little light relief (and on about the 10th attempt;-)), we've just managed toadd a few photos to the album donated to the cause by friends (and scanned onto a disc) by the local photo shop....(Actually I have one more from England, but need to ask permission off-list first). Sarah p.s. Dan, if you're there, I tried to find one of a less "nerd-looking" Jon after your earlier questionable comments in this regard - let me know if any pass;-)) 11210 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 6:26am Subject: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 Dear Frank, Thanks for your comments. I find the venerable Buddhadasa writes very well on many matters also. His most severe criticism of the Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada over several lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all because it cannot be practised" . I make this letter more personal than the first one as I hope this will show the help that the ancient commentaries about Paticcasamuppada can be. But firstly, on the issue that Stephen and others brought up of the Jatakas (Buddha's past lives) being a Hindu, Brahmin idea: Some of my study of the Tipitaka focuses on the Abhidhamma - that section of the Dhamma that is said to have one taste: "the taste of anatta". Thus when I read The Dhammapada or the Jataka I look at it in this way, which is also the way that life is here and now. We read of when the Buddha was an animal as a bodhisatta and some people laugh and say it couldn't have been so. Do they realise that in truth there was no Buddha in the sense of an existing being - in the deepest sense. The Abhidhamma and suttas shows us that what we thought were trees and people and animals and even ourself are only conditioned, concantanations of evanescent aggregates (khandas). When we look at a man or woman the Paticcasamuppada (which is also an important section of the Vibhanga, the second book of the Abhidhamma) helps us to see 'man' is simply an idea , a concept and that what is real are only fleeting moments of seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling etc. and then thinking which thinks about these sense contacts. I think knowing this we read the Jataka in a different way: That is that the stories in the jataka are illustrations of the workings of conditionality, especially that condition called kamma. If we are not yet ready to understand anatta the Jataka are still very useful. For example, there is the story of the powerful and deadly snake who decided not to kill. Once some boys came and pierced him with wooden spears and paraded him at the market. He could have killed them all but was so set on sila that he refrained. I am impatient by nature - even waiting at line in the bank puts me on edge at times. But whenever I remember that story I can't help but reflect how "if a snake can show patience and endure so much, then surely I, a human who has heard the Dhamma can do as much" It always makes me smile at my foolishness. Is the story of the snake literally true? I don't know. But I don't doubt it. Now to the Paticcasamuppada: When I first learned about Buddhism I was overawed by the themes expounded in it. The void (sunnata), the deathless, freedom, nirodha, non-graping and so on. I would hear a talk and it all seemed right. I could see that these things must be true. I listened to and read famous teachers who put things so beautifully; it was almost poetry. They made the path seem simple and direct. But somehow I found it didn't quite transform me as I had expected.After a few years I decided to delve into the Pali texts. I studied and gradually things began to make more sense. I found details in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that I could not find anywhere else. For instance here is a passage about verbal intimation – "the mode and the alteration in the consciousness-originated earth element that causes that occurrence of speech utterance which mode and alteration are a condition for the knocking together of clung to matter….." This is not just theory – it happens everytime we talk to others. Speech is merely these elements, not us. You see I had heard that everything is anatta but I found while I believed this to be true, nonetheless when I spoke I thought it was "me" speaking. Contemplating passages like this helped to bring attention to every little moment in life and break it down into its component parts. Before I studied I had heard many times that avijja(ignorance) keeps the wheel of dependent origination spinning. But ignorance of exactly what? Without the details I couldn't grasp the meaning. Here are some details about avijja (the first link in the Paticcasamuppada from the Visudhimagga XVII 43: " it (avijja) prevents knowing the meaning of collection in the aggregates(khandas), the meaning of actuating in the bases(ayatanas)…..the meaning of reality in the truths…Also it prevents knowing the meaning of dukkha described in the four ways as `oppression etc'..Furthermore it is ignorance because it conceals the physical bases and objects of eyeconsciousness etc and the dependent origination." In brief we can say it is an ignorance of the true nature of dhammas and the intricate ways they condition each other. The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS)defines it (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter) "it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist (i.e.men, women) and since it does not dart among those things that do exist (i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas). This is not just philosophising. Knowing this helped a lot when I heard it. I thought "yes we are always thinking of "me" and "she" , "us" and "them", we don't see the real dhammas that arise and fall away so quickly. It encouraged me to start to study another world - the world of this moment. This letter is starting to get long so I just want to touch on one other link of the Paticcasamupada(there are twelve in total); the factor of upadana, grasping, clinging. There are four types of clinging (see visuddhimagga xvii 241-3). That of sense desire clinging, wrongview clinging, clinging to rules and rituals, and lastly self view clinging. Note that the last three are types of miccha-ditthi, wrong view(the three include all types of wrong view from the gross to the very most subtle). These three are the most dangerous types of clinging and the ones we especially need to understand, see Visuddhimagga xvii246. The path of vipassana gradually eliminates the three types of micchaditthi until at sotapanna they are eradicated forever. Later stages, after sotapanna, then attenuate the clinging to sense desires. I mention this because one of the mistakes I made in my early buddhist life was to try to stop having sense desire. It got to the point where I would feel guilty everytime I had an icecream. What is most needed, I think, is that there should be a gradual wearing away of wrongview. We have accumulated much defilements and we have to learn to understand them –not suppress them. Most of us have difficulty in comprehending this point as "sense desire clinging is obvious ... not so the other kinds (the three types of micchaditthi)" Visuddhimagga XVII 246. However, at the moments there is insight into any reality - for example, lust, at those moments there is no clinging. But if we merely try to surpress lust we may succeed (and then feel happy) but be unaware of the more subtle clingings to the idea of 'self' and control that were present. robert 11211 From: Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi, Sarah - I think the following post of yours is very good - clear, to the point, realistic (though conventional .. oh, gee! ;-)), and not doctrinnaire. With regard to your client, we just can't know what of that complex event is kamma vipaka of yours and what is not. I suspect that the *original* non-paying was not. I suspect that your finding that unpleasant may have been just an automatic evaluation (or, better, the vipaka of being human). I suspect that your internal reaction of anger may have been kamma vipaka, and that your angry verbal response was akusala. But I can suspect what I will, and that won't change the facts. Bottom line: We just don't know. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/8/02 1:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Dear Chris, Howard, Ranil, Rob K & friends, > > By way of a diversion, let me add my own daily life experience this > morning and try to make it relevant to 9-11, Holocaust, Sri Lanka’s plight > and indigenous Australians later. > > I found out last night (by email) that a client is considering not paying > quite a large fee due to me. I went to bed ‘obsessed’ and worried about > this and was unable to relax or even read posts . This morning I phoned > the client, hoping to sort the matter out, but in spite of best > intentions, somewhat lost my ‘cool’ and probably reduced the chance of > repayment further;-( > > It may seem (and of course I’d like to kid myself that this is so) that > the problem has been caused entirely by the naughty client. Of course, as > Howard says, conditions are extremely complex and if the client hadn’t > sent the email and had behaved properly, there wouldn’t have been the same > set of unpleasant experiences on my part. > > However, what unpleasant experiences were there anyway? Last night I read > the email. I saw visible object only. Immeditately there were stories and > proliferations and plenty of dosa and also mana (‘how dare he treat me > like this’ and so on). What was the real problem, if not the dosa, mana > and other kilesa arising? This morning when I spoke to him for 10mins > only, I really didn’t even hear anything very unpleasant at all. He didn’t > raise his voice or even speak impolitely. Again the problem was the > thinking and proliferating about his bad motives and actions, the taking > ‘me’ as being so very important and the clinging to this version of events > with so very little awareness of any realities. > ***** > As Rob K recently quoted from the Vism (in his post about > paticcasamuppada): > > > 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen > > states, instead of taking the occurence of formations > > to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a > > self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes > > action..." > As Rob adds: > I'd like to say that truly there is no one > > who receives results but that results arise by > > conditions (just to be pedantic). From the > > Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere > > arising of fruit (vipaka);" > ***** > By understanding more about different phenomena now, we’ll undersatand > more about how momentary vipaka (result of kamma) is and how it is in fact > not the vipaka which hurts or damages, but the mental states which follow > the vipaka and makes it into a big story. > > Last week I tripped on some steep steps and hurt my knee. There was no > client to blame, no Sri Lankan or other terrorists and yet I started > getting angry with the ‘stupid steps’ and the design or the building. As > Howard and Rob K have indicated, the conditions for any kamma to bring a > result are very, very complicated. Whether or not we can accept the > unpleasant bodily experience or seeing at this moment as being the result > of kamma, we can at least begin to understand the difference between these > realities and the proceeding ones which cling, grasp or are averse to the > expereinces. > > We never know what kamma or other conditions will bring what result. Again > Rob K just quoted this: > ***** > > ...........They say it is pretty > > much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the > > results will arise because of the many other > > conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a > > quote from the Tipitaka: > > " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening > > during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedanÃya-kamma), > > ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedanÃya-kamma), > > ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedanÃya kamma) > > ...." (A.VI, 63). > ***** > Do we have an idea of national identity or group? How is this national > identity experienced? Does it help us to develop any awareness to cling to > this idea of identity or to find ourselves important in anyway? > > It may seem that groups share the same results of kamma, and indeed there > may be certain factors in common, conventionally speaking. Just as there > are conditions for us to all read the posts here, there are conditions for > groups of people to all suffer at the same time or all hear the Buddha > preach the dhamma. So conventionally, perhaps we can talk about ‘group > kamma’. In fact, when we look at the same words on the computer screen, > seeing sees different visible objects for each of us, and these are > different at each moment too. The thinking which follows, conjures up > different stories and the accumulated tendencies of ignorance, attachment > and understanding will arise accordingly, dependent again on so many > conditions. Beginning to understand realities little by little is the way > we see that we really live alone and only ever experience the results of > our own deeds and other conditioning factors. > ***** > > 161 "................. > > So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when > > it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, > > saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not > > a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither > > transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested > > here without cause from that"....... " > ***** > Thanks Rob for all the helpful quotes which I’ve appreciated as I write. > > I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of some of the issues I raised in > the first paragraph of this post and I certainly haven't meant to > trivialise these by discussing mundane 'mishaps', but I hope that may be > some conditions for useful reflection. Please let me know if I seem to > have 'missed the mark';-) > > Sarah > /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) 11212 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 7:52am Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: Robert, I just wanted to that you for your post, because I found your entire post inspiring and beautiful, to hear exactly how the study of the Abhidhamma has helped your understanding of the Buddha's teachings. Erik 11213 From: Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really lon... Hi, Sarah - Thank you for the post I copy below. I will just comment on: "I’m always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the Abhidhamma as being part of the Tipitaka." I certainly do accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the third basket of the Tipitaka, but I don't take it to be direct Buddha word. Several if not all of the early schools developed their own abhidhamma, as did Mahayana schools. The 7 books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka constitute the Theravadin Abhidhamma. I think that it includes enormously valuable material and insights, and, for the most part, brilliantly synopsizes the theoretical content taught directly by the Buddha in his 45 years of giving discourses. But I take the other two baskets as coming directly (more or less) from the Buddha. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/8/02 2:27:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - > > > > Reading this post of yours, Sarah, has confirmed my growing > > realization that Abhidhamma, more even than the Sutta Pitaka, has an > > overwhelmingly phenomenalist slant, which, of course, appeals to me as I > > am a > > rather radical phenomenalist myself. > > I’m glad that indirectly the Abhidhamma is becoming more and more > appealing to you (even if only because it conforms with radical > phenomenalism;-)) > > > I make the following association with this phenomenalist slant of > > > > Abhidhamma: It is interesting to me that a co-father of the > > Vijnanavada/Yogacara school of Mahayana was Vasubandhu, originally an > > Abhidharmist for the Sarvastivadin school who wrote the work Treasury of > > > > Abhidharma. (Sarvastivada was a sister school to Theravada with some > > definite > > deficiencies in the form of eternalist, substantialist doctrine.) > > I cannot comment further on the associations but I have often appreciated > the keen study of abhidhamma by Mahayanists (especially some Tibetan > Lamas) and I’m always surprised when I hear people who don’t accept the > Abhidhamma as being part of the Tipitaka. > > The extract below, with references to Mahayanist sects accepting the > inclusion of the Abhidhamma at the 1st Council, is from my last post in > the “Introduction to Vinayaâ€? series which people may have missed if they > didn’t get to the end of a long post;-). > > Sarah > ====== > > > “Without wishing to enter into any debate on the topic (about which I know > nothing;-), I’ll just add a note from Geiger’s introduction to his > translation > of Mahavamsa concerning the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the ‘later > tradition’ accounts of the First Council: > > ‘Among the Northern buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I > mention > the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is > given > as the originator of the coucil, t?e number of the bhiksus taking part is > stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha. > > ‘There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the > Tibetan > Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place, > according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda; > 2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself..... > > ‘Fa-hian and Hiuen-thsang also mention the First Council. The former gives > the > number of the bhiksus a 500, the latter as 1,000; the former speaks in a > general way of ‘a collection of sacred books’, the latter expressly > mentions > also the redaction of the Abhidharma by Mahakasyapa.’ â€? > ====================================================== > > /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) 11214 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 8:14am Subject: mistaken identities, photos - sarah's lucky day Hi Chris and Sarah, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah,and All, > > This was a case of damned if you do, and damned if > you don't........ > I actually DID include Jon (initially) in the Down > Under mafia (what > do you know about Herman, Azita or Ken that I > don't??) but decided > that he might get picky and object on the grounds > that a Resident of > Hong Kong may not be able to join in a group > adoption under > Australian Law of a citizen of the United States who > just happens > also to be an adult, and who may also strenuously > object to the > process. If adoption means I get to cultivate in a warm climate full time with the requisites taken care of by my mafia parents, sign me up :-) > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah > wrote: > > I had to show my ignorance and get a translation > from Jon (whom I > notice > > you don't include in your genuine Down Under mafia > team;-)) Anyway, > he was > > able to tell me that an Akubra is a Bush hat. So Oz referred to Australia then and not Wizard of Oz? I thought Chris meant that I was wearing an outfit that made me look like one of the munchkins or something from the movie Wizard of Oz. > > Aren't you glad he checked his inventory and found > the 'convict on > the > > run' photo? Great scenery and a nice pic after > one's turned one's > computer > > on its side;-) Interestingly enough, a case of mistaken identity seems to happen to me all the time. In Japan, people regularly approached me and spoke Japanese (I'm Chinese). Many Chinese think I look Korean, or at least not Chinese. When I first started shaving my head many years ago before it became common, my friend thought I looked like an escaped convict. When I was in Mexico (I can get as tan as they do), a native mexican woman approached me speaking Spanish to ask for directions. A classmate in yoga who had taken kung fu lessons for many years thought I was a Shaolin monk. At Wat Metta, one of the Thai people thought I was Thai. Walking at night in Los Angeles, I was stopped by police who thought I looked like an Asian Gang member. At the temple I'm volunteering at, people think I'm a monk. Maybe I'll grow an afro and see what happens. It sure would be nice if people on the basketball court perceived me as a real threat to dunk on them. obligatory dhamma insight: All kinds of misunderstandings and misadventures ensue when we identify with and misconceive this skin bag filled with bones, blood, pus. -fk 11215 From: Lucy Date: Thu Feb 7, 2002 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Effort/samma vayamo Thanks Victor. You should post that message every day : ) Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor Yu" > Hello all, > > I find the following passage from > Samyutta Nikaya XLV.8 > Magga-vibhanga Sutta > An Analysis of the Path > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > a good reminder. > > "And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his > intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that > have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates > persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of > evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, > endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake > of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He > generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his > intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, > & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called > right effort." > > Regards, > Victor 11216 From: Lucy Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 0:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness of nama and rupa/Jon Dear Jon & Larry Thanks for the very helpful thread - it addresses several of my questions on what is "practice". ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" > > > There is however no need to single out one particular dhamma to study or > focus upon. That seems to suggest an idea that one dhamma is more worth > knowing, or easier to know, than another, or that focusing our attention > ('concentrating') on dhammas is a condition for the arising of insight, > and I don't think any of these ideas are found in the texts. > Jon, do you mean that it is more "correct" (can't really think of an appropriate word to use here!) to allow attention to follow the events as they become prominent in the consciousness? Just looking at what appears and how it appears & disappears, instead of trying to force attention onto one particular event / dhamma, makes a lot more sense (to me, and I may be wrong!). "Concentrating" on one aspect feels to me rather artificial, as if constructing something that isn't there at all - not a reality. Also, "concentrating" on the task in hand feels as if I'm blindfolded and can't "see" anything, but if I sort of step aside and just look, then things start falling into place --- or unravelling, as you say. < > > According to the Buddha's teaching, all dhammas have impermanence etc as > their characteristic. The insight that begins to see realties as they are > would also begin to see these characteristics of those realties, to some > (limited) degree or another. But again, it's not a matter of thinking we > should be trying to discern these characteristics. > This makes a lot of sense too - often I catch myself trying to stick "labels" (dukkha, anicca, anatta) on dhammas but this too feels very forced. Without the "labels", I can often see anicca quite clearly --- perhaps it's a question of carrying on looking at anicca until the others appear too : ) > That's as I understand it, anyway, Larry. I hope some of what I've said > make some sense for you. > Makes a lot of sense to me, thanks ! Lucy 11217 From: frank kuan Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 5:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 Hi Robert, --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: [buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism > of the > Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada > over several > lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all > because it cannot be > practised" . On this point, I actually sympathize with him. After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination. Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present moment, while other parts seem to go over many lifetimes. I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment part of it for my practice- i.e. contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my practice is right there. If I react to feeling in unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm reducing or increasing suffering. Yet, the belief in rebirth is an incredibly powerful motivator in spiritual practice. If I believed that physical death in this present life was annihilation, that would not change my conviction that Buddhism is still the most practical and pragmatic method of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering, but it would remove the sense of urgency I have to seek COMPLETE cessation of suffering/primordial ignorance. I would most likely live a much more lax lifestyle, integrating ultimately unprofitable but immediately gratifying worldly pleasures. I would be much more likely to lead a self indulgent lifestyle as a forest recluse absorbed in the bliss of meditation instead of trying to help spread what little I've learned of the dhamma to others. Just intuitively examining the reasons of why ancient cultivators of the past practiced austerities, and continued to practice austerities even after becoming an arahant, I find it completely incomprehensible that they did not believe in rebirth. Who in their right mind would subject themselves to so much pain and arduous practice unless they were driven by a motive to end the infinite round of existence? Just doesn't make any sense. There is a sutta (SN) where the buddha says: "Dudes, suppose I were to offer you a deal. For every day of your life, if someone were to shoot 100 arrows into your body in the morning, at noon, and in the evening, for 100 years, but at the end of that life you were assured of penetrating the 4 NT and putting an end to this round of suffering, then if you had any brains at all you would snatch up that deal in a heartbeat." I also find it hard to believe that rebirth is a concept that later followers smuggled into buddhism. If that is the case, I have to give them credit for being creative and so convincing in their forgery. How many of you would practice Buddhism seriously if you didn't believe in rebirth? If I didn't have rebirth as a motivator, I'd focus all my energy of this lifetime in blissful meditative absorptions and even some of the less refined blissful worldly absorptions. -fk 11218 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 7:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Rob Ep From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference about the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice is intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, does it matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in the texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from experience that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago (for example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as the product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how honestly held at the time). The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual suspects' of ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic assessment of our own capabilities. I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps in somewhat more disguised form. I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on having a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by the Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when it comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary delay to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear intellectual grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which the Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an indispensable first step. No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the moment with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are the factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the idea of attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to be *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply the moment, with or without perceived distractions. Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and ultimately the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of 'reification' in the abstract. At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has any significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The fact that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments other than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to shy away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong view. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Your post here is very well stated. I want to suggest one possibility, > which is > the absurd notion which I none-the-less believe, that wrong view with > right > practice can lead to the right result. > > The reason I believe this, and I am ready to be challenged, is that it > is the > nature of insight that it is an interruption of one's view. Therefore > any > practice that leads to true insight will lead to right view, even in a > practitioner who has the wrong view of self. > > What a correct practice means to me is that it is a skillful enough > technique that > it is 'view-proof'. It will interrupt wrong view even if the > practitioner's > current view of self would fight against it. > > Insight is a surprise occurence. It can be cultivated but not planned. > The > practice of mindfulness does, I believe, lead to insight, and then wrong > view is > gradually replaced by discernment. > > In my opinion, it is concentrated and repeated practice in mindfulness > that leads > to discernment of the actual nature of the moment. If one can do this > in daily > life, no one would argue with this, because that means that the person > practicing > this is engaged in meditation, even while going about their normal > activities. > But to think that correct practice of meditation does not increase one's > skill at > practicing mindfulness does not make sense to me. It seems that > practice of > attention to the moment with the least amount of distraction does lead > to > increased skill at developing a mindful state, which leads to insight. > Rather > than getting tainted fruit because of the wrong view of self, it is this > kind of > skill in the moment that eventually transcends and corrects wrong view. > > I am speaking as one who is still in a cloudy state of murky > self-concept, I am > sure, so I speak of this while bumping into the furniture in the dark, > but > never-the-less, I present it for your consideration. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 11219 From: Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 8:39pm Subject: RE: [dsg] self, self. Thanks Kom, I'm going to have to investigate further before I have any more to say. Everything you have written and sent has inspired me to look more closely at experience as it unfolds. So, the only thing to do is do it. best regards, Larry 11220 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 8, 2002 9:01pm Subject: Re: 4 hallucinations/perversions (and 'gos') --- azita gill wrote: > > hello Jon and others, > upon inspecting my "bookcase" I 've > discovered some wonderful dhamma literature which I've > had for ages but-you know, conditions weren't right > for me to pull it out and study-I'm really glad to > have the opportunity to study again and have so > appreciated this group. Great news, Helen. I remember from the old days that you have a real interest in understading the present moment. I'm sure this focus has not been entirely absent during the past few (now let's see, that must be 20 or so) years. > Sundara and I have regular contact. He is now in Oz > and I have encouraged him to join and I'm sure he > will. have lost contact with Richard altho. think I > know where he is. Laurence Mills, used to be > Khantipalo, lives in Cairns, runs a Buddhist centre > which I've attended, however its very Tibetan in style > and - well i don't go very often. > I'm aware that the above info. probably won't interest > other people, so more private "goss" I'll send > directly to you, Jon. Good. I'm waiting! Jon 11221 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Dear Kom, I wonder whether everyone has a slightly different definition of 'control' and possibly agreeing on a definition first may be more productive. When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning: "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over, power to direct or determine result." Perhaps others see 'to control' differently? Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this, maybe under a different heading? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Christine & Jonothan, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > > > > > I still find the idea of no control hard to > > understand/accept, and > > > would be delighted if someone showed me a > > loophole .......but, > > > despite trying, I can't point to any area of > > life where there is > > > complete control. Control seems to be one of > > those words where it > > > is 'all' or 'nothing'. > > > > Yes, all or nothing is right, in the sense that > > anything less than total > > control is really no control. > > > > I would love it if you would explain in some more details > why "anything less than total control" is really no control > (maybe an example would suffice?). I think there were > discussions revolving around this topics recently including > Pooh. One camp asserts that partial control is possible, > and the other says there is no such thing. > > kom > > 11222 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:33am Subject: kamma/view/paticcasamuppada Dear Lucy and Howard, I thought you might be interested in some more about kamma as it relates to the sutta you posted: Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 Moliyasivaka Sutta To Sivaka Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"endquote The view that Moliyasivaka presented to the Buddha is called pubbakatahetuvada or pubbebbetaka -hetu-ditthi, the view that all feelings in the present life is due to deeds done in former existences. It is an extreme view that is ignorant of the many other conditions operating from the past and present. Another two commonly held views are issaranimmana-hetu-ditthi, the view that a creator God is responsible for the experiences in this life ahetu-apaccaya-ditthi, the view that there is no such thing as kamma and that all feelings arise by chance. This last view is fairly common in our age with many people imagining that it is by chance that they are born as man or woman or dog or horse, and that their experiences in life happen largely by chance and present effort only. Some people hold to views which are a mix of two or even all three. In this sutta the Buddha was concerned to refute the first extreme view only. The Blessed one replied to Sivaka: "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans."endquote With regard to the statement in 'Abhidhamma in daily life' that ""when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the sound (hearing-consciousness) is akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we perform ourselves."" Howard wrote that"There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said there is that every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own kamma. But I do not buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha did. In fact, in at least one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, characterizing it as wrong view, a view of kammic determinism""" However, this is perhaps a hasty conclusion: In the Abhidhamma - as has been explained in Abhidhamma in Daily life- there are 4 types of cittas classified as jati. Vipaka(result), kiriya , akusala and kusala. In a process of cittas that experiences an object such as sound only one moment is vipaka, result. The rest are of the other jatis(not the result of kamma). The vipaka is like a flash and then many, many more moments that are not vipaka. Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by kamma. The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes that there is no single fruit from a single cause: "for here there is no single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above) because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma and so on."" best wishes robert 11223 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 Dear Frank and Erik, thanks for your comments. It has been very helpful for me to reflect more on Paticcasamuppada during this week.I appreciate that Venerable Buddhadasa's book acted as a spur for this. More below: wrote: > wrote: > [buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism > > of the > > Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada > > over several > > lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all > > because it cannot be > > practised" . > > On this point, I actually sympathize with him. > After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make > of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination. > Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present > moment, while other parts seem to go over many > lifetimes. > I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment > part of it for my practice- i.e. > contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's > the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart > of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my > practice is right there. If I react to feeling in > unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm > reducing or increasing suffering. > _______________ Dear Frank, The Paticcasamupadda is sometimes taught as covering just one moment , as well as over lifetimes. When it is taught over lifetimes avijja and sankhara are described as the causes in the past life, vinnana, nama-rupa, phassa and vedana as the consequences in the present life; tanha, upadana and bhava as the causes in the present life and jati and jaramarana (old age and death) as results that will occur in the future. I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past. Thus it will give its results in the future. The only way out is for ignorance to be overcome - by seeing into this vicious circle called dependent origination. This seeing with the eye of wisdom performs its function of gradually discerning the nature of dependent origination, and it is this same insight that gradually braks up the causes for it. As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is that there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions and, like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and people really exist who are or are not making progress on the path. best wishes robert 11224 From: Victor Yu Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 5:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 Hello Robert, As I see from the passage you wrote below, it is a digression to think so. Regards, Victor As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' > trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is that > there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only > these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions and, > like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and people > really exist who are or are not making progress on the path. > best wishes > robert 11225 From: Victor Yu Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Hello Christine, I think the problem with arguing whether there is control or not, or whether things are controllable or not is that there are different interpretations and usages of the word "control". "There is control" is one view. "There is no control" is another. As I see it, those views are not worth holding onto. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) > Dear Kom, > > I wonder whether everyone has a slightly different definition > of 'control' and possibly agreeing on a definition first may be more > productive. > > When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning: > "To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over, power to > direct or determine result." > > Perhaps others see 'to control' differently? > Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this, maybe under a different > heading? > > metta, > Christine 11226 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 7:02am Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2: To Robert, Frank, And Erik Dear Robert, Frank, And Erik How are you? Robert wrote: "I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past." As Robert rightly wrote, ignorance is not only a cause from the past, but also a pervasive cause for various blunders happening during our current lifetime. The only time ignorance is suspended is when we are with recollection (sati). Or rather, when recollection arises in the mental events, which are referred to as we or us. Gotama the Buddha treated paticcasammupaada very seriously, and Mahaa Buddhaghosa found it to be a very challenging subject. It is a pity that some people like Buddhadasa blamed Mahaa Buddhaghosa without knowing their own failure to study the works of the latter deeply and comprehensively. Anyone rejecting the relinking consciousness (patisandhi cittam) is rejecting the immediate causal link (anantarapaccayo) between the dying consciousness and the relinking consciousness, thereby rejecting Patthaana. With best wishes, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > Dear Frank and Erik, > thanks for your comments. It has been very helpful for me to reflect > more on Paticcasamuppada during this week.I appreciate that > Venerable Buddhadasa's book acted as a spur for this. More below: > > wrote: > > > wrote: > > [buddhadhasa's] most severe criticism > > > of the > > > Visuddhimagga and the teaching of Paticcasamuppada > > > over several > > > lifetimes is that it p59 "is of no use at all > > > because it cannot be > > > practised" . > > > > On this point, I actually sympathize with him. > > After all these years, I'm still not sure what to make > > of the entire 12 links in the dependent origination. > > Parts of it seem to apply only in the extreme present > > moment, while other parts seem to go over many > > lifetimes. > > I tend to focus on only the extreme present moment > > part of it for my practice- i.e. > > contact->feeling->craving->being. After all, that's > > the only reality I'm experiencing directly. The heart > > of my practice and the evidence of the efficacy of my > > practice is right there. If I react to feeling in > > unprofitable ways, then right there I know if I'm > > reducing or increasing suffering. > > _______________ > Dear Frank, > The Paticcasamupadda is sometimes taught as covering just one > moment , as well as over lifetimes. When it is taught over lifetimes > avijja and sankhara are described as the causes in the past life, > vinnana, nama-rupa, phassa and vedana as the consequences in the > present life; tanha, upadana and bhava as the causes in the present > life and jati and jaramarana (old age and death) as results that will > occur in the future. > I focussed on two links in my post, avijja - a cause from the past- > and upadana- a cause from the present. However, I tried to stress > that avijja is happening now, just as it was in the past. Thus it > will give its results in the future. The only way out is for > ignorance to be overcome - by seeing into this vicious circle called > dependent origination. This seeing with the eye of wisdom performs > its function of gradually discerning the nature of dependent > origination, and it is this same insight that gradually braks up the > causes for it. As a digression I think it is not a matter of 'us' > trying to do something; because what insight should be seeing is that > there is no one who is having insight or sati; that there is only > these factors of the Paticcasamuppada performing their functions and, > like a puppet show, deluding us into thinking that beings and people > really exist who are or are not making progress on the path. > best wishes > robert 11227 From: frank kuan Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 7:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 The only conclusion that I've been able to draw from PS (12 links of paticcasamupadda/dependent origination/conditionality) is that it expresses necessary preconditions for conditions to occur, but if we try to deduce more information from that relationship we get confounded. For example, if we visualize the 12 links in a circular chain, and we suppose that cutting off one link will break the whole circle and end samsaric existence, it doesn't seem to work quite as simple as that. What if we cut off craving? Is cutting off craving the same as cutting off the underlying tendency for craving? Or can cutting off craving simply be like Pavlov's dog where a well trained monk has a conditioned response to not react to pleasant/unpleasnat/neutral feelings in inapproriate ways? This is where I wonder about the Burmese Vipassana system. They seem to give the impression that we can break the chain at craving. I'm not so sure. To me, it seems like the only part of the circular chain that can truly be broken is "ignorance", but even then when one becomes an arhant, the WHOLE chain doesn't just fall completely apart. Discontinuities occur, but not every link breaks. I'm not sure I actually like the 12 nidanas. The dhamma makes more sense when the related portions in context are grouped together. Some buddhist scholars believe the 12 links was a later buddhist development that tried to compact everything the buddha ever said about conditionality into one complex formula. Perhaps similar to a botched attempt at a unified field theory in physics. -fk 11228 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 8:06am Subject: RE: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Dear Kom, > > When I think about 'to control', it carries the meaning: > "To exercise authoritative or dominating > influence over, power to > direct or determine result." You would have no objection from me on this definition! > > Perhaps others see 'to control' differently? > Is there anything in 'Useful Posts' on this, > maybe under a different > heading? > There are spades of discussion involving around this area including the recent Pooh, Samma-vayama, and more distant discussions on our influence on voilitional formations, being able to influence Sati and Samadhi to arise. It's probably hard to look up those specific circumstances. However, the useful posts has tons of stuffs on Anatta. kom 11229 From: Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma/view/paticcasamuppada Hi, Robert - Thank you for this detailed post. I do accept that every experience that comes to one is in part kamma vipaka in the following sense at least: The experience would not have occurred had one not been born into the current realm. (But., of course, and I expect you will agree with this, that is a far cry from the view, for example, that every person who is tortured is reaping what he, himself, has sowed. The view that all proceeds from one's kamma easily lends itself to such guilt-of-the-victim nonsense as is often expressed, for example, in cases of rape.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/9/02 6:35:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > Dear Lucy and Howard, > I thought you might be interested in some more about kamma as it relates > to the sutta you posted: > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 > Moliyasivaka Sutta > To Sivaka > > Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at > the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by > name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and > friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: > "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this > doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or > neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, > what does the revered Gotama say about this?"endquote > > The view that Moliyasivaka presented to the Buddha is called > pubbakatahetuvada or pubbebbetaka -hetu-ditthi, the view that all feelings > in the present life is due to deeds done in former existences. It is an > extreme view that is ignorant of the many other conditions operating from > the past and present. Another two commonly held views are > issaranimmana-hetu-ditthi, the view that a creator God is responsible for > the experiences in this life ahetu-apaccaya-ditthi, the view that there is > no such thing as kamma and that all feelings arise by chance. This last > view is fairly common in our age with many people imagining that it is by > chance that they are born as man or woman or dog or horse, and that their > experiences in life happen largely by chance and present effort only. Some > people hold to views which are a mix of two or even all three. > In this sutta the Buddha was concerned to refute the first extreme view > only. > > The Blessed one replied to Sivaka: "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, > there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of > feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it > is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... > of > (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by > injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there > arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by > oneself; > also in the world it is accepted as true. > "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that > 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or > neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then > they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true > by > the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these > ascetics and brahmans."endquote > > With regard to the statement in 'Abhidhamma in daily > life' that ""when we hear unpleasant words, the moment of experiencing the > sound (hearing-consciousness) is > akusala vipaka, the result of an unwholesome deed we perform ourselves."" > > Howard wrote that"There is no doubt in my mind that what is being said > there is that every unpleasant experience is the result of one's own > kamma. But I do not buy that at all, nor do I believe that the Buddha > did. In fact, in at least one sutta, the Buddha explicitly denied that, > characterizing it as wrong view, a view of kammic determinism""" > > However, this is perhaps a hasty conclusion: > In the Abhidhamma - as has been explained in Abhidhamma in Daily life- > there are 4 types of cittas classified as jati. Vipaka(result), > kiriya , akusala and kusala. In a process of cittas that experiences > an object such as sound only one moment is vipaka, result. The rest > are of the other jatis(not the result of kamma). The vipaka is like a > flash and then many, many more moments that are not vipaka. > Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by > kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in > previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by > kamma. The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes > that there is no single fruit from a single cause: "for here there is no > single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a > single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple > causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja > paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause > and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the > inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances > because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious > and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a > single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm'(in the sutta above) > because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma > and so on."" > > > best wishes > robert > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 11230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and the Sutta Pitaka -no discrepancy op 08-02-2002 00:17 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...: > > About phassa, I did not see the difference of this in suttanta and > abhidhamma. In Dhammasagani, abhidhamma book I. Phenomena were classified, > sliced and disintegrated. The same thing in Vibhanga, book II. In abhidhamma > phassa was not directly categorized as universal cetasika but no matter how > citta sliced or classified phassa is always there. In book I, phassa was also > called phassahara (phassa as a nutrient). Without phassa, mental processes > cannot arise. Phassa is kind of a gateway. In suttanta esp. in > salayatana-vagga, phassa is a leading cause of feeling and then mental act. > To me, I feel like they talk about the same thing in different manner. Phassa > is a gateway or leading factor for processes of citta and other cetasika, in > coordinating a meeting between sense door, object and sense conscious. > Dear Num, You asked me to join in. I agree, there is no discrepancy. Phassa, contact, has a characteristic, a function, a manifestation and a proximate cause. The manifestation is the coinciding of base, object and consciousness, as the Atthasalini stated. The same is said in the suttas: when visible object impinges on the eye-base and seeing arises, you know that there is contact accompanying seeing and performing its function of contacting the visible object, so that seeing can experience it. That is the manifestation of contact. It is not an abstract category, it performs its function each moment, also now. I agree with your other points about Abhidhamma and suttanta. As you said: > Num: < Writing style is different in suttanta-abhidhamma and commentaries. > Repetition, slightly different slicing style is used in both suttanta and > abhidhamma, more so in abhidhamma. I guess that is the way for oral > transmission. The Com. which was written much later or somewhat more concise > and somewhat more categorized. I think that is possible because of writing > technology. I found that in Com. some new terms were introduced and things > were organized somewhat differently. > Let me close with what is, I think, vital to know. I like Malunkayaputta a > lot. A man was wounded and bleeding by arrows but he refused anybody to help > him if he could not know who shot the arrow, what he looked like, where was > he from, what kind of the bow the arrow was shot from, what the arrow made > from. He would soon die without getting any help or answers. When I read > sutta or abhidhamma, it causes me some doubts. I remind myself the sutta. > Reality here and now is vital and critical; nama-rupa, satipathana. I > probably will be able or unable to know which one was written first suttanta > or abhidhamma or which book in abhidhamma was written first. Reading the > whole tipitaka without knowing reality here and now is also pretty much > studying in a conceptual manner. > end quote. >Nina: I fully agree, we should not forget the aim of all our reading and studying: understanding seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, and all dhammas appearing now. Otherwise our study will be fruitless and speculative. The Buddha taught Malunkyaputta the four noble Truths. When we come to understand that what we take for people and self are only nama and rupa, wrong view can be eliminated and only after that the other defilements can be eradicated. The end of defilements means the end of dukkha because then there will not be rebirth. Best wishes from Nina. > > 11231 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 3:44pm Subject: Laughter and Humour Dear All, During this last week, a friend of many years commented that he felt I couldn't be a real buddhist because I laughed and smiled too much. This seemed a strange remark, and I shrugged it off..... But I kept remembering it. So I searched for a few references and found that perhaps there was a basis for my friends' remark. This was surprising to me and a little disturbing. I cannot imagine life without laughter - it would become a depressing marathon of endurance.....Perhaps, it is too much laughter that is to be discouraged?....The wrong sort? and who judges that?...Or is it that you automatically lose your sense of humour the more progress you make? metta, Christine http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-002.html Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, said: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" "Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor -- himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless -- with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." When this was said, Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'" "I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who said: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett7b.htm "if humour is, as I have suggested, in some way a reaction to fear, then so long as there remains a trace of the contradiction, of the existential paradox, so long will there remain a trace of humour. But since, essentially, the Buddha's Teaching is the cessation of fear (or more strictly of anxiety, the condition of fear), so it leads to the subsidence of humour. Not, indeed, that the arahat is humourless in the sense of being serious-minded; far from it; no -- it is simply that the need he formerly felt for humour has now ceased. And so we find in the Suttas (A. III,105: i,261) that whereas excessive laughter 'showing the teeth' is called childishness, a smile when one is rightly pleased is not out of place. Perhaps you may like to see here a distinction between inauthentic and authentic humour." http://www.stanford.edu/~jasona/j92-final/ Associating laughter with religion was even a problem for early Buddhist scholastics. Laughter was thought to be something common, even vulgar. Some see the comic as a distraction from the seriousness of religion, while others view it as adding "spice to the rice," so to speak. Thus, Buddhist scholastics preferred to disassociate the Buddha's teachings from laughter. However, there was a problem: many sutras say or imply that the Buddha would laugh on occassion. How could this discrepancy be resolved? Bharata, during the fourth century in India, wrote a theatrical treatise that remedied this by differentiating between the different types of laughter, as diagrammed below: Type of Laughter Short Description Appropriate Caste Sita highest and noblest form, a faint smile High castes, authority figures Hasita next highest form, a smile which barely reveals the tips of the teeth Vihasita an even larger smile accompanied by some laughter Middle ranks Upahasita a more pronounced laughter, marked by shaking of the head, shoulders, and arms Apahasita loud laughter that makes one teary-eyed Lower castes, people of unruly or uncouth behavior Atihasita uproarious laughter that makes one double over, slap the thighs, or roll around Therefore, according to Bharata, the Buddha was only associated with sita "laughter", although from a modern sense, this isn't even considered laughter" http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_1.htm "26. Hasituppáda is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotápannas, Sakadágámís, and Anágámís may smile with one of the two akusala cittas, disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppáda. Sammá Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. There is nothing but mere mirth in the hasituppáda consciousness.The Compendium of Philosophy states: "There are six classes of laughter recognized in Buddhist works: (1) sita: - a smile manifesting itself in expression and countenance; (2) hasita: - a smile consisting in the slight movements of the lips just enough to reveal the tips of the teeth; (3) vihasita: - laughter giving out a light sound; (4) upahasita: - laughter accompanied by the movement of the head, shoulders, and arms; (5) apahasita: - laughter accompanied by the shedding of tears; and (6) atihasita: - an outburst of laughter accompanied by the forward and backward movements of the entire body from head to foot. Laughter is thus a form of bodily expression (káya-viññatti), which may or may not be accompanied by vocal expression (vací-viññatti). Of these, the first two classes are indulged in by cultured persons, the next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower classes of being." http://www.wfb-hq.org/bud15c.htm "Consider, for example, laughter. The Buddha once said, "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle." Think about it. We like to laugh heartily, even though it is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle. It doesn't even embarrass us. We like it. We go right on laughing heartily, guffawing loudly. Why did the Buddha say that "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle"? Think of an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and grinning at you. The laughter of the noble ones is different. They laugh at all compounded things (sankhara), which are impermanent and changing, unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self. Because they knew, they can laugh at compounded things and at craving, which henceforth can do them no harm. This is the right kind of laughter, the kind that has meaning and worth." 11232 From: Victor Yu Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Laughter and Humour Hello Christine and all, Here is a discourse in which the Buddha smiled. Anguttara Nikaya V.180 Gavesin Sutta About Gavesin Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an05-180.html Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: [dsg] Laughter and Humour Dear All, During this last week, a friend of many years commented that he felt I couldn't be a real buddhist because I laughed and smiled too much. This seemed a strange remark, and I shrugged it off..... But I kept remembering it. So I searched for a few references and found that perhaps there was a basis for my friends' remark. This was surprising to me and a little disturbing. I cannot imagine life without laughter - it would become a depressing marathon of endurance.....Perhaps, it is too much laughter that is to be discouraged?....The wrong sort? and who judges that?...Or is it that you automatically lose your sense of humour the more progress you make? metta, Christine http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-002.html Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, said: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" "Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the actor -- himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless -- with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." When this was said, Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'" "I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who said: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas.' http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett7b.htm "if humour is, as I have suggested, in some way a reaction to fear, then so long as there remains a trace of the contradiction, of the existential paradox, so long will there remain a trace of humour. But since, essentially, the Buddha's Teaching is the cessation of fear (or more strictly of anxiety, the condition of fear), so it leads to the subsidence of humour. Not, indeed, that the arahat is humourless in the sense of being serious-minded; far from it; no -- it is simply that the need he formerly felt for humour has now ceased. And so we find in the Suttas (A. III,105: i,261) that whereas excessive laughter 'showing the teeth' is called childishness, a smile when one is rightly pleased is not out of place. Perhaps you may like to see here a distinction between inauthentic and authentic humour." http://www.stanford.edu/~jasona/j92-final/ Associating laughter with religion was even a problem for early Buddhist scholastics. Laughter was thought to be something common, even vulgar. Some see the comic as a distraction from the seriousness of religion, while others view it as adding "spice to the rice," so to speak. Thus, Buddhist scholastics preferred to disassociate the Buddha's teachings from laughter. However, there was a problem: many sutras say or imply that the Buddha would laugh on occassion. How could this discrepancy be resolved? Bharata, during the fourth century in India, wrote a theatrical treatise that remedied this by differentiating between the different types of laughter, as diagrammed below: Type of Laughter Short Description Appropriate Caste Sita highest and noblest form, a faint smile High castes, authority figures Hasita next highest form, a smile which barely reveals the tips of the teeth Vihasita an even larger smile accompanied by some laughter Middle ranks Upahasita a more pronounced laughter, marked by shaking of the head, shoulders, and arms Apahasita loud laughter that makes one teary-eyed Lower castes, people of unruly or uncouth behavior Atihasita uproarious laughter that makes one double over, slap the thighs, or roll around Therefore, according to Bharata, the Buddha was only associated with sita "laughter", although from a modern sense, this isn't even considered laughter" http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/sangaha/chapter_1.htm "26. Hasituppáda is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotápannas, Sakadágámís, and Anágámís may smile with one of the two akusala cittas, disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppáda. Sammá Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. There is nothing but mere mirth in the hasituppáda consciousness.The Compendium of Philosophy states: "There are six classes of laughter recognized in Buddhist works: (1) sita: - a smile manifesting itself in expression and countenance; (2) hasita: - a smile consisting in the slight movements of the lips just enough to reveal the tips of the teeth; (3) vihasita: - laughter giving out a light sound; (4) upahasita: - laughter accompanied by the movement of the head, shoulders, and arms; (5) apahasita: - laughter accompanied by the shedding of tears; and (6) atihasita: - an outburst of laughter accompanied by the forward and backward movements of the entire body from head to foot. Laughter is thus a form of bodily expression (káya-viññatti), which may or may not be accompanied by vocal expression (vací-viññatti). Of these, the first two classes are indulged in by cultured persons, the next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower classes of being." http://www.wfb-hq.org/bud15c.htm "Consider, for example, laughter. The Buddha once said, "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle." Think about it. We like to laugh heartily, even though it is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle. It doesn't even embarrass us. We like it. We go right on laughing heartily, guffawing loudly. Why did the Buddha say that "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle"? Think of an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and grinning at you. The laughter of the noble ones is different. They laugh at all compounded things (sankhara), which are impermanent and changing, unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not-self. Because they knew, they can laugh at compounded things and at craving, which henceforth can do them no harm. This is the right kind of laughter, the kind that has meaning and worth." 11233 From: manji Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 4:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 Most amazing and auspicious post. :) Esp. the part "... There are four types of clinging (see visuddhimagga xvii 241-3). That of sense desire clinging, wrongview clinging, clinging to rules and rituals, and lastly self view clinging. Note that the last three are types of miccha-ditthi, wrong view(the three include all types of wrong view from the gross to the very most subtle). These three are the most dangerous types of clinging and the ones we especially need to understand, see Visuddhimagga xvii246. The path of vipassana gradually eliminates the three types of micchaditthi until at sotapanna they are eradicated forever. Later stages, after sotapanna, then attenuate the clinging to sense desires." Prajna paramita... manji shugyokai.org -----Original Message----- From: robertkirkpatrick.rm [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:26 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com; dhammastudy@yahoogroups Subject: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2 11234 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 6:12pm Subject: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Dear group, In this post I look at some more points raised by Venerable Buddhadasa in about Buddhaghosa and the ancient commentaries. On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the 9th paragraph): "therefore his explanation took on the appearance of spanning three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming into the present birth and from the present going over into the future birth" Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we are at odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence of all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the Buddha that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't last for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from life to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with many points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think it is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the ancients really taught this perverted doctrine: There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga xvii 133-175. It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible. There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, due to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness (called cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different from other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - but it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not exactly the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from hearing consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of experiencing an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called patisandhara (rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of consciousness Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now, simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death, (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive it. But truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because different kamma will produce results. Here are some pertinent quotes: XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called death (cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the next becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from the previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it clear that that is exactly NOT what happens. 164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , or its like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies Identity and otherness" 302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya vinnana) prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." 280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors, revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as having no beginning" 303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' Also consider an earlier post where I noted thatBuddhaghosa also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" (see dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness does not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the course of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs about this. ====== Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals and so forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone is a state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in hell exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable Buddhadasa notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) and at other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the human plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal plane. The other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually see, hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist. Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no humans, no animals no "us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena - arising and passing away. At this time, in this world, those streams of conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Stephen or robert include many pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant moments are much more frequent and in others much less frequent. In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which Ven. Buddhadasa quotes) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours. Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree. The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is usually no opportunity for pleasant results. Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of various kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of these states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced after entering the coffin".Endquote I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise in this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view to the real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make one terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life now - which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and how the factors of the dependent origination work their ways. best wishes robert 11235 From: Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hi, Robert - Thanks for this wonderful post. Clearly and beautifully presented. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/9/02 9:13:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear group, > In this post I look at some more points raised by Venerable > Buddhadasa in > about Buddhaghosa and the ancient commentaries. > On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the > 9th > paragraph): "therefore his explanation took on the appearance of > spanning > three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming > into the present birth and from the present going over into the future > birth" > > Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and > Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we > are at > odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence > of > all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the > Buddha > that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't > last > for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from > life > to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with > many > points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think > it > is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the > ancients really taught this perverted doctrine: > There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga > xvii > 133-175. > It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible. > There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, > due > to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness > (called > cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different > from > other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - > but > it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not > exactly > the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from > hearing > consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of > experiencing > an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called > patisandhara > (rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of > consciousness > Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now, > simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. > At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death, > (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive > it. But > truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the > reason > we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions > arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At > conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because > different kamma will produce results. > Here are some pertinent quotes: > XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called > death > (cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of > linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the > next > becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from > the > previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it > clear that that is exactly NOT what happens. > 164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the > previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the > formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , > or its > like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies > Identity and otherness" > 302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya > vinnana) > prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." > 280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors, > revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as > having > no beginning" > 303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' > > Also consider an earlier post where I noted thatBuddhaghosa > also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a > multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" > (see > dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the > Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness > does > not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the > course > of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs > about this. > ====== > Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals > and so > forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and > suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone > is a > state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in > hell > exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells > beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable > Buddhadasa > notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) > and at > other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha > sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the > human > plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal > plane. The > other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually > see, > hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist. > Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no > humans, no animals no > "us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena - > arising and passing away. At this time, in this world, those streams > of > conditioned phenomena known conventionally as Stephen or robert > include > many pleasant moments (intermittently). In some planes pleasant > moments > are much more frequent and in others much less frequent. > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which > Ven. > Buddhadasa quotes) > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable, > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote > > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas > appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours. > Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma > (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to > some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing > is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object > will be unpleasant to some degree. > The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious > moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is > usually no opportunity for pleasant results. > > Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the > state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of > various > kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of > these > states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced > after entering the coffin".Endquote > > I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other > existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise > in > this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. > But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view > to the > real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make > one > terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it > acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life > now - > which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no > different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the > future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and > how > the factors of the dependent origination work their ways. > best wishes > robert > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 11236 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Howard Thanks for your comments (below) on 2 aspects of the teachings that are both of direct relevance to the understanding of the present moment. > … The Buddha presented a complete program of practice which, > if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of > insight and ultimate liberation. I would not see the Buddha as teaching that the development of insight is a question of following a 'program of practice'. I realise that this is how Buddhism is presented by and large, but I believe such a view to be misconceived. It is not like there is curriculum of some sort; the teachings are an explanation of cause and effect, and what the Buddha has done is to give us the *necessary prerequisites* for the development of insight leading to enlightenment. But even in a conventional curriculum scenario (e.g., for academic achievement), I suspect that you and I would still differ on the role that volitional effort has to play, Howard ;-). I would say that a far more important and fundamental factor would be the underlying motivation, in the sense of seeing the value in attaining the final goal (in this case, the value of successful graduation on completion of the curriculum). Given that motivation, the volitional effort follows naturally as and when required. Without that motivation, volitional effort is by and large ineffective and anyway can not be sustained for long. In the dhamma, the underlying motivation is said to be a 'sense of urgency' (sorry, no references to hand). This is the motivation that will generate the necessary 'right effort' of kusala. And this sense of urgency is ultimately an appreciation of the dangers of ignorance and of attachment to becoming, in other words, of continuation in the cycle of existence. > But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that > requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some volitional > actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain from > the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and pursuit > is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by wrong > understanding, craving, and aversion. It is of course true to say that we exercise volition all the time, and that the resultant actions vary in their moral quality. However, the question we are discussing here is a more focussed one than that; as I see it, we are trying to sort out the role (if any) assigned to volitional will/effort in the teachings. You suggest that refraining from harmful actions is right effort. I have no argument with that, insofar as you refer to the actual moment of refraining. But is it necessary that a moment of refraining should be preceded by volitional effort? Surely not. The refraining may arise spontaneously (unprompted = 'asangkharika') either because the temptation for the harmful action was weak or because of a strongly developed sense of right and wrong (hiri and otappa). Yet despite the absence of any preceding volitional effort, there would still be right effort at the moment of refraining. Secondly, even if there is conscious, volitional effort to refrain, it may or may not be followed by the wholesome act of refraining. If the necessary appreciation of the dangers of the particular kind of harmful action in contemplation is not present at that precise moment, there can be no *wholesome* refraining (there may still be *forced* refraining). We can, speaking conventionally, tell/exert/force ourselves to do something; but, to my understanding, kusala can never arise *because of* these factors (it may, however, arise *preceded by* these factors). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > I have copied your entire post below. It, including the > statements by > you and me quoted therein, is a bit lengthy. So what I have done is > pasted > right here two paragraphs of yours which express the the main ideas of > your > post to which I'd like to respond at the moment. > One thing you write is: > "What I meant to say was that *intentional observation of things* > is > not and cannot be the same as the *direct awareness or understanding of > realities* because dhammas/realities cannot be directly experienced by > volitional observation (at least as I understand that term), but only by > > awareness and understanding, qualities whose arising is not dependent on > > volitional action or activity of any kind." > I agree that one cannot *will* insight. It arises, as you are > wont to > say ;-), when conditions for its arising are in place. My position, > however, > is the following: The Buddha presented a complete program of practice > which, > if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of > > insight and ultimate liberation. It is much like a traveller who well > knows > the way to a distant city having given precise directions there. But for > us > to get to that city, the directions must not only be read and > understood, but > followed. Doing so is an exercise of volition. Animals don't make the > trip - > they lack the understanding. For the most part, devas don't make the > trip - > they lack the motivation, the inclination, the will. Even most humans > don't > make the trip, for many reasons including mainly ignorance of the > possibility > of even making it. However, of those humans whose lives are not > completely > desperate nor utterly wonderful, and who have learned of the possibility > and > worth of making a trip to that golden city, and who even have confidence > that > the directions there are correct, most will not actually exercise the > will to > make the trip, arduous as it is, or, if so, only haltingly, with > repeated > false starts, hesitations, detours, and postponements. Only strong, > courageous, consistent exertion of will can succeed. Oh, one can point > to > those folks who, "because of conditions" entered the stream upon hearing > a > sutta, or being directly lead by the words of a living Buddha. But those > > conditions, those accumulations, had to have been created by a previous > walking of the Buddha's path. After all, the Buddha's path *is* ekayana, > and > nothing comes from nothing. > You also write: > "I think that by definition any form of volitional action on our > part > is bound to be coloured by the very ignorance, wrong view and desire for > > results that we believe to be the cause of our bondage to this round of > existence." > This and some other statements you have made appear to have the > flavor > of randomness and dependence on luck. I'm sure that is not your > intention, > but it is something I have consistently detected. Randomness and > dependence > on luck are unrelated to the Dhamma. As I wrote above, nothing comes > from > nothing. I think there is a danger in conflating impersonality and lack > of > (total) control with randomness and dependence on luck. > Truly, not only our volition, but all of our mental function is > colored by ignorance. We seem to be a "self" dealing with > mind-independent, > self-existing "external things". That's where we are! That's where we > begin. > But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that > requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some > volitional > actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain > from > the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and > pursuit > is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by > wrong > understanding, craving, and aversion. > > With metta, > Howard 11237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Howard A further point from your same message as my reply of a moment ago. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ...... > I don't make a really big deal out > of the jhanas per se. My point is only that equanimity and holding the > defilements at bay simply make clear seeing easier. The Buddha taught > the development of calm for good reason, and as part of the path. If I read you correctly here, Howard, you see a fairly direct and immediate connection between the development of calm, the consequent suppression of defilements, and the (easier) arising of insight. As you know, you and I disagree on the need for a specific practice of the development of calm and the suppression of the defilements ;-). But putting that aside for the moment, that still leaves a large chunk of the day to get through. What do you see as being the practice outside the period during which one is developing calm, or before the defilements have been suppressed? Surely the teachings have relevance to the present moment regardless of the level of calm or other form of kusala. Do you see the potential, given the right grasp of the teachings, for the arising of awareness of any presently appearing reality (be it seeing, visible object, attachment, unpleasant feeling or whatever)? Jon 11238 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Feb 9, 2002 11:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Vipallasa's Dear Jonothan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonothan Abbott [mailto:jonoabb@y...] > > Kom, Nina and all > > Many thanks for posting the summary of the recent > Bay Area talk. I would > like echo Nina's comments in her post to you > about your substantial and > much appreciated contribution to the discussion > on the list here. K. Jack is back from his retreat in Thailand. I will report when there is another interesting subject that comes up. > I don't want to burden you further, so I will > direct this question to > everyone. Could we possibly have some daily-life > examples of the 3 > categories and 4 objects of vipallasa's, please. > I would be interested to > discuss further. Thanks. > I think this is a subject that is difficult to give an example. The reason is that the dhammas related to Vipallasa are two: moha and dithi. Moha arises with all akusala, so when there is akusala (for us, different for the ariyans), I understand it to be vipallassa of 2 (citta, and sanna) by 4 (impermanence as permanence, dukkha as sukka, anatta as atta, and asubha as subha). If dithi also co-arises, then it is a vipallassa of 3 by 4. Whenever there is a akusala, moha prevents the citta from seeing the realities as they are, and therefore, there is accumulation of all the 4 vipallassa. When I enjoy seeing a pretty woman, it is a vipallassa of 2x4, with the asubha as subha being the most prominent, but all other vipallassa's are being accumulated at that moment. The gradual lessening of vipallassa is probably as difficult to give an example. If there is a panna cognizing the visible object as just a dhamma (Kayanupassana), then at that point, all 4 vipallasas are being lessened but with the asubha as subha being the most prominent. kom 11239 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > I think the following post of yours is very good - clear, to the > point, realistic (though conventional .. oh, gee! ;-)), and not > doctrinnaire. thanks....you're most welcome to tell me when my posts do sound 'doctrinnaire';-) Actually, I find it can be very therapeutic to write here when there is a 'real issue' going on..by the time I'd finished I was no longer thinking about 'my' problem, but looking at the wider picture from the dhamma perspective. > With regard to your client, we just can't know what of that complex > event is > kamma vipaka of yours and what is not. I suspect that the *original* > non-paying was not. I suspect that your finding that unpleasant may have > been > just an automatic evaluation (or, better, the vipaka of being human). I > suspect that your internal reaction of anger may have been kamma vipaka, > and > that your angry verbal response was akusala. I agree that we cannot possibly know all the intricate conditions at play. However, I think we can begin to understand that whenever we are thinking in terms of the stories and situations, that these are different from the precise dhammas which are kamma, vipaka, dosa and so on. Certainly the anger and angry response are akusala and may produce new kamma (depending on strength). They cannot be considered as vipaka though, however 'automatic'. But I can suspect what I > will, > and that won't change the facts. Bottom line: We just don't know. Like you say, we may have our suspicions and there may be a little intellectual understanding, but directly understanding realities such as seeing or hearing as vipaka, different from the feelings or anger which arise on account of it, is not so simple. Better to know we don't know, so we can consider more and occasionally have a little glimmer;-) This is a rushed post...i'm busy with accounts and packing before a 5am departure tomorrow morning for Thailand over Chinese New Year. We'll be away for 8 days with limited internet, but will be checking in daily, I hope, in between the surf in Samui and then the discussions in Bkk. Thanks again for your kind comments, Howard and look f/w to reading all the posts on the beach;-)) Sarah ============================ p.s. the client tells me he's had a change of heart (very prompted), so hopefully that story will have a happy ending by the time I return too;-) 11240 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma/view/paticcasamuppada Dear Robert Thank you for the very clear explanation. (Also in general for all your posting on these lists) Best wishes Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Kirkpatrick" Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 11:33 AM Subject: [dsg] kamma/view/paticcasamuppada > Dear Lucy and Howard, > I thought you might be interested in some more about kamma as it relates > to the sutta you posted: > Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21 > Moliyasivaka Sutta > To Sivaka > 11241 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah" > > Actually, I find it can be very therapeutic to write here when there is a > 'real issue' going on..by the time I'd finished I was no longer thinking > about 'my' problem, but looking at the wider picture from the dhamma > perspective. > Dear Sarah It can be very therapeutic to read about someone else's 'real issues', amazing how familiar they can be to a distant reader : ) ... it's very helpful to know how fellow travellers deal with those real issues and how they place those issue within the dhamma perspective. To Sarah, Jon and everyone else : Happy Year of the Horse ! Lucy 11242 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 7:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: an old friend op 09-02-2002 06:01 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > --- azita gill wrote: > > >> hello Jon and others, >> upon inspecting my "bookcase" I 've >> discovered some wonderful dhamma literature which I've >> had for ages but-you know, conditions weren't right >> for me to pull it out and study-I'm really glad to >> have the opportunity to study again and have so >> appreciated this group. > > Great news, Helen. I remember from the old days that you have a real > interest in understading the present moment. I'm sure this focus has not > been entirely absent during the past few (now let's see, that must be 20 > or so) years. Dear Helen, that is great to hear from you. Sarah mentioned baby Zoe and how I rember her! She was crying in the train in Sri Lanka, but now she is a grown up lady. I remember Sarah's kindness to look after her so that you could attend a dhamma discussion. I liked your post on rupas, I hope you will write more. >H: Sundara and I have regular contact. He is now in Oz >> and I have encouraged him to join and I'm sure he >> will. have lost contact with Richard altho. think I >> know where he is. Laurence Mills, used to be >> Khantipalo, lives in Cairns, runs a Buddhist centre >> which I've attended, however its very Tibetan in style >> and - well i don't go very often. N: I knew Khantipalo, but he will not remember me. He wrote good books, he is very knowledgeable. Could he not join also dsg? H: I'm aware that the above info. probably won't interest >> other people, so more private "goss" I'll send >> directly to you, Jon. > N: Yes, I enjoyed hearing from you and about your interest in the Dhamma. Best wishes from Nina. 11243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 7:19am Subject: India impressions Dear friends, I am planning to put out my draft about the India impressions in small sections for those who would be interested in the discussions with Acharn Sujin. I found the points she stressed very valuable and I would like to share them with others. This draft has not been put on a website yet. Nina. Here is the Intro: Introduction Preserving the Buddha¹s Teachings In October 2001 we joined a large group of Thai pilgrims led by our friend in Dhamma and teacher Acharn (the Thai word for teacher) Sujin Boriharnwanaket, to the Buddhist sites in India. We still have the opportunity to pay respect to the excellent qualities of the Buddha and the arahats, and to recollect the teachings contained in the Tipiìaka. But for the Buddha, there would be no way to understand our life as it really is: phenomena that arise and then fall away immediately. We would not be able to develop the understanding that sees things as they really are: impermanent, unsatisfactory (dukkha) and non-self. Only this understanding leads to the eradication of ignorance, wrong view and all other defilements. The Buddha¹s teachings have been corrupted in the course of time and eventually they will disappear. Today we still have the opportunity to study the teachings, to consider them thoroughly and to apply them, so that we gain understanding of what our life really is: seeing, colour, hearing, sound, feeling, thinking and the other phenomena as they present themselves one at a time at this very moment. In this way we truly take our refuge in the Dhamma. Throughout our journey Acharn Sujin taught us about the reality appearing at this moment because only understanding of the present moment can lead to the elimination of clinging to the concept of self. She taught with a great sense of urgency in view of the eventual disappearance of the teachings. Mr. Suwat Chansuvityanant and his son Mr. Pakabutr were in charge of the organisation of the tour, just as many times before when we made this pilgrimage. We visited as usual Lumbini, the Buddha¹s birth place, Bodhgaya where he attained enlightenment, Sarnath, the place of his first sermon and Kusinåra where he passed finally away. Our journey brought us also again to Savatthí, Råjagaha where we climbed the Vulture¹s Peak, Nålandå, the Bamboo Grove and Vesalí 1 . In addition, a few other places were included most people had not visited before. We came to Saòkassa, the place were the Buddha descended from the ³Heaven of the Thirtythree², after having explained the Abhidhamma to his mother. We also visited Kapilavatthu in Nepal, where he as a Bodhisatta grew up, and we visited the park where he saw an old man, a sick man, a dead man and a monk. We visited the place where Cunda offered the Buddha his last meal and also the river where he took his last bath before he finally passed away in Kusinåra. Kosambí was also included, but not all of us went there since it was too far. Most of the holy places we visited were already described by the Chinese monk Chi Fah Hian who in the fifth century A.D. traveled all the way from the China of the Sung Dynasty to India and Sri Lanka in order to seek complete copies of the Buddhist scriptures and the Rules of the Vinaya 2. It was very striking to find many places exactly as described by this monk 1600 years ago! In Saòkassa the remnants of Asoka¹s column are still there. In Kapilavatthu we paid respect at the Eastern Gate of the Palace where the royal prince Siddhatta left the city in order to go forth from worldly life. In Savatthí we had Dhamma discussion at the place where, Fah Hian tells us, ³the Buddha resided for a long time and expounded the Dhamma for the salvation of men.² With regard to Sarnath, where the Buddha began to turn the Wheel of the Dhamma, the Chinese monk wrote: ² in all these places towers (stupas) have been erected which still exist². We paid respect at these same stupas! In the course of time the holy places were neglected for many centuries. Bodhgaya and Sarnath were in a deplorable condition and wild beasts were roaming there. The Head Monk in Sarnath, the Ven. Kahawatte Sri Sumedha, told us about Anagarika Dharmapala who made great efforts to restore the holy places at the beginning of the twentieth century. After a life-long struggle to overcome all problems and legal battles the temple at Sarnath was built under his supervision, and relics of the Buddha that were given to the Mahå-Bodhi Society were placed in this temple in a vault underneath the pedestal of the Buddha image. When we were in Sarnath we had the opportunity to pay respect to the Buddha¹s relics which are shown only once a year. However, on the occasion of our visit they were taken out by the Singhalese monks who are guarding them and they were placed on Acharn Sujin¹s head. After that we all had the opportunity to pay respect. Another holy place that was until recently neglected is the place where the Buddha preached the Mahå-Satipaììhåna Sutta, the Discourse on Mindfulness. This is in Kailash, in the region which was formerly called Kuru. The place is marked by a rock with an old inscription commemorating the preaching of the Sutta and a concrete roof has been erected over it. Even two years ago we had to step over dirt to reach this stone. I had written about the state of this place to a friend and former colleague of us of the Indian diplomatic service, Mr. S.K. Singh. He visited the people living around this place, belonging to the lowest caste, the caste of the ³Untouchables². He spoke to the families, especially to the mothers, explaining that the parents should educate their children in good morality according to the principles of the Lord Buddha. He persuaded the Department of Archaeology and the New Delhi Development Authority to take care of the place and as a consequence a high iron fence has been erected around it and a caretaker has been engaged to clean up the grounds. The Forest Department arranged for trees to be planted and we could see the young trees placed in pots. Lodewijk, my husband, and I were happily surprised of the change in outlook of this place and are most grateful to S.K. Singh. As soon as the group from Thailand arrived in Delhi we told them about this and Acharn Sujin wanted to go there immediately. We all climbed up to the old rock with the inscription and paid respect. In this place the development of satipaììhåna has been explained which is specifically the teaching of the Buddha; no other teacher has taught this. Mindfulness of all realities, mental phenomena and physical phenomena, as they appear in our daily life is the greatest respect shown to the Buddha. Acharn Sujin spoke untiringly and with great patience about the development of right understanding. I am most grateful for the way she has given us guidance by explaining about the realities appearing at the present moment. I greatly appreciate all her Dhamma talks given day after day. For the writing of this book I used the discussions we held, material from tapes and from the scriptures and commentaries which relate to the subjects we discussed. ***** Footnotes 1. For the description of these places, see my ³In Asoka¹s Footsteps². 2. Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yam, translated by Samuel Beal, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, 1996. ISBN: 81-206-0824-0. 11244 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Hi, Jon - There is much in the following that I agree with, for example the relevance of motivation and underlying sense urgency for effective volition. Where we differ is, in part, a matter of emphasis. I detect a flavor of "randomness" in your analysis, a randomness tending towards the nihilist pole of wrong view, whereas my tendency is towards the opposite substantialist pole of wrong view. But most precisely, where we differ is on the issue of whether the Buddha provided a training program (my position) or only a statement of what conditions foster what results (your apparent position). With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/10/02 1:15:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > Thanks for your comments (below) on 2 aspects of the teachings that are > both of direct relevance to the understanding of the present moment. > > > … The Buddha presented a complete program of practice which, > > if undertaken properly, for sufficient time, will lead to the arising of > > insight and ultimate liberation. > > I would not see the Buddha as teaching that the development of insight is > a question of following a 'program of practice'. I realise that this is > how Buddhism is presented by and large, but I believe such a view to be > misconceived. It is not like there is curriculum of some sort; the > teachings are an explanation of cause and effect, and what the Buddha has > done is to give us the *necessary prerequisites* for the development of > insight leading to enlightenment. > > But even in a conventional curriculum scenario (e.g., for academic > achievement), I suspect that you and I would still differ on the role that > volitional effort has to play, Howard ;-). I would say that a far more > important and fundamental factor would be the underlying motivation, in > the sense of seeing the value in attaining the final goal (in this case, > the value of successful graduation on completion of the curriculum). > Given that motivation, the volitional effort follows naturally as and when > required. Without that motivation, volitional effort is by and large > ineffective and anyway can not be sustained for long. > > In the dhamma, the underlying motivation is said to be a 'sense of > urgency' (sorry, no references to hand). This is the motivation that will > generate the necessary 'right effort' of kusala. And this sense of > urgency is ultimately an appreciation of the dangers of ignorance and of > attachment to becoming, in other words, of continuation in the cycle of > existence. > > > But we have a choice: We can follow the Buddha's directions - and that > > requires will! - or not. We exercise volition all the time. Some > volitional > > actions are harmful, some neutral, some helpful. If we do not refrain > from > > the harmful ones and pursue the useful ones - and such refraining and > pursuit > > is right effort! - then we will continue in our ignorance, bound by > wrong > > understanding, craving, and aversion. > > It is of course true to say that we exercise volition all the time, and > that the resultant actions vary in their moral quality. However, the > question we are discussing here is a more focussed one than that; as I > see it, we are trying to sort out the role (if any) assigned to volitional > will/effort in the teachings. > > You suggest that refraining from harmful actions is right effort. I have > no argument with that, insofar as you refer to the actual moment of > refraining. But is it necessary that a moment of refraining should be > preceded by volitional effort? Surely not. The refraining may arise > spontaneously (unprompted = 'asangkharika') either because the temptation > for the harmful action was weak or because of a strongly developed sense > of right and wrong (hiri and otappa). Yet despite the absence of any > preceding volitional effort, there would still be right effort at the > moment of refraining. > > Secondly, even if there is conscious, volitional effort to refrain, it may > or may not be followed by the wholesome act of refraining. If the > necessary appreciation of the dangers of the particular kind of harmful > action in contemplation is not present at that precise moment, there can > be no *wholesome* refraining (there may still be *forced* refraining). > > We can, speaking conventionally, tell/exert/force ourselves to do > something; but, to my understanding, kusala can never arise *because of* > these factors (it may, however, arise *preceded by* these factors). > > Jon > /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) 11245 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/10/02 1:17:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > A further point from your same message as my reply of a moment ago. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > ...... > > I don't make a really big deal out > > of the jhanas per se. My point is only that equanimity and holding the > > defilements at bay simply make clear seeing easier. The Buddha taught > > the development of calm for good reason, and as part of the path. > > If I read you correctly here, Howard, you see a fairly direct and > immediate connection between the development of calm, the consequent > suppression of defilements, and the (easier) arising of insight. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see a strongly reactive mind, a mind reacting with aversion and aversion, as interfering with mindfulness and clear comprehension. The development of calm is a palliative with regard to this. -------------------------------------------------------- > > As you know, you and I disagree on the need for a specific practice of the > development of calm and the suppression of the defilements ;-). But > putting that aside for the moment, that still leaves a large chunk of the > day to get through. What do you see as being the practice outside the > period during which one is developing calm, or before the defilements have > been suppressed? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see formal meditation practice as merely a part of the total practice. It is useful that there be an ongoing mindfulness practice throughout all one's daily activities. ----------------------------------------------------- Surely the teachings have relevance to the present> moment regardless of > the level of calm or other form of kusala. Do you > see the potential, given the right grasp of the teachings, for the arising > of awareness of any presently appearing reality (be it seeing, visible > object, attachment, unpleasant feeling or whatever)? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course I do. What I also see is that an ongoing practice which includes cultivation of calm creates a layer of peace in the mind that extends beyond formal meditation periods and contributes to one's ongoing mindfulness practice. ------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 11246 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hi, Sarah - I'm just responding here to a samll part of your post. In a message dated 2/10/02 7:00:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > With regard to your client, we just can't know what of that complex event > is > > kamma vipaka of yours and what is not. I suspect that the *original* > > non-paying was not. I suspect that your finding that unpleasant may have > > been > > just an automatic evaluation (or, better, the vipaka of being human). I > > suspect that your internal reaction of anger may have been kamma vipaka, > > and > > that your angry verbal response was akusala. > > I agree that we cannot possibly know all the intricate conditions at play. > However, I think we can begin to understand that whenever we are thinking > in terms of the stories and situations, that these are different from the > precise dhammas which are kamma, vipaka, dosa and so on. Certainly the > anger and angry response are akusala and may produce new kamma (depending > on strength). They cannot be considered as vipaka though, however > 'automatic'. > ============================ You are correct. The internal reaction of anger to a feeling is kamma and not vipaka, though, of course, it is conditioned by the mind's accumulations. What I referred to as "automatic," however, was the unpleasant *feeling* resulting from the knowledge of the non-payment, and that feeling, like all feeling, is immediately conditioned by contact (mental contact in this case). I see that specific unpleasant feeling as kamma vipaka due to its dependence on having a human birth, which, itself, is kamma vipaka. 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) 11247 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 2/10/02 12:22:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Howard: > I see a strongly reactive mind, a mind reacting with aversion and > aversion, as interfering with mindfulness and clear comprehension. The > development of calm is a palliative with regard to this. > =========================== The second 'aversion' was meant to be 'craving'! Guess I need even more calm to support an enhanced mindfulness! ;-)) 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) 11248 From: yuzhonghao Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Hello Sarah and all, I find the following two discourses might be relevant for reflection on removing/subdueing hatred/annoyance/aghata. Regards, Victor Anguttara Nikaya V.161 Aghatapativinaya Sutta Removing Annoyance Translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. For free distribution only. Read an alternate translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu From The Practice of Loving-kindness (Metta) (WH 7), by Ñanamoli Thera, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1987). Copyright ©1987 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- "Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed by a bhikkhu when it arises in him. What are the five? "Loving-kindness can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed: this is how annoyance with him can be removed. "Compassion can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. "Onlooking equanimity can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. "The forgetting and ignoring of a person with whom you are annoyed can be practiced; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed. "Ownership of deeds in a person with whom you are annoyed can be concentrated upon thus: 'This good person is owner of his deeds, heir to his deeds, his deeds are the womb from which he is born, his deeds are his kin for whom he is responsible, his deeds are his refuge, he is heir to his deeds, be they good or bad.' This too is how annoyance with him can be removed. "These are the five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed in a bhikkhu when it arises in him." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Revised: Thu 17 May 2001 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an05-161a.html Anguttara Nikaya X.80 Aghata Sutta Hatred Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- "There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten? [1] "Thinking, 'He has done me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [2] "Thinking, 'He is doing me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [3] "Thinking, 'He is going to do me harm. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [4] "Thinking, 'He has done harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [5] "Thinking, 'He is doing harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [6] "Thinking, 'He is going to do harm to people who are dear & pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [7] "Thinking, 'He has aided people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [8] "Thinking, 'He is aiding people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [9] "Thinking, 'He is going to aid people who are not dear or pleasing to me. But what should I expect?' one subdues hatred. [10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities. "These are ten ways of subduing hatred." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Revised: Thu 17 May 2001 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Chris, Howard, Ranil, Rob K & friends, > > By way of a diversion, let me add my own daily life experience this > morning and try to make it relevant to 9-11, Holocaust, Sri Lanka' s plight > and indigenous Australians later. > > I found out last night (by email) that a client is considering not paying > quite a large fee due to me. I went to bed `obsessed' and worried about > this and was unable to relax or even read posts . This morning I phoned > the client, hoping to sort the matter out, but in spite of best > intentions, somewhat lost my `cool' and probably reduced the chance of > repayment further;-( > > It may seem (and of course I'd like to kid myself that this is so) that > the problem has been caused entirely by the naughty client. Of course, as > Howard says, conditions are extremely complex and if the client hadn 't > sent the email and had behaved properly, there wouldn't have been the same > set of unpleasant experiences on my part. > > However, what unpleasant experiences were there anyway? Last night I read > the email. I saw visible object only. Immeditately there were stories and > proliferations and plenty of dosa and also mana (`how dare he treat me > like this' and so on). What was the real problem, if not the dosa, mana > and other kilesa arising? This morning when I spoke to him for 10mins > only, I really didn't even hear anything very unpleasant at all. He didn't > raise his voice or even speak impolitely. Again the problem was the > thinking and proliferating about his bad motives and actions, the taking > `me' as being so very important and the clinging to this version of events > with so very little awareness of any realities. > ***** > As Rob K recently quoted from the Vism (in his post about > paticcasamuppada): > > > 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen > > states, instead of taking the occurence of formations > > to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a > > self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes > > action..." > As Rob adds: > I'd like to say that truly there is no one > > who receives results but that results arise by > > conditions (just to be pedantic). From the > > Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere > > arising of fruit (vipaka);" > ***** > By understanding more about different phenomena now, we'll undersatand > more about how momentary vipaka (result of kamma) is and how it is in fact > not the vipaka which hurts or damages, but the mental states which follow > the vipaka and makes it into a big story. > > Last week I tripped on some steep steps and hurt my knee. There was no > client to blame, no Sri Lankan or other terrorists and yet I started > getting angry with the `stupid steps' and the design or the building. As > Howard and Rob K have indicated, the conditions for any kamma to bring a > result are very, very complicated. Whether or not we can accept the > unpleasant bodily experience or seeing at this moment as being the result > of kamma, we can at least begin to understand the difference between these > realities and the proceeding ones which cling, grasp or are averse to the > expereinces. > > We never know what kamma or other conditions will bring what result. Again > Rob K just quoted this: > ***** > > ...........They say it is pretty > > much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the > > results will arise because of the many other > > conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a > > quote from the Tipitaka: > > " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening > > during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), > > ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), > > ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) > > ...." (A.VI, 63). > ***** > Do we have an idea of national identity or group? How is this national > identity experienced? Does it help us to develop any awareness to cling to > this idea of identity or to find ourselves important in anyway? > > It may seem that groups share the same results of kamma, and indeed there > may be certain factors in common, conventionally speaking. Just as there > are conditions for us to all read the posts here, there are conditions for > groups of people to all suffer at the same time or all hear the Buddha > preach the dhamma. So conventionally, perhaps we can talk about `group > kamma'. In fact, when we look at the same words on the computer screen, > seeing sees different visible objects for each of us, and these are > different at each moment too. The thinking which follows, conjures up > different stories and the accumulated tendencies of ignorance, attachment > and understanding will arise accordingly, dependent again on so many > conditions. Beginning to understand realities little by little is the way > we see that we really live alone and only ever experience the results of > our own deeds and other conditioning factors. > ***** > > 161 "................. > > So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when > > it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, > > saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not > > a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither > > transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested > > here without cause from that"....... " > ***** > Thanks Rob for all the helpful quotes which I've appreciated as I write. > > I fully appreciate the sensitive nature of some of the issues I raised in > the first paragraph of this post and I certainly haven't meant to > trivialise these by discussing mundane 'mishaps', but I hope that may be > some conditions for useful reflection. Please let me know if I seem to > have 'missed the mark';-) > > Sarah 11249 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hello, [snip] > Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no > humans, no animals no > "us" even. [snip] > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > trees: [snip] Quite an extreme view as I see it. About the view "there is no humans, no animals", let's see what the Buddha taught on birth, aging and death in Samyutta Nikaya XII.2 Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta Analysis of Dependent Co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death. "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." As I understand it, the Buddha did not deny that there are various beings. Regards, Victor 11250 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Thanks Jon! I nearly missed this post - took me 5 days to find it. Even after the 'silent weekend', I still have lots of messages to read ! After posting my question, I looked in the archive and found several previous discussions making things clearer. It's helpful to know what "Right Effort" is, and to be aware of wrong view creeping in disguised as "the will to make a greater effort". Slowly things are falling into place here. But, as you say, it's easier said than done : ) Best wishes, Lucy From: "Jonothan Abbott" > > Now, the question from a relative beginner is: isn't this > > practice of watching experiences at the conceptual level part of the > > Right > > Effort from which the conditions will eventually arise (as well as from > > application of the other 7)? Although not real awareness, the > > 'intentional, > > conceptual watching' seems to be very necessary, at least to 'my' > > conditions. I once practised with a school that goes with panna alone, > > but > > that kept me feeling lost (not knowing what to do when not sitting in > > meditation - or even during meditation!) and eventually regressing. In > > the > > end, had to admit that it wasn't the right path for 'my' conditions and > > that more effort at the conceptual level was needed - even though that > > way > > of practice seems to fit other people like a glove! > To my understanding, Lucy, and also as a relative beginner, Right Effort > is quite a different thing from the practice of watching experiences > (which, as you say, is at the conceptual level). > > Firstly, Right Effort is the effort that is associated with a particular > level of kusala (wholesomeness/skilfulness) only, namely, the kusala of > the moment of awareness of a characteristic of a reality (satipatthana). > So it is not associated with all kusala mind-states. Secondly, Right > Effort is in fact the effort that is embodied in the kusala consciousness > at those moments. It is the effort *of* a moment of satipatthana, not the > effort *to have* a moment of satipatthana. > > In a recent post to Howard that you may have seen I discussed a sutta that > sets out the factors that need to be developed if insight/satipatthana is > to be developed (they are, association with 'superior persons', hearing > the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the > Dhamma.). From this sutta and elsewhere in the texts and commentaries, I > think it is clear that it is these 4 factors, and not any 'intentional > watching', or anything involving 'effort' of the conventional kind, that > can lead to the arising of awareness. That awareness will then be > accompanied by the factor of right effort. > > So whether we follow a practice that places importance on 'intentional > watching' or on 'panna alone', we should bear in mind that in either case > any idea of the need for or value of volitional effort will probably be > indicative of a latent wrong view (not to mention, of course, attachment > to achieving results). > > > It's very true that there is only the conditions that are arising now, > > everything else is like a varnish that we fabricate. And we can get into > > a > > real mess if we don't recognise that (been there, done that!). But > > within > > those conditions isn't there a slot for Right Effort, viriya ? Please > > correct me if this is silly, every moment 'we' create the conditions > > that > > will arise 'later' and modify existing tendencies, habits, etc., so, > > even > > if the effort isn't the 'real thing', isn't it part of the path? > My thoughts on this would be that if there is an idea that we need or > ought to be doing something to create the right conditions (present or > future), then there is again the same mistaken idea about volitional > effort. > > The other question that comes to mind is, what to do when there's an > > inner > > urge to do more? I know this can be false, but could it also be true > > aspiration? Part of the conditions? I've been concerned with this > > question > > for a while now, not knowing whether to take it seriously or dismiss it. > > My > > reaction varies from wanting to shave my head at once to 'if I ignore > > it, > > it'll go away' - would you or anyone have a 'Middle Way' to suggest? > > > > Duh!, I'm sure this has been discussed before - better go and read old > > messages in the archive to find out. > I think the middle way would be to see any 'inner urge' as it is, for what > it is (and this is indeed the function of insight/satipatthana/vipassana). > I know that that's a lot easier said than done, but just to realise at an > intellectual level that this is indeed the middle way, and why that should > be so, is a good start. It still doesn't stop us wanting to 'deal with' > it by one means or another, but then such notions are accumulated and > deeply rooted in all of us. Only the stream-enterer no longer has wrong > view. 11251 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/10/02 1:48:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, victoryu@s... writes: > Hello, > > [snip] > > Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no > > humans, no animals no > > "us" even. > [snip] > > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > > trees: > [snip] > > Quite an extreme view as I see it. > > About the view "there is no humans, no animals", let's see what the Buddha > taught on birth, aging and death in Samyutta Nikaya XII.2 > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta > Analysis of Dependent Co-arising > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html > > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, > graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of > the > various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. > Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, > completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, > interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that > group > of beings, that is called death. > > "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, > coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of > the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." > > As I understand it, the Buddha did not deny that there are various beings. > > Regards, > Victor > ================================= Of course there are these things, so to speak. It seems to me that you readily accept conventional existence, as do I. Do you also consider conventional existence to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (to use a legal phrase)? I do not. I can conventionally and meaningfully speak of "Howard", but upon careful and detailed inspection, I can find no "Howard". Comments? 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) 11252 From: frank kuan Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 0:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Laughter and Humour Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > The wrong sort? and who judges > that?...Or is it that > you automatically lose your sense of humour the more > progress you > make? I wouldn't worry too much about eliminating laughter. What I do is assess my practice in terms of what items are causing me the greatest suffering, and I address those problems with the highest priority first. I have noticed that my laughter and sense of humor has changed over the years. -fk 11253 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hello Howard, I am not interested in metaphysical argument. It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is held to be true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are humans, animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called conventional truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I can see, using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", is a convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is an extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth holding onto. That is how I understand it. Regards, Victor > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 2/10/02 1:48:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, > victoryu@s... writes: > > > > Hello, > > > > [snip] > > > Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no > > > humans, no animals no > > > "us" even. > > [snip] > > > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > > > trees: > > [snip] > > > > Quite an extreme view as I see it. > > > > About the view "there is no humans, no animals", let's see what the Buddha > > taught on birth, aging and death in Samyutta Nikaya XII.2 > > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta > > Analysis of Dependent Co-arising > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html > > > > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, > > graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of > > the > > various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. > > Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, > > completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, > > interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that > > group > > of beings, that is called death. > > > > "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, > > coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of > > the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." > > > > As I understand it, the Buddha did not deny that there are various beings. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ================================= > Of course there are these things, so to speak. It seems to me that you > readily accept conventional existence, as do I. Do you also consider > conventional existence to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the > truth (to use a legal phrase)? I do not. I can conventionally and > meaningfully speak of "Howard", but upon careful and detailed inspection, I > can find no "Howard". Comments? > > With metta, > Howard 11254 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 0:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ayatanas Dear Nina and Sarah (& Jon), ............................................. Sarah: I don't think I know Num's aunt, K. Krisana, but Jon does from the Thai sessions. On our last visit he and Jaran were invited to join the Board meeting and K.Krisana was one of the 'experts' there...Like you say, it's great to have her input here and we look forward to Num's direct reports too;-) ........................................ Hmm, Sarah, I better say that I am not sure that I will be able to do the direct report. You know, I am a runner not a reporter, haha. Now, I have found out of that your persistence and your preservation is kind of high off the scale. I turned in my pic and then you finally got Kom's pic. Well, viriya always works it way out, I guess :) I do not even know that my aunt is an expert, she has never told me she is. If my aunt let me call her an expert, I think she is an expert in tolerability, being patient and kind to me for flooding her with questions each week. I do not think that I am obsessive but I think it is vital to know what I do not understand and then ask. I always tell my students that to have a success in studying, a teacher can never work harder than a student. So this time it is my turn to work harder. Hope you and Jon have a good time on Samui; sun, sand and sea. Nina, my aunt is helping K.Veera and K.Kanchana translating, The Conditionality of Life She helps with looking up Thai atthakatha corresponding to the English atthakatha you quoted from. I asked her her that you asked whether you knew her or not. She told me she talked to you more than couple times when you were in Thailand. She would like me to ask you something from the book. From chapter 12 Nutriment-Condition (Ahara-Paccaya) << Thus, at each moment the three mental nutriments of contact, volition and citta SUPPORT and MAINTAIN the dhammas arising together with them, and the rupa produced by them, by the way of nutriment-condition. The mental nutriments can be considered according to the method of the Patthana and also according to the method of the "Dependent Origination" (Paticca samuppada), the chain of conditionality arisen phenomena which cause the continuation of cycle of birth and death117. >> She said that there is only the word "support(uppatampaka)" but no "maintain(araksa/anubala)" in Thai atthakatha Pancappakarana. She stated that paccaya can have various functions; janakasatti, upatampakasatti and also arakasatti. As I understand her question, she said that upatampaka and araka/anubala-satti do not have exactly the same meaning!? OK, I think I can be only a messenger boy this time. I think she'd like to know what version of atthakatha you quoted from. She said that different versions of atthakatha at times have some minor differences and at times there are some extra words. Thanks for your input on similarity between suttanta and abhidhamma. Appreciate. Num 11255 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) ---Dear Lucy, Howard, Victor and all, Thanks for your comments. Great to see you considering so carefully Lucy, in your posts. Victor, Thanks for carrying on the points you brought up on D-l. I'll just repeat them here as they give extra details. You noted that you disagree with the Visuddhimagga and find that Buddhaghosa was holding to an extreme view in his denial of self and being. I found this interesting as my letters were in responses to Buddhadasa of Thailand who thought that the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa went to the opposite extreme and implied a self. ___________ >Victor: Hello Robert, > > Thank you for referring to Visuddhimagga. I have a copy and I checked out > the passage that you referred to. As I understand it from reading the > passages that you referred to, Venerable Buddhaghosa was holding the view "there is merely materiality-mentality, there is no being, no person" and I see it as an extreme view. I don't see how this view fit into what the Buddha taught about birth, aging and death in dependent- origination > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > Hello, > > [snip] > > "Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no > > humans, no animals no > > "us" even. > [snip] > > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > > trees: > [snip] > > Quite an extreme view as I see it. > > About the view "there is no humans, no animals", let's see what the Buddha > taught on birth, aging and death in Samyutta Nikaya XII.2 > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta > Analysis of Dependent Co-arising > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html > > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, > graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the > various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. > Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, > completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, > interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group > of beings, that is called death. > > "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming- to-be, > coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of > the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth." > > As I understand it, the Buddha did not deny that there are various beings. > > Regards, > Victor ________________________________________________________ Robert::Dear Victor, > > This is a good point. It is important to understand the difference > > between conventional and ultimate truth. Venerable Buddhadasa in his > > book 'Dependent Origination" writes p4. "[the buddha]spoke in terms > > of relative truth in order to teach morals to those still befuddled > > with the idea of Eternalism... But the Buddha also spoke in the > > language of ultimate truth in order to teach those who had little > > dust in their eyes so that they could come to an understanding of > > absolute reality(paramattha -dhamma)". > > > > The Visuddhimagga: "XV111 25 "in order to abandon this worldly > > designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroughly, to surmount > > confusion about beings and to establish his mind on the plane of non- > > confusion he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely 'This is > > mere mentality-materiality, there is no person' is confirmed by a > > number of suttas. For this has been said: ..It is ill that rises, ill > > that remains, ill that departs, nothing rises else than ill, and > > nothing ceases else than ill'(S.i, 135) > > XVIII 28 "when there are the five aggregates [as objects of clinging] > > there comes to be the mere term of common usage 'a being' person, yet > > in the ultimate sense , when each component is examined, there is no > > being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate > > sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees > > in this way is called correct vision" > > > > The view 'there is no mother , no father' is the view that helping or > > hurting ones mother or father will bring no good or bad results in > > the near or distant future. It is essentially a denial of kamma. > > We live in a world of concepts and so both the ultimate and > > conventional view of things is needed. Thus I think Buddhadasa goes > > too far in saying that relative truth is only for those who can't > > understand more. When we give something to our mother what is there > > in the ultimate sense? There are actually moments of kusala citta, > > wholesome mindstate, and these are paramattha -dhamma, they don't > > belong to anyone. This is the link of kamma in the dependent > > origination and it can bring its pleasant result at anytime . I think > > we should strive to develop understanding of both relative and > > ultimate truth and the difference between them. > > best wishes robert _________________________________________________________ > Regards, > Victor > > > In dhamma-list@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > > > Hello, > > > If someone claimed "Actually in the truest sense there are no > > humans, no > > > animals no 'us' even," I would see it as someone holding an exreme > > view, > > > similar to the view "there is no mother, there is no father." I > > have not > > > found that the Buddha ever taught that kind of extreme view, and I > > don't > > > think that kind of view would help in realizing the cessation of > > dukkha. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > >__________ 11256 From: Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 0:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/10/02 7:32:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, victoryu@s... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. > > It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is held to > be > true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct > contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are humans, > animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the > teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called conventional > truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to > contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I can see, > using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", is a > convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. > > Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is an > extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth holding > onto. > > That is how I understand it. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== Thank you for this reply. It is the clearest, most straightforward explanation of your position that I have seen, and I appreciate it very much. I don't agree with your assessment that contradiction is involved, because I see so-called conventional expression and so-called ultimate expression as being at different levels of meaning/understanding, and actually quite harmonious. But I understand your position, I respect it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 11257 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hello Robert, Thanks for replying. I neither agree nor disagree with the view "there is no being, no person" that Buddhaghosa expressed in Visuddhimagga. I simply don't hold the view "there is no being, no person," nor the view "there is being, there is person." To agree with an extreme view, one falls into the same extreme. To disagree, the opposite. By not holding either extreme view, one has gone beyond both. That is how I understand it. Regards, Victor > ---Dear Lucy, Howard, Victor and all, > Thanks for your comments. Great to see you considering so carefully > Lucy, in your posts. > > Victor, > Thanks for carrying on the points you brought up on D-l. > I'll just repeat them here as they give extra details. You noted that > you disagree with the Visuddhimagga and find that Buddhaghosa was > holding to an extreme view in his denial of self and being. I found > this interesting as my letters were in responses to Buddhadasa of > Thailand who thought that the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa went to > the opposite extreme and implied a self. > ___________ > >Victor: Hello Robert, > > > > Thank you for referring to Visuddhimagga. I have a copy and I > checked out > > the passage that you referred to. As I understand it from reading > the > > passages that you referred to, Venerable Buddhaghosa was holding > the view "there is merely materiality-mentality, there is no being, > no person" and > I see it as an extreme view. I don't see how this view fit into what > the Buddha taught about birth, aging and death in dependent- > origination > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > > Hello, > > > > [snip] > > > "Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there > are no > > > humans, no animals no > > > "us" even. > > [snip] > > > Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, > > > trees: > > [snip] > > > > Quite an extreme view as I see it. > > > > About the view "there is no humans, no animals", let's see what the > Buddha > > taught on birth, aging and death in Samyutta Nikaya XII.2 > > Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta > > Analysis of Dependent Co-arising > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-002.html > > > > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, > brokenness, > > graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the > faculties of the > > various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called > aging. > > Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, > dying, death, > > completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the > body, > > interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or > that group > > of beings, that is called death. > > > > "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming- > to-be, > > coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] > media of > > the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called > birth." > > > > As I understand it, the Buddha did not deny that there are various > beings. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > ________________________________________________________ > Robert::Dear Victor, > > > This is a good point. It is important to understand the difference > > > between conventional and ultimate truth. Venerable Buddhadasa in > his > > > book 'Dependent Origination" writes p4. "[the buddha]spoke in > terms > > > of relative truth in order to teach morals to those still > befuddled > > > with the idea of Eternalism... But the Buddha also spoke in the > > > language of ultimate truth in order to teach those who had little > > > dust in their eyes so that they could come to an understanding of > > > absolute reality(paramattha -dhamma)". > > > > > > The Visuddhimagga: "XV111 25 "in order to abandon this worldly > > > designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroughly, to > surmount > > > confusion about beings and to establish his mind on the plane of > non- > > > confusion he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely 'This is > > > mere mentality-materiality, there is no person' is confirmed by a > > > number of suttas. For this has been said: ..It is ill that rises, > ill > > > that remains, ill that departs, nothing rises else than ill, and > > > nothing ceases else than ill'(S.i, 135) > > > XVIII 28 "when there are the five aggregates [as objects of > clinging] > > > there comes to be the mere term of common usage 'a being' person, > yet > > > in the ultimate sense , when each component is examined, there is > no > > > being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate > > > sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who > sees > > > in this way is called correct vision" > > > > > > The view 'there is no mother , no father' is the view that > helping or > > > hurting ones mother or father will bring no good or bad results in > > > the near or distant future. It is essentially a denial of kamma. > > > We live in a world of concepts and so both the ultimate and > > > conventional view of things is needed. Thus I think Buddhadasa > goes > > > too far in saying that relative truth is only for those who can't > > > understand more. When we give something to our mother what is > there > > > in the ultimate sense? There are actually moments of kusala citta, > > > wholesome mindstate, and these are paramattha -dhamma, they don't > > > belong to anyone. This is the link of kamma in the dependent > > > origination and it can bring its pleasant result at anytime . I > think > > > we should strive to develop understanding of both relative and > > > ultimate truth and the difference between them. > > > best wishes > robert > _________________________________________________________ > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > In dhamma-list@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: 11258 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hello Howard, Thank you for replying. Regards, Victor > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 2/10/02 7:32:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, > victoryu@s... writes: > > > > > > Hello Howard, > > > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. > > > > It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is held to > > be > > true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct > > contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are humans, > > animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the > > teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called conventional > > truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to > > contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I can see, > > using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", is a > > convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. > > > > Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is an > > extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth holding > > onto. > > > > That is how I understand it. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > =========================== > Thank you for this reply. It is the clearest, most straightforward > explanation of your position that I have seen, and I appreciate it very much. > I don't agree with your assessment that contradiction is involved, because I > see so-called conventional expression and so-called ultimate expression as > being at different levels of meaning/understanding, and actually quite > harmonious. But I understand your position, I respect it. > > With metta, > Howard 11259 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Dear Jon, Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as always. Let me make a few comments in response to your message. 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, and that wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance persists? 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster right view and right practice. 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, insight and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and clarification of a qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but after one has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to progress, what constitutes correct practice? 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the extent possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant practice and a most significant goal. 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is a greatly expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to higher attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and just say that I believe it is expedient. If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is no doubt that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, promoting meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may argue the extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the Suttas, but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the world practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the breath, note the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus on specific objects of mind. It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I meditate. It makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the phone, jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, that all of these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and observing a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and necessary practice? Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the answer is a very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really developing a satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in some way, but I don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the case if I 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one concentrates on learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is no different than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in which one focuses the mind on the moment. I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that meditation is a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it seems to be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow the Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is some caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying the suttas and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason for this, but I don't quite understand it at present. I look forward to your response. Best, Robert Ep. ================================ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference about > the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the > question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice is > intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, does it > matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in the > texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) > > The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from experience > that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago (for > example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as the > product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how > honestly held at the time). > > The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual suspects' of > ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic assessment of > our own capabilities. > > I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps in > somewhat more disguised form. > > I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on having > a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by the > Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when it > comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is > generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary delay > to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear intellectual > grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which the > Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an > indispensable first step. > > No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the moment > with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems > intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are the > factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as > prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the > development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. > > When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the idea of > attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to be > *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply the > moment, with or without perceived distractions. > > Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and ultimately > the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. > Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us > further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of > 'reification' in the abstract. > > At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has any > significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The fact > that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments other > than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a > superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to shy > away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever > pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong > view. > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Your post here is very well stated. I want to suggest one possibility, > > which is > > the absurd notion which I none-the-less believe, that wrong view with > > right > > practice can lead to the right result. > > > > The reason I believe this, and I am ready to be challenged, is that it > > is the > > nature of insight that it is an interruption of one's view. Therefore > > any > > practice that leads to true insight will lead to right view, even in a > > practitioner who has the wrong view of self. > > > > What a correct practice means to me is that it is a skillful enough > > technique that > > it is 'view-proof'. It will interrupt wrong view even if the > > practitioner's > > current view of self would fight against it. > > > > Insight is a surprise occurence. It can be cultivated but not planned. > > The > > practice of mindfulness does, I believe, lead to insight, and then wrong > > view is > > gradually replaced by discernment. > > > > In my opinion, it is concentrated and repeated practice in mindfulness > > that leads > > to discernment of the actual nature of the moment. If one can do this > > in daily > > life, no one would argue with this, because that means that the person > > practicing > > this is engaged in meditation, even while going about their normal > > activities. > > But to think that correct practice of meditation does not increase one's > > skill at > > practicing mindfulness does not make sense to me. It seems that > > practice of > > attention to the moment with the least amount of distraction does lead > > to > > increased skill at developing a mindful state, which leads to insight. > > Rather > > than getting tainted fruit because of the wrong view of self, it is this > > kind of > > skill in the moment that eventually transcends and corrects wrong view. > > > > I am speaking as one who is still in a cloudy state of murky > > self-concept, I am > > sure, so I speak of this while bumping into the furniture in the dark, > > but > > never-the-less, I present it for your consideration. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 11260 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: I neither agree nor disagree with the view "there is > no being, no person" that Buddhaghosa expressed in Visuddhimagga. I simply > don't hold the view "there is no being, no person," nor the view "there is being, there is person." To agree with an extreme view, one falls into the same extreme. To disagree, the opposite. By not holding either extreme view, one has gone beyond both. > That is how I understand it. > Regards, > Victor > _____________________________________ Dear Victor, I think there is more to going beyond than this. Net of views (Bhikkhu Bodhi) p177. "the endless equivocator (amaravikkhepavada)does not approve of the eternalist view of self, or of any other view, he practises equivocation by saying 'I do not take it thus' etc. These statements of his equivocate by repudiating each point on which he is questioned" Query: "Isn't it true that as far as he takes a stand on the side of equivocation, he makes a positive affirmation of the equivocal position?" Reply: "no, because he is utterly deluded about that as well and because the doctrine of equivocation ocurs only by way of rejection"......."he is not called a theorist merely because he resorts to equivocation when asked a question, but because he holds a wrong conviction. For this person actually holds the wrong conviction of eternalism" p178" but how does this view come to be included under eternalsm? Because he does not hold the view of anihilationism." p26 Note from Bodhi explains the meaning of amaravikkhepa: "the theorist who adopt this approach go on hedging without limits, refusing to make a definite assertion".... On p173 the commentary says "that it does not die, thus it is endless" (amara-immortal) best wishes robert 11261 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 10, 2002 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hello Robert, Thank you for the reference. Abandoning extreme views is not the same as equivocation. Thanks again, Robert. Regards, Victor > --- > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > I neither agree nor disagree with the view "there is > > no being, no person" that Buddhaghosa expressed in Visuddhimagga. > I simply > > don't hold the view "there is no being, no person," nor the > view "there is being, there is person." To agree with an extreme > view, one falls into the same extreme. To disagree, the opposite. > By not holding either extreme view, one has gone beyond both. > > That is how I understand it. > > Regards, > > Victor > > _____________________________________ > > Dear Victor, > I think there is more to going beyond than this. > Net of views (Bhikkhu Bodhi) p177. > "the endless equivocator (amaravikkhepavada)does not approve of the > eternalist view of self, or of any other view, he practises > equivocation by saying 'I do not take it thus' etc. These statements > of his equivocate by repudiating each point on which he is questioned" > Query: "Isn't it true that as far as he takes a stand on the side of > equivocation, he makes a positive affirmation of the equivocal > position?" > Reply: "no, because he is utterly deluded about that as well and > because the doctrine of equivocation ocurs only by way of > rejection"......."he is not called a theorist merely because he > resorts to equivocation when asked a question, but because he holds a > wrong conviction. For this person actually holds the wrong conviction > of eternalism" > p178" but how does this view come to be included under eternalsm? > Because he does not hold the view of anihilationism." > p26 Note from Bodhi explains the meaning of amaravikkhepa: "the > theorist who adopt this approach go on hedging without limits, > refusing to make a definite assertion".... > On p173 the commentary says "that it does not die, thus it is > endless" (amara-immortal) > best wishes > robert 11262 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 3:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Howard, > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. I think you're saying you prefer posts that are not too doctrinaire, Victor. (Sorry, H, just couldn't resist that one ;-)). Jon In holiday mode Koh Samui > It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is held > to be > true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct > contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are humans, > animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the > teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called > conventional > truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to > contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I can > see, > using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", is a > convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. > > Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is an > extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth holding > onto. > > That is how I understand it. > > Regards, > Victor > > 11263 From: Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/11/02 6:55:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Howard, > > > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. > > I think you're saying you prefer posts that are not too doctrinaire, > Victor. > > (Sorry, H, just couldn't resist that one ;-)). -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do get the reference, Jon!! ;-))) ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > In holiday mode > Koh Samui > ============================= 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) 11264 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:00am Subject: India Ch 1,no.1 Chapter 1, no 1. The Disappearance of the Teachings We live in a time close to the disappearance of the teachings. The Sangha, the order of the monks have as their foremost responsibility to preserve the teachings in explaining Dhamma and in developing right understanding. When we were in Sarnath, our group presented a meal to a large group of monks of different nationalities in the building of the Mahå-Bodhi Society. Acharn Sujin had requested my husband Lodewijk to address words of thanks to the monks after the meal. He spoke the following words: ³I know that it is conceit, but I cannot help feeling pleased and proud that, as one of the few foreigners in this group of Thai pilgrims of the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, I may speak to you, venerable monks, to thank you for giving us the opportunity to perform dåna. As foreigners, Nina and I came to Thailand more than thirtyfive years ago. This was kusala vipåka of a high degree, because in Thailand we received the highest gift one can receive in life: the gift of Dhamma. We received this gift through the hands of Acharn Sujin Boriharnwanaket, the spiritual leader of our group. We shall always remain most grateful to her. Also during this tour she never tires of explaining with great vigour the teachings of the Lord Buddha and she keeps exhorting us to study the present moment in order to understand the truth of impermanence and anattå. At the end of one of these Dhamma discussions, she asked each person present to tell her what part of the teachings he or she found most striking. Each person answered according to his own conditions and accumulations. If I would have been present I would have answered: the Ten Perfections, Påramís. For me, the Ten Perfections are an unique, unsurpassed, unequalled set of moral and spiritual ideals to be pursued in everday life, covering all aspects of human life. In presenting these gifts to you, venerable monks, we wish to pay tribute and respect to you. We admire your courage, because you have chosen the difficult path of going forth from home into homelessness. By observing the Vinaya, penetrating the four noble Truths and by preserving the teachings, you perform síla to a very high degree for the benefit of all mankind. For that, we are most grateful to you. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to perform dåna.² Both monks and layfollowers have the duty to study the teachings in detail and to develop understanding of the Dhamma. Throughout our journey Acharn Sujin explained the Dhamma to us with a great sense of urgency and she encouraged us to develop understanding of the reality that appears now. She said: ³Dhamma is the truth and it can be verified. All that has been explained in the Tipitaka is appearing now, while we are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, experiencing tactile object and experiencing objects through the mind-door. The Buddha had through his enlightenment penetrated the true nature of all realities. It was not known before that seeing arises and falls away, and that seeing does not belong to anybody. By listening and considering the Dhamma we can come to see realities appearing now. There is no self, but it is a reality that can see, hear or experience objects through the other doorways.² 11265 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 5:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 Hi Jon and all, First of all, Happy Chinese/Lunar New Year. How should I say it? I think sometimes my posts can be quite fundamentalist, and I like to refer to the discourses from time to time. I am not interested in metaphysical argument because I don't see it leading to the cessation of dukkha. Happy Chinese/Lunar New Year again, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" To: Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 > --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Howard, > > > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. > > I think you're saying you prefer posts that are not too doctrinaire, > Victor. > > (Sorry, H, just couldn't resist that one ;-)). > > Jon > In holiday mode > Koh Samui > > > It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is held > > to be > > true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct > > contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are humans, > > animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the > > teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called > > conventional > > truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to > > contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I can > > see, > > using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", is a > > convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. > > > > Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is an > > extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth holding > > onto. > > > > That is how I understand it. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > 11266 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Approaches to the teachings (was, Paticcasamuppada 3) Thanks, Victor. And best wishes for the lunar new year to you, too. I appreciate and applaude your approach. The problem, however, is how to ascertain the intended meaning of the suttas as spoken by the Buddha, since the suttas are capable of being understood in a number of different ways. I'm sure Howard's earlier reply to you was a suggestion as to the intended meaning of the Buddha's teaching on beings/no beings, rather than being mere metaphysical argument. Which just goes to show; one man's carefully considered analysis of the teachings is another man's (mere) theoretical construct! We can all benefit from well-intended exchanges on the teachings. 'Gung hei fat choi' Jon --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hi Jon and all, > > First of all, Happy Chinese/Lunar New Year. > > How should I say it? I think sometimes my posts can be quite > fundamentalist, and I like to refer to the discourses from time to time. > I > am not interested in metaphysical argument because I don't see it > leading to > the cessation of dukkha. > > Happy Chinese/Lunar New Year again, > > Victor > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonothan Abbott" > To: > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 6:54 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3 > > > > --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello Howard, > > > > > > I am not interested in metaphysical argument. > > > > I think you're saying you prefer posts that are not too doctrinaire, > > Victor. > > > > (Sorry, H, just couldn't resist that one ;-)). > > > > Jon > > In holiday mode > > Koh Samui > > > > > It seems to me that the view "there are no humans, no animals" is > held > > > to be > > > true by some as the so-called ultimate truth, which is in direct > > > contradiction with the so-called conventional truth "there are > humans, > > > animals." As I understand it, there is no such contradiction in the > > > teaching of the Buddha. The distinction between the so-called > > > conventional > > > truth/reality and the so-called ultimate truth/reality that leads to > > > contradiction is much fabricated and unnecessary. And as far as I > can > > > see, > > > using the terms "conventionally speaking" or "conventional speech", > is a > > > convenient way to get around the contradiction or inconsistency. > > > > > > Anyway, as I see it, the view "there are no humans, no animals" is > an > > > extreme view, not leading to the cessation of dukkha, not worth > holding > > > onto. > > > > > > That is how I understand it. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor 11267 From: Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 4:06pm Subject: Computer Trouble Hi, all - I'm having major trouble with the keybcoard. Please expect no posts from me for a while. 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) 11268 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact Rob Ep and later, Howard and Victor Thanks for your considered and clearly expressed comments. > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > meditation is > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > seems to > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > the > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > some > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > the suttas > and discerning the moment in daily life. As far as 'specific practices' are concerned, I don't believe there are any given by the Buddha, and I include here studying the suttas and discerning the present moment. What the teachings are all about, to my understanding, is the why's and wherefore's of the means to enlightenment, and the factors that are a necessary prerequisite for (and precursor of) that enlightenment. You mention the Buddha's attitude towards meditation. If by 'meditation' you mean formal practice of some kind, that could of course be either with right view or with wrong view ('meditation' itself being a morally neutral term). So we are back with the same old question of how right view is to be developed. I would like to try and bring in here Victor's post on beings/no beings and Howard's post on Suttanta vs. Abhidhamma discrepancies. I see a common thread. As Victor points out, the suttas talk about, and in terms of, beings and individuals. Does this mean beings and individuals exist in the absolute (fundamental, real) sense and, if not, what does? The clear answer provided by the commentaries and abhidhamma is that there is no such thing as beings or individulas, only namas (cittas/cetasikas)and rupas. Does this mean there is any discrepancy between the suttas and the abhidhamma? Absolutely not. Could the same answer be found in the suttas once we have grasped the truth of this? Yes, it can, but we wouldn't have seen it just from a reading of the suttas (no matter how many times or how carefully we read them). Now what applies as regards beings/no beings applies equally to other asepcts of the teachings also. When we read the suttas we see the Buddha as talking about: - beings (individuals like us) - who exert effort - and practise the 4 satipattha's - to develop insight - so they can follow the Noble Eightfold Path - until attaining enlightenment. As understanding begins to develop, however, we start to realise that what the Buddha is actually talking about is: - mere aggregations of namas and rupas (the 5 khandhas) - mental factors such as viriya (energy) performing their functions - momentary and unforced awareness (another mental factor) directly experiencing a reality (any reality) - the momentary arising of direct knowledge (panna cetasika) of a presently appearing reality - a moment of path consciousness (magga citta) at each of 4 levels of enlightenment [these being the path] There are no discrepancies here, only different ways of saying the same things. It is a difficult proposition to accept, but the suttas are way over our heads in terms of our ability to understand the essential message conveyed. They were pitched at an audience whose level of attainment was far beyond our own present level. We need the assistance of the abhidhamma, the commentaries and, most of all, the kalayana mitta (good dhamma friend) to understand their true import. So whether we are talking about beings, practice or contact, we need to look beyond the mere words of the suttas. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as > always. Let me > make a few comments in response to your message. > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > and that > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > persists? > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > right view > and right practice. > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > insight > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > clarification of a > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > after one > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > progress, what > constitutes correct practice? > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > extent > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > practice and a > most significant goal. > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > a greatly > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > higher > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > just say that > I believe it is expedient. > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > no doubt > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > promoting > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > argue the > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > Suttas, > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > world > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > breath, note > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > on > specific objects of mind. > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > meditate. It > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > phone, > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > that all of > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > observing > a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and necessary > practice? > Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the > answer is a > very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really > developing a > satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in some > way, but I > don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the case > if I > 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one > concentrates on > learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is no > different > than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in which > one > focuses the mind on the moment. > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > meditation is > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > seems to > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > the > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > some > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > the suttas > and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason for > this, but > I don't quite understand it at present. > > I look forward to your response. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ================================ > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep > > > > From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference > about > > the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the > > question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice > is > > intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, > does it > > matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in > the > > texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) > > > > The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from > experience > > that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago > (for > > example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as > the > > product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how > > honestly held at the time). > > > > The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual > suspects' of > > ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic > assessment of > > our own capabilities. > > > > I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps > in > > somewhat more disguised form. > > > > I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on > having > > a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by > the > > Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when > it > > comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is > > generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary > delay > > to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear > intellectual > > grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which > the > > Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an > > indispensable first step. > > > > No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the > moment > > with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems > > intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are > the > > factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as > > prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the > > development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. > > > > When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the > idea of > > attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to > be > > *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply > the > > moment, with or without perceived distractions. > > > > Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and > ultimately > > the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. > > Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us > > further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of > > 'reification' in the abstract. > > > > At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has > any > > significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The > fact > > that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments > other > > than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a > > superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to > shy > > away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever > > pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong > > view. > > > > Jon > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > Your post here is very well stated. I want to suggest one > possibility, > > > which is > > > the absurd notion which I none-the-less believe, that wrong view > with > > > right > > > practice can lead to the right result. > > > > > > The reason I believe this, and I am ready to be challenged, is that > it > > > is the > > > nature of insight that it is an interruption of one's view. > Therefore > > > any > > > practice that leads to true insight will lead to right view, even in > a > > > practitioner who has the wrong view of self. > > > > > > What a correct practice means to me is that it is a skillful enough > > > technique that > > > it is 'view-proof'. It will interrupt wrong view even if the > > > practitioner's > > > current view of self would fight against it. > > > > > > Insight is a surprise occurence. It can be cultivated but not > planned. > > > The > > > practice of mindfulness does, I believe, lead to insight, and then > wrong > > > view is > > > gradually replaced by discernment. > > > > > > In my opinion, it is concentrated and repeated practice in > mindfulness > > > that leads > > > to discernment of the actual nature of the moment. If one can do > this > > > in daily > > > life, no one would argue with this, because that means that the > person > > > practicing > > > this is engaged in meditation, even while going about their normal > > > activities. > > > But to think that correct practice of meditation does not increase > one's > > > skill at > > > practicing mindfulness does not make sense to me. It seems that > > > practice of > > > attention to the moment with the least amount of distraction does > lead > > > to > > > increased skill at developing a mindful state, which leads to > insight. > > > Rather > > > than getting tainted fruit because of the wrong view of self, it is > this > > > kind of > > > skill in the moment that eventually transcends and corrects wrong > view. > > > > > > I am speaking as one who is still in a cloudy state of murky > > > self-concept, I am > > > sure, so I speak of this while bumping into the furniture in the > dark, > > > but > > > never-the-less, I present it for your consideration. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert Ep. 11269 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Dear Victor, Thank you for kindly posting these helpful and interesting suttas. They contain many helpful reminders about the brahma viharas, kamma, even the danger of proliferations- "the forgetting and ignoring of a person with whom you are annoyed.." The second sutta reminds us about the danger of expectations which are a condition for dosa as a few of us were discussing a little while ago. Very useful- "One does not get worked up over impossibilities";-) Good to see all your other posts, Victor and to hear more about how you understand the Teachings....a challenge for us all;-)) Now I'm away from work and having fun...I could do with some suttas from you reminding me of the danger of lobha, or better still, reminders about the value of patience to understand and develop detachment from all kilesa (defilements) and other realities....no self, no being;-) Thanks again, Sarah --- yuzhonghao wrote: > Hello Sarah and all, > > I find the following two discourses might be relevant for reflection > on removing/subdueing hatred/annoyance/aghata. > > Regards, > Victor > > > Anguttara Nikaya V.161 > Aghatapativinaya Sutta > Removing Annoyance > Translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. > For free distribution only. > Read an alternate translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > > From The Practice of Loving-kindness (Metta) (WH 7), by Ñanamoli > Thera, (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1987). Copyright ©1987 > > Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. > 11270 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:22am Subject: RE: [dsg] 'No control' vs the 4 padhanas (was, samma samadhi) Kom --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Christine & Jonothan, ........... > I would love it if you would explain in some more details > why "anything less than total control" is really no control > (maybe an example would suffice?). I think there were > discussions revolving around this topics recently including > Pooh. One camp asserts that partial control is possible, > and the other says there is no such thing. What I had in mind is something like this. Take our health as an example. You could say that we can control illness to a large degree. But the fact is, we are continually getting ill in one form or another (my present holiday is being somewhat blighted by a muscle strain in my hip/buttock), plus we never know when some serious or life-threatening illness might strike. So being 'mostly' in control is only an illusion, and no guarantee of immunity. You could never be sure of being free from illness at any particular time. I wouldn't say it's *wrong* to talk about partial control, but I don't see it as a useful way of looking at things. Jon 11271 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma? Dear Lucy, --- Lucy wrote: > > > Dear Sarah > > It can be very therapeutic to read about someone else's 'real issues', > amazing how familiar they can be to a distant reader : ) ... it's very > helpful to know how fellow travellers deal with those real issues and > how > they place those issue within the dhamma perspective. > > To Sarah, Jon and everyone else : Happy Year of the Horse ! Thanks for your good wishes. There's a big Chinese New Year party starting at our hotel, but we've opted to dive into this tiny internet cafe across the road to dose up on dhamma reminders instead. Actually I'm just surfacing after another forced 'silent' couple of days. Having left my reading glasses (and prescription)at home, I was unable to read or write until we found (to our surprise)a beachside optical shop which was able, in half an hour, to check for a new prescription and make me a pair at a bargain price. There was the usual angst when I searched in vain for the missing glasses and the delight when the new pair were produced so efficiently. I wonder, though, at whether it's helpful to consider ways of 'dealing with' the different issues or kilesa (defilements) in a day. Doesn't 'dealing with' again suggest an idea of self and 'doing', rather than accepting and understanding these various conditioned mental states? Underlying the idea of 'dealing with', I think there's usually a 'wishing they'd go away',suggesting some more (subtle) attachment to other states at that time. Meanwhile, as I mentioned to Victor, there's no concern about 'dealing with' the lobha such as when I'm in the waves or walking on the sand. Again and again, it's only that which is unpleasant that we're concerned to find a remedy for;-) Lucy, I'd be glad to hear of any of your daily life 'real issues' too or any further thoughts. I'm glad to see all your wise reflections and great humour in other posts too. Sarah 11272 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mindfulness of nama and rupa/Jon Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Dear Jon & Larry > > There is however no need to single out one particular dhamma to study > or > > focus upon. That seems to suggest an idea that one dhamma is more > worth > > knowing, or easier to know, than another, or that focusing our > attention > > ('concentrating') on dhammas is a condition for the arising of > insight, > > and I don't think any of these ideas are found in the texts. > > > > Jon, do you mean that it is more "correct" (can't really think of an > appropriate word to use here!) to allow attention to follow the events > as > they become prominent in the consciousness? Just looking at what appears > and how it appears & disappears, instead of trying to force attention > onto > one particular event / dhamma, makes a lot more sense (to me, and I may > be > wrong!). "Concentrating" on one aspect feels to me rather artificial, > as > if constructing something that isn't there at all - not a reality. Also, > "concentrating" on the task in hand feels as if I'm blindfolded and > can't > "see" anything, but if I sort of step aside and just look, then things > start falling into place --- or unravelling, as you say. Well, I would say that if awareness does arise, its object will be a reality that is appearing at the present moment. That is, neither the fact of its arising, nor its object, is within our power to choose. So no form of paying attention, whether to a particular object or to what appears in general, will help bring on awareness. This is not to say that awareness is a random thing at all. It can only arise if and when the necessary factors for its arising have been properly understood and developed. But noone knows when the moment for its (next) arising will come. (It helps not to have too many expectations!) > > According to the Buddha's teaching, all dhammas have impermanence etc > as > > their characteristic. The insight that begins to see realties as they > are > > would also begin to see these characteristics of those realties, to > some > > (limited) degree or another. But again, it's not a matter of thinking > we > > should be trying to discern these characteristics. > > > > This makes a lot of sense too - often I catch myself trying to stick > "labels" (dukkha, anicca, anatta) on dhammas but this too feels very > forced. Without the "labels", I can often see anicca quite clearly --- > perhaps it's a question of carrying on looking at anicca until the > others > appear too : ) Different people of course see different aspects of things, according to their accumulated tendencies (whether of right or wrong view). But whatever the stage of our development when we are born into this life, we will probably leave it not all that much the wiser, I suspect. (Some find this discouraging, and tend to gravitate to assurances of a speedier 'release'!) Jon 11273 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma?-Howard Dear Howard, I hope you get your keyboard fixed soon..I wonder if there's anyone who doesn't have computer problems?? --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > ============================ > You are correct. The internal reaction of anger to a feeling is > kamma > and not vipaka, though, of course, it is conditioned by the mind's > accumulations. What I referred to as "automatic," however, was the > unpleasant > *feeling* resulting from the knowledge of the non-payment, and that > feeling, > like all feeling, is immediately conditioned by contact (mental contact > in > this case). Well, yes, I think we could say that because of the accumulated defilements, so often it's 'automatic'...It's automatic most the time not to 'guard the senses' as the Buddha advised. In other words it's 'automatic' for lobha, dosa and moha and proliferations to follow the sounds and visible objects because there's so very little sati (awareness) for most of us. If we are talking about phassa (contact), then it's always a mental factor accompanying every citta. Feeling also arises with each citta. Of course when seeing (vipaka) experiences visible object, the feeling is indifferent, but the feeling accompanying the dosa arising on account of this vipaka is unpleasant. >I see that specific unpleasant feeling as kamma vipaka due > to its > dependence on having a human birth, which, itself, is kamma vipaka. I see your point. I suppose we can say the unpleasant feeling is indirectly dependent on birth (vipaka as you say). If there was no birth consciousness, there would be no other realities arising at all. Still, I don't think we can refer to the unpleasant feeling accompanying dosa as 'kamma vipaka', unlike the unpleasant bodily feeling accompanying body consciousness (vipaka). Oh dear, even on holiday without texts, I'm in danger of sounding doctrinnaire... with metta nonetheless, Sarah ========================= 11274 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 2: To Frank Kuan Dear Frank Kuan How are you? This ia just a short request regarding the following. You wrote: "Some buddhist scholars believe the 12 links was a later buddhist development that tried to compact everything the buddha ever said about conditionality into one complex formula. Perhaps similar to a botched attempt at a unified field theory in physics." Could you please give the names of those Buddhist scholars, and their actual statements? It wouls help if you could provide specific references as well. Thanks in advance. With best wishes, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., frank kuan wrote: > The only conclusion that I've been able to draw from > PS (12 links of paticcasamupadda/dependent > origination/conditionality) is that it expresses > necessary preconditions for conditions to occur, but > if we try to deduce more information from that > relationship we get confounded. > > For example, if we visualize the 12 links in a > circular chain, and we suppose that cutting off one > link will break the whole circle and end samsaric > existence, it doesn't seem to work quite as simple as > that. What if we cut off craving? Is cutting off > craving the same as cutting off the underlying > tendency for craving? Or can cutting off craving > simply be like Pavlov's dog where a well trained monk > has a conditioned response to not react to > pleasant/unpleasnat/neutral feelings in inapproriate > ways? This is where I wonder about the Burmese > Vipassana system. They seem to give the impression > that we can break the chain at craving. I'm not so > sure. > > To me, it seems like the only part of the circular > chain that can truly be broken is "ignorance", but > even then when one becomes an arhant, the WHOLE chain > doesn't just fall completely apart. Discontinuities > occur, but not every link breaks. > > I'm not sure I actually like the 12 nidanas. The > dhamma makes more sense when the related portions in > context are grouped together. Some buddhist scholars > believe the 12 links was a later buddhist development > that tried to compact everything the buddha ever said > about conditionality into one complex formula. Perhaps > similar to a botched attempt at a unified field theory > in physics. > > -fk > > > 11275 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:03am Subject: India Ch 1, no 2. India, Ch 1, no. 2 We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Twos, Ch II, § 10) that the Buddha said: Monks, these two things conduce to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? The wrong expression of the letter (of the text) and wrong interpretation of the meaning of it. For if the letter be wrongly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also wrong..... Monks, these two things conduce to the establishment, the non-confusion, to the non-disappearance of true Dhamma. What two? The right expression of the letter and right interpretation of the meaning. For if the letter be rightly expressed, the interpretation of the meaning is also right.... In the course of time the Buddha¹s teachings will be corrupted and then disappear. The last holy site we visited was Bodhgaya. Here one of our group read a text about the disappearance of the teachings. The ³Dispeller of Delusion² (the commentary to the Book of Analysis, commentary to Ch 16, Classification of Knowledge) is one of the texts explaining about the disappearance of the teachings 1 . We read (431): For there are three kinds of disappearance: disappearance of theoretical understanding (pariyatti), disappearance of penetration (paìivedha) and disappearance of practice (paìipatti). Herein, pariyatti is the three parts of the Tipiìaka; the penetration is the penetration of the Truths; the practice is the way.... Further on we read that of the Scriptures first the Book of the Patthåna (Conditional Relations) of the Abhidhamma disappears, and then successively the other Books of the Abhidamma. After that the Books of the Suttanta will successively disappear. We read: But when the two Piìakas 2 have disappeared, while the Vinaya Pitaka endures, the teachings (såsana) endure. Also the Vinaya will disappear. Further on the text states that there are three kinds of complete extinction: Complete extinction of defilements, complete extinction of the aggregates (khandhas) 3 and complete extinction of the relics. Herein, complete extinction of the defilements took place on the Wisdom Seat, the complete extinction of the aggregates at Kusinåra 4 and the complete extinction of the relics will take place in the future. It is then explained that all the relics will gather together and will go to the ³Great Wisdom Seat² in Bodhgaya. We read: Heaped up on the Great Wisdom Seat, they will become one solid mass like a pile of gold and will emit six-coloured rays... We read that they will be burnt by the fire element and that then the teachings have come to an end. The Buddha¹s attainment of enlightenment under the Bodhi-tree was the beginning of the teachings. He taught satipatthåna, the development of right understanding, from then on until his passing away. When the relics disappear on the Great Wisdom Seat the teachings have come to an end. Therefore, it was very meaningful that the text of the disappearance of the teachings was read near the Bodhi-tree. It reminds us not to neglect the study of the Dhamma the Buddha had penetrated at the time of his enlightenment, and above all, to develop right understanding in daily life, so that the meaning of the teachings can be realized. After the reading of this text we all asked the Triple Gem for forgiveness of our faults and shortcomings through action, speech or thought. This is done each time we visit the holy sites, at the very end of our visit, and in this case it was near the Bodhi-tree. The Buddha explained the eightfold Path so that people could develop it and realize the four noble Truths, the Truth of dukkha, unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities that arise and fall away; the Truth of the origination of dukkha that is clinging; the truth of the cessation of dukkha that is nibbåna; the Truth of the Path leading to the cessation of dukkha, that is the eightfold path. When there isn¹t anybody who can clearly explain the right practice, the development of the eightfold Path, people cannot develop it and they cannot realize the four noble Truths. When nobody in this world can penetrate the four noble Truths anymore, the world will be dark. The Dhamma will gradually disappear. At the last day of our pilgrimage, when we were in Patna, Acharn Sujin said: ³The teachings are almost dying, let us develop right understanding². We do not have to feel depressed when thinking of the disappearance of the teachings. On the contrary, we should have courage and cheerfulness to begin again and again developing right understanding. 11276 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food, to Num op 11-02-2002 02:08 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...: > Nina, my aunt is helping K.Veera and K.Kanchana translating, The > Conditionality of Life She helps with looking up Thai atthakatha > corresponding to the English atthakatha you quoted from. I asked her her > that you asked whether you knew her or not. She told me she talked to you > more than couple times when you were in Thailand. She would like me to ask > you something from the book. > Dear Num, my apologies to your aunt that I did not know who she was, I am bad at names. Anumodana for her work with the translation. > Num: From chapter 12 Nutriment-Condition (Ahara-Paccaya) > << Thus, at each moment the three mental nutriments of contact, volition and > citta SUPPORT and MAINTAIN the dhammas arising together with them, and the > rupa produced by them, by the way of nutriment-condition. The mental > nutriments can be considered according to the method of the Patthana and also > according to the method of the "Dependent Origination" (Paticca samuppada), > the chain of conditionality arisen phenomena which cause the continuation of > cycle of birth and death117. >> > > > She said that there is only the word "support(uppatampaka)" but no > "maintain(araksa/anubala)" in Thai atthakatha Pancappakarana. She stated that > paccaya can have various functions; janakasatti, upatampakasatti and also > arakasatti. As I understand her question, she said that upatampaka and > araka/anubala-satti do not have exactly the same meaning!? OK, I think I can > be only a messenger boy this time. I think she'd like to know what version > of atthakatha you quoted from. She said that different versions of atthakatha > at times have some minor differences and at times there are some extra words. Nina: I used also Guide to Conditional Relations by U Narada: p. 55: 15 Nutriment Condition: now at end of p. 56: < So it will be seen that contact supports and maintains the prolongation of the round of rebirths.> And again on p. 57, the word maintenance is used. I do not mind if K. Krisa uses only support. In this context there is not much difference, as far as I can judge. When you eat, the food supports you but also maintains your life. Contact conditions feeling, it supports feeling and so maintains the prolongation of the cycle of samsara. There is not much detail in the old commentaries which I know. If there are discrepancies in Thai and English commentaries it would be no problem if K. Krisa follows the Thai, she does not have to burden herself to ask me. In the opposite way I do the same when translating from Thai, quoting from the co. in English, it is much more simple. So, you have a weekly Dhamma talk by phone with your aunt? That is also like food for us. Reading, considering, dhamma conversations, it is food, we need it. Can you share this food with us? I find, I am so forgetful of thinking, not realizing it is a conditioned nama that thinks. How we take it for self. And then seeing, it is so short. It seems we do not really understand the value of awareness of seeing, the thinking of concepts on account of what we see seems to be more interesting. But this is conditioned, very natural, very normal. If we wish it to be otherwise there is clinging to self again. Good topics to chat about with your aunt. Could she tell you about the topics of Thai lectures in the foundation? Just now I received a whole dish of food from Thialand: A. Sujin's book on the paramis, perfections. She writes: "The ten perfections are most important with regard to the complete eradication of defilements. Each kind of kusala should be developed so that this is a condition for the arising of pa~n~naa that can, stage by stage, completely eradicate defilements. " Best wishes from Nina. 11277 From: jonoabb Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:31pm Subject: Re: Laughter and Humour Christine It is a common misconception among non-Buddhists - and among many Buddhists too, for that matter - that a 'good Buddhist' shouldn't laugh. This idea seems to have something to do with the other similar idea that Buddhists strive to deny themselves anything pleasurable (I had a friend in Adelaide who, on my infrequent return visits when I was living in Thailand, seemed to feel the need to commiserate with me for my loss of the enjoyments of life). There is no general admonition against laughter, that I am aware of. The sutta you have quoted about the actors I would put into a different category, because it deals with making one's livelihood by presenting an 'imitation of reality' in performing 'things inspiring passion, anger and delusion' which have the effect of making the audience 'intoxicated and heedless'. As long as we still have defilements we will continue to have the normal range of human expressions. To think as some do that one should strive to laugh less in imitation of the arahant would not be following the path taught by the Buddha, to my understading. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_f orsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > During this last week, a friend of many years commented that he felt > I couldn't be a real buddhist because I laughed and smiled too much. > This seemed a strange remark, and I shrugged it off..... But I kept > remembering it. So I searched for a few references and found that > perhaps there was a basis for my friends' remark. This was surprising > to me and a little disturbing. I cannot imagine life without > laughter - it would become a depressing marathon of > endurance.....Perhaps, it is too much laughter that is to be > discouraged?....The wrong sort? and who judges that?...Or is it that > you automatically lose your sense of humour the more progress you > make? > > metta, > Christine > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/ samyutta/sn42-002.html > Then Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, went to the Blessed One > and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was > sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, I have > heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of > actors that 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, > makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of > reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn > in the company of the laughing devas.' What does the Blessed One have > to say about that?" > > "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that." > > A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, > said: "Venerable sir, I have heard that it has been passed down by > the ancient teaching lineage of actors that 'When an actor on the > stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them > delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the > body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing > devas.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?" > > "Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by > saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I > will simply answer you. Any beings who are not devoid of passion to > begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even > more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on > stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of > aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus > with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an > actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not > devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of > delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion > presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Thus the > actor -- himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others > intoxicated & heedless -- with the breakup of the body, after death, > is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds > such a view as this: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a > festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation > of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is > reborn in the company of the laughing devas,' that is his wrong view. > Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell > you: either hell or the animal womb." > > When this was said, Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe, sobbed & > burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't > get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask > me that.'" > > "I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said > to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for > a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of actors who > said: 'When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes > people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then > with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the > company of the laughing devas.' > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366 /lett7b.htm > > "if humour is, as I have suggested, in some way a reaction to fear, > then so long as there remains a trace of the contradiction, of the > existential paradox, so long will there remain a trace of humour. But > since, essentially, the Buddha's Teaching is the cessation of fear > (or more strictly of anxiety, the condition of fear), so it leads to > the subsidence of humour. Not, indeed, that the arahat is humourless > in the sense of being serious- minded; far from it; no -- it is simply > that the need he formerly felt for humour has now ceased. And so we > find in the Suttas (A. III,105: i,261) that whereas excessive > laughter 'showing the teeth' is called childishness, a smile when one > is rightly pleased is not out of place. Perhaps you may like to see > here a distinction between inauthentic and authentic humour." > > http://www.stanford.edu/~jasona/j92- final/ > > Associating laughter with religion was even a problem for early > Buddhist scholastics. Laughter was thought to be something common, > even vulgar. Some see the comic as a distraction from the seriousness > of religion, while others view it as adding "spice to the rice," so > to speak. Thus, Buddhist scholastics preferred to disassociate the > Buddha's teachings from laughter. However, there was a problem: many > sutras say or imply that the Buddha would laugh on occassion. How > could this discrepancy be resolved? Bharata, during the fourth > century in India, wrote a theatrical treatise that remedied this by > differentiating between the different types of laughter, as > diagrammed below: Type of Laughter Short Description Appropriate > Caste > Sita highest and noblest form, a faint smile High castes, authority > figures > Hasita next highest form, a smile which barely reveals the tips of > the teeth > Vihasita an even larger smile accompanied by some laughter Middle > ranks > Upahasita a more pronounced laughter, marked by shaking of the head, > shoulders, and arms > Apahasita loud laughter that makes one teary-eyed Lower castes, > people of unruly or uncouth behavior > Atihasita uproarious laughter that makes one double over, slap the > thighs, or roll around > > > Therefore, according to Bharata, the Buddha was only associated with > sita "laughter", although from a modern sense, this isn't even > considered laughter" > > > http://www.palikanon.com/abhidham/s angaha/chapter_1.htm > > "26. Hasituppáda is a citta peculiar to Arahats. Smiling is caused by > a pleasurable feeling. There are thirteen classes of consciousness by > which one may smile according to the type of the person. An ordinary > worldling (puthujjana) may laugh with either one of the four types of > cittas rooted in attachment, accompanied by pleasure, or one of the > four kusala cittas, accompanied by pleasure. Sotápannas, Sakadágámís, > and Anágámís may smile with one of the two akusala cittas, > disconnected with false view, accompanied by pleasure, or with one of > the four kusala cittas. Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with > one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppáda. Sammá > Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, > accompanied by wisdom and pleasure. There is nothing but mere mirth > in the hasituppáda consciousness.The Compendium of Philosophy > states: "There are six classes of laughter recognized in Buddhist > works: (1) sita: - a smile manifesting itself in expression and > countenance; (2) hasita: - a smile consisting in the slight movements > of the lips just enough to reveal the tips of the teeth; (3) > vihasita: - laughter giving out a light sound; (4) upahasita: - > laughter accompanied by the movement of the head, shoulders, and > arms; (5) apahasita: - laughter accompanied by the shedding of tears; > and (6) atihasita: - an outburst of laughter accompanied by the > forward and backward movements of the entire body from head to foot. > Laughter is thus a form of bodily expression (káya-viññatti), which > may or may not be accompanied by vocal expression (vací-viññatti). Of > these, the first two classes are indulged in by cultured persons, the > next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower classes of > being." > > > http://www.wfb-hq.org/bud15c.htm > > "Consider, for example, laughter. The Buddha once said, "Laughter is > the behaviour of an infant in its cradle." Think about it. We like to > laugh heartily, even though it is the behaviour of an infant in its > cradle. It doesn't even embarrass us. We like it. We go right on > laughing heartily, guffawing loudly. Why did the Buddha say > that "Laughter is the behaviour of an infant in its cradle"? Think of > an infant in its cradle and the way it lies there gurgling and > grinning at you. > The laughter of the noble ones is different. They laugh at > all compounded things (sankhara), which are impermanent and changing, > unsatisfactory (dukkha), and not- self. Because they knew, they can > laugh at compounded things and at craving, which henceforth can do > them no harm. This is the right kind of laughter, the kind that has > meaning and worth." 11278 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Feb 12, 2002 10:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Laughter and Humour Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > The first level of enlightenment (sotapatti-magga) eradicates all the wrong views (with the wrong view of self, of seeing a dhamma as something else other than dhamma, being most important as it is the root of all other wrong views) along with jealousy (issa), stinginess (machariya), and doubt (vichikicca). According to the text you have given, a sotappanna still has 4 types of conciousness arising with attachment left. I think it is important to see that the conditions for all kinds of kilesa to arise haven't been eradicated until enlightment is reached. Before then, if one doesn't laugh (certainly, laughter is conditioned by coarse kilesa), it just means there is no condition to do so. When there is condition to do so, then one will laugh, as the conditions for laughter haven't been eradicated. A. Sujin keeps reminding us that the first task in learning the dhamma is to understand dhamma as dhamma: to see that the aggregates are not ours, that they are not us, that we are not in them, etc. When laughter occurs, it is just a bunch of rupas conditioned by coarse kilesa, coarse kilesa that will continue to arise until the view of self has been completely eradicated (and further). This is inevitable. When panna sees the faults/drawbacks of kilesas, like how attachment hinders the arising of kusala and of knowledge, then one has less condition for the attachment to arise. However, when there are still conditions for such attachment to rise again in the future, until one completely eradicates it. I think it is more imperative to understand dhamma as dhamma, rather than trying to suppress all kilesa. When one sees the faults of kilesa, one naturally (without the conventional efforts) have less apparent tendencies toward them. kom 11279 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 0:12am Subject: Re: Laughter and Humour Hi Victor, Frank, Jon and Kom, Thanks for your replies, all helpful - all from different perspectives. Victor - I still wonder exactly what the Buddha was smiling about in the Gavesin sutta.....fondly with approval, or ironically because of human nature? Frank - Yes, concentrating on reducing/eradicating suffering should be the main focus, rather than looking for humour and laughter to take ones mind off the actuality of life. Jon - You say: "To think as some do that one should strive to laugh less in imitation of the arahant would not be following the path taught by the Buddha, to my understanding." This is a relief.....not that sometimes there is much to laugh at in daily life.....better to live naturally though than be self-consciously awkward....Thanks for explaining that sutta. Kom - Thanks for saying that "Sujin keeps reminding us that the first task in learning the dhamma is to understand dhamma as dhamma: to see that the aggregates are not ours, that they are not us, that we are not in them." Sometimes it's too easy to wander away from the basic tasks. Much to think about in your post. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Christine, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > > > The first level of enlightenment (sotapatti-magga) > eradicates all the wrong views (with the wrong view of self, > of seeing a dhamma as something else other than dhamma, > being most important as it is the root of all other wrong > views) along with jealousy (issa), stinginess (machariya), > and doubt (vichikicca). According to the text you have > given, a sotappanna still has 4 types of conciousness > arising with attachment left. > > I think it is important to see that the conditions for all > kinds of kilesa to arise haven't been eradicated until > enlightment is reached. Before then, if one doesn't laugh > (certainly, laughter is conditioned by coarse kilesa), it > just means there is no condition to do so. When there is > condition to do so, then one will laugh, as the conditions > for laughter haven't been eradicated. > > A. Sujin keeps reminding us that the first task in learning > the dhamma is to understand dhamma as dhamma: to see that > the aggregates are not ours, that they are not us, that we > are not in them, etc. When laughter occurs, it is just a > bunch of rupas conditioned by coarse kilesa, coarse kilesa > that will continue to arise until the view of self has been > completely eradicated (and further). This is inevitable. > > When panna sees the faults/drawbacks of kilesas, like how > attachment hinders the arising of kusala and of knowledge, > then one has less condition for the attachment to arise. > However, when there are still conditions for such attachment > to rise again in the future, until one completely eradicates > it. > > I think it is more imperative to understand dhamma as > dhamma, rather than trying to suppress all kilesa. When one > sees the faults of kilesa, one naturally (without the > conventional efforts) have less apparent tendencies toward > them. > > kom > > 11280 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control/No control (was, Re: samma samadhi) Herman --- egberdina wrote: > Dear Jon, > > If you are saying that the fact that incontinence does occur is proof > that control is not possible at all, I would have to disagree. The > voluntary nervous system places numerous bodily and mental functions > under volitional control. That the level of voluntary control that > can be exercised varies amongst the population in general is not in > doubt. The statement that control is not possible at all is. If control is possible, but only when the circumstances are right, how 'real' is the control? Perhaps our difference here is pretty much a semantic one. But it's a useful area to consider, I find. Jon 11281 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > There is much in the following that I agree with, for example the > > relevance of motivation and underlying sense urgency for effective > volition. > Where we differ is, in part, a matter of emphasis. I detect a flavor of > "randomness" in your analysis, a randomness tending towards the nihilist > pole > of wrong view, whereas my tendency is towards the opposite > substantialist > pole of wrong view. But most precisely, where we differ is on the issue > of > whether the Buddha provided a training program (my position) or only a > statement of what conditions foster what results (your apparent > position). I seem to recall that 'trainer of gods and men' is one of the attributes of a Buddha, so I hesitate to give my unqualified agreement to your characterisation of our difference! Let me just say that I'm not aware of any 'program' laid down by the Buddha for attaining enlightenment. I do, however, see the teachings as making known, and encouraging the development of, the factors that lead to enlightenment. Jon 11282 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Thanks Jon! I nearly missed this post - took me 5 days to find it. Even > after the 'silent weekend', I still have lots of messages to read ! > > After posting my question, I looked in the archive and found several > previous discussions making things clearer. It's helpful to know what > "Right Effort" is, and to be aware of wrong view creeping in disguised > as > "the will to make a greater effort". Slowly things are falling into > place > here. But, as you say, it's easier said > than done : ) Glad you have found the archives useful. Yes, this particular form of wrong view is really difficult to get a handle on, and generates a lot of resistance (the result of deeply-held convictions). I have heard it said that this is where the quality of patience is so valuable, because another tendency we all have in abundance is the expectation for quick results. One can see where confidence in the teachings also comes into play, because any results only become apparent further down the line (the simile of the adze-handle is how it is explained in the suttas). Jon 11283 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 10:00am Subject: India, ch 1, no. 3. India ch 1, no. 3 Each day Acharn Sujin exhorted us to take courage and to be cheerful. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (I, Sågåtha vagga, IV, Måra, Ch II, §6, The Bowl): On one occasion, at Såvatthí, the Exalted One was instructing, inciting and inspiring the monks by a sermon on the five khandhas of grasping (upadåna khandhas). And the monks with their whole mind applied, attentive and intent, listened with rapt hearing to the Dhamma. The Commentary (the Såratthappakåsiní) explains that the Buddha was instructing, teaching under different aspects the specific and general characteristics of the khandhas of grasping. The Buddha was enlightening, inciting and inspiring them. The Commentary explains that he exhorted them to have energy and endeavour. As we read in the sutta text, the monks listened with enthousiasm, with rapture, to the dhamma. Thus, this text reminds us to be courageous and not to give up developing understanding, and to be cheerful, glad about the Dhamma. We discussed courage and cheerfulness because of the Dhamma several times. Acharn Sujin explained that when akusala citta arises we may dislike it, we may feel bad about it, but akusala can be realized as only a conditioned reality. Then we shall not try to do something else but the development of right understanding of what appears now, even if it is akusala. We have accumulated akusala for countless lives, and thus there are conditions for its arising. We shall not be downhearted but we can be courageous and glad to be able to know the truth. We may be discouraged about our lack of awareness and understanding, our lack of progress. We should not expect the arising of a great deal of understanding when it has not yet been accumulated. Understanding should be developed very naturally in our daily life and in that way we can live happily, without anxiety. We can rejoice in the Dhamma we learnt and take courage to continue developing right understanding. 11284 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 0:45pm Subject: Re: India, ch 1, no. 3. Dear Nina, I appreciate all your writings, in whatever form they appear, on the Net or in hard copy, with formal structure, or in conversational mode. They are and have been of immeasurable value to me, and, I am certain, to countless others.. And now, this extract comes just when most needed. Thank you. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > India ch 1, no. 3 > > Each day Acharn Sujin exhorted us to take courage and to be cheerful. We > read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (I, Sågåtha vagga, IV, Måra, Ch II, §6, The > Bowl): > > On one occasion, at Såvatthí, the Exalted One was instructing, inciting and > inspiring the monks by a sermon on the five khandhas of grasping (upadåna > khandhas). And the monks with their whole mind applied, attentive and > intent, listened with rapt hearing to the Dhamma. > > The Commentary (the Såratthappakåsiní) explains that the Buddha was > instructing, teaching under different aspects the specific and general > characteristics of the khandhas of grasping. The Buddha was enlightening, > inciting and inspiring them. The Commentary explains that he exhorted them > to have energy and endeavour. As we read in the sutta text, the monks > listened with enthousiasm, with rapture, to the dhamma. Thus, this text > reminds us to be courageous and not to give up developing understanding, and > to be cheerful, glad about the Dhamma. We discussed courage and cheerfulness > because of the Dhamma several times. Acharn Sujin explained that when > akusala citta arises we may dislike it, we may feel bad about it, but > akusala can be realized as only a conditioned reality. Then we shall not try > to do something else but the development of right understanding of what > appears now, even if it is akusala. We have accumulated akusala for > countless lives, and thus there are conditions for its arising. We shall not > be downhearted but we can be courageous and glad to be able to know the > truth. We may be discouraged about our lack of awareness and understanding, > our lack of progress. We should not expect the arising of a great deal of > understanding when it has not yet been accumulated. Understanding should be > developed very naturally in our daily life and in that way we can live > happily, without anxiety. We can rejoice in the Dhamma we learnt and take > courage to continue developing right understanding. 11285 From: Lucy Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: India, ch 1, no. 3. Oh yes, I second that! Count me among the "countless others". Lucy ------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" Dear Nina, I appreciate all your writings, in whatever form they appear, on the Net or in hard copy, with formal structure, or in conversational mode. They are and have been of immeasurable value to me, and, I am certain, to countless others.. And now, this extract comes just when most needed. Thank you. metta, Christine 11286 From: Lucy Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 1:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Dear Jon Ooooh. I'm a bit weak in the "Patience" department... Seriously now, the expectation for quick results can be a very big hurdle. The funny thing is, the results appear in areas one doesn't anticipate, often we don't even notice there have been "results" The other day, I was very happy to discover that I now tend to allow the car behind to overtake mine without even showing the driver two of my fingers. Now, that is a very important step for me... musing over results... Lucy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonothan Abbott" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) > Glad you have found the archives useful. > > Yes, this particular form of wrong view is really difficult to get a > handle on, and generates a lot of resistance (the result of deeply-held > convictions). I have heard it said that this is where the quality of > patience is so valuable, because another tendency we all have in abundance > is the expectation for quick results. One can see where confidence in the > teachings also comes into play, because any results only become apparent > further down the line (the simile of the adze-handle is how it is > explained in the suttas). > > Jon > 11287 From: Lucy Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 1:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kkandhas and realities Hello all (be warned, this is the "beginner's corner") In observing realities, am I right to think that what one sees generally is more the khandhas than the individual citta, etc.? It seems to me that what I take to be "citta" is actually a very complex manifestation of innumerable cittas - more on the lines of "aggregates" (khandas) than as single realities. Even isolating rupa from concept of rupa seems almost impossible to my mind - what I notice as "hardness", etc. is already elaborated into something quite different from plain hardness - it's more like "hardness" + sanna + vedana + vinnana, +/- recollection of & comparison with other experiences of "hardness" and even expectations of "hardness" becoming softer and warmer...instead of looking at one door, I'm looking at a whole building plus the surrounding gardens, parks and streets... So, I wonder, does the practice of satipathana lead to discriminating individual realities? What's the process by which the aggregates disaggregate and an individual citta or rupa becomes manifest? Or is this a stupid question? Lucy 11288 From: Lucy Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dealing with daily issues Dear Sarah > > There was the usual angst when I searched in vain for the missing glasses > and the delight when the new pair were produced so efficiently. I wonder, > though, at whether it's helpful to consider ways of 'dealing with' the > different issues or kilesa (defilements) in a day. No matter how much we consider, what arises is rarely what one expects and/or our way of dealing with what arises often surprises us...No, "consideration" doesn't really help at all. But it seems to me that there is something in the Dhamma that prepares us to deal with issues. It's like a gentle, effortless training more than a conscious work-out. Somehow, when the "issue" arises, we discover that we can deal with it. And we don't even need to scratch our head to think: "now where in the suttas did I read about a solution to this?" > Doesn't 'dealing with' > again suggest an idea of self and 'doing', rather than accepting and > understanding these various conditioned mental states? Underlying the idea > of 'dealing with', I think there's usually a 'wishing they'd go > away',suggesting some more (subtle) attachment to other states at that > time. > You're right there. It isn't a 'dealing with', it's more going-along-with...or something like that. But don't you think there is also a case for going along with the "idea of self 'doing' "? Just allowing it to develop and let the "self" bump its ugly head against a wall ot something? It's just that "self" always has a way to spring up and surprise - it almost seems more efficient to let "self" suffer the frustration of being unable to do, so we can learn from its failure. > Meanwhile, as I mentioned to Victor, there's no concern about 'dealing > with' the lobha such as when I'm in the waves or walking on the sand. > Again and again, it's only that which is unpleasant that we're concerned > to find a remedy for;-) > There are times when the idea of anicca flashes in front of lobha and one is forced to consider how to deal with lobha in the context of impending anicca. Don't know whether I'm being clear (probably not) but am sure you know what I'm trying to say. Perhaps it's a consequence of over-labelling, our enjoyments can become coloured by our knowledge of their impermanence. Anyway, just knowing the enjoyent is impermanent is a good preparation to "deal with lobha" - but it all happens quite spontaneously. Again... going along. Enjoy your beach holiday! Mudita to all those enjoying beach holidays !!! I'm not envious, oh, no, I'm not AT ALL envious.... Lucy PS I'll have to take up "envy" as next week's cetasika 11289 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Rob Ep Let me continue my reply to your post (working backwards). > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > meditate. It > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > phone, > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > that all of > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > observing a less busy field of experience. ... > Meditation is ... a concentrated period in which one > focuses the mind on the moment. I am sure that many would share your view that awareness of a presently appearing reality means or suggests 'following' the mind as it jumps from one activity to another. Yet I think that is a wholly impossible task, and not really what the Buddha was describing for the development of the path. It's true that we can find in the suttas descriptions of all the different mind-states (and other realities), and how extremely fast these change from one to the other. But only the likes of a Buddha can ever get to see the mind on a purely moment-to-moment basis. For us, as beginners, it is enough to know that consciousness *is* a moment-to-moment phenomenom and hence a constantly changing one, so that we do not assume it to be otherwise. When we read in, say, the Satipatthana Sutta about awareness of a presently appearing reality (e.g. seeing or visible object), there is nothing that requires this to be *only a single moment* of that reality. As I understand, there may be many moments of awareness of the same object as it arises in an apparently continuous stream (since we don't have the discernment to see these things on a moment to moment basis). Initially, it is the characteristic of being a nama or a rupa, or of appearing through a particular doorway, that is apparent, rather than its purely momentary nature (not to mention the even more 'advanced' characteristics of impermanence etc.). What I am trying to say, Rob, is that the idea of awareness as involving or being a function of our focussing on the present moment and following the activity of the mind needs to be put aside if the true nature of the presently appearing reality is to be discerned. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as > always. Let me > make a few comments in response to your message. > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > and that > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > persists? > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > right view > and right practice. > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > insight > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > clarification of a > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > after one > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > progress, what > constitutes correct practice? > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > extent > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > practice and a > most significant goal. > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > a greatly > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > higher > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > just say that > I believe it is expedient. > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > no doubt > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > promoting > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > argue the > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > Suttas, > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > world > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > breath, note > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > on > specific objects of mind. > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > meditate. It > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > phone, > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > that all of > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > observing > a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and necessary > practice? > Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the > answer is a > very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really > developing a > satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in some > way, but I > don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the case > if I > 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one > concentrates on > learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is no > different > than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in which > one > focuses the mind on the moment. > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > meditation is > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > seems to > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > the > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > some > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > the suttas > and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason for > this, but > I don't quite understand it at present. > > I look forward to your response. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ================================ > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep > > > > From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference > about > > the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the > > question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice > is > > intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, > does it > > matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in > the > > texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) > > > > The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from > experience > > that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago > (for > > example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as > the > > product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how > > honestly held at the time). > > > > The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual > suspects' of > > ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic > assessment of > > our own capabilities. > > > > I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps > in > > somewhat more disguised form. > > > > I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on > having > > a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by > the > > Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when > it > > comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is > > generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary > delay > > to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear > intellectual > > grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which > the > > Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an > > indispensable first step. > > > > No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the > moment > > with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems > > intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are > the > > factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as > > prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the > > development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. > > > > When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the > idea of > > attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to > be > > *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply > the > > moment, with or without perceived distractions. > > > > Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and > ultimately > > the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. > > Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us > > further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of > > 'reification' in the abstract. > > > > At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has > any > > significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The > fact > > that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments > other > > than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a > > superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to > shy > > away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever > > pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong > > view. > > > > Jon > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, 11290 From: Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kkandhas and realities >Lucy wrote, "So, I wonder, does the practice of satipathana lead to discriminating individual realities? What's the process by which the aggregates disaggregate and an individual citta or rupa becomes manifest?" Good questions Lucy. I look forward to some good answers. For me, discriminating individual realities is a matter of conceptual study. It is surprisingly helpful to understand even a little how the whole thing works. As for meditation, what I am doing at the moment is regarding the nama/rupa distinction as a distinction between truth and illusion. Truth being rupa and illusion being nama. This is a casual way of speaking; you could also say nama is defilement and rupa is non-defilement, or something like that. The basic point is to take everything one thinks and emotionally feels as illusory and fundamentally wrong. Technically speaking all this thinking and feeling could be analyzed into ultimate realities, but the experience of it is suffering. For a crude ordinary person like myself, the experience of rupa is not suffering. That is a very interesting finding, and warrants further looking into. I can't think of anything else to say, so I guess that's all. bon voyage, Larry 11291 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Feb 13, 2002 11:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Dear Lucy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Lucy [mailto:selene@c...] > The other day, I was very happy to discover that > I now tend to allow the > car behind to overtake mine without even showing > the driver two of my > fingers. Now, that is a very important step for me... I am very happy to hear about this event. Immediately after I have read the story, I hear a saying in my head (which A. Sujin has said more than a few times in the recordings), that we can see the benefit of hearing and considering (wisely) the dhamma. One the other hand, we should also remind ourself that kusala is also a dhamma. It is not us, and it is not ours. It has been conditioned to arise, and it has already fallen away. Right now there is a dhamma that is rising (maybe akusala: attachment to the kusala, or ignorance of current realities), whether or not we know what it truly is is another question. Further, as long as the wrong view about self (sakaya-dithi) has not been eradicated completely, there are still conditions for the flood to sweep us into the bad rebirths, into the beginningless and endless samsara. kom 11292 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see a strongly reactive mind, a mind reacting with aversion and > > aversion, as interfering with mindfulness and clear comprehension. The > development of calm is a palliative with regard to this. > -------------------------------------------------------- I like your expression 'strongly reactive mind'. It somehow seems to aptly describe the effect that latent tendencies for strong attachment and aversion have. However, while a strongly reactive mind is no doubt counter-indicative for those aspiring to the development of samatha, it is not a bar to the development of mindfulness and clear comprehension. This I think is apparent from the Satipattana Sutta itself which makes it clear that the various arising kilesa are also to be the object of sati. The obstacles to the development of mindfulness and clear comprehension are ignorance and wrong view, as I understand it. If there is a proper grasp of the details of the teaching on mindfulness, there is no reason it should not arise even during times of strong anger or attachment (although not of course at the same precise moment). I think were the situation as you suggest then the Buddha would have taught 2 modes of development of mindfulness and clear comprehension - 1 for those of us with strongly reactive minds and another for the fortunate few (although proportionately many, many, more in those days) who have attained high levels of concentration. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I see formal meditation practice as merely a part of the total > practice. It is useful that there be an ongoing mindfulness practice > throughout all one's daily activities. > ----------------------------------------------------- I note the distinction you imply between actual mindfulness and a 'mindfulness practice'. But is this something mentioned in the suttas? > Surely the teachings have relevance to the present> moment regardless > > of the level of calm or other form of kusala. Do you > > see the potential, given the right grasp of the teachings, for the > arising > > of awareness of any presently appearing reality (be it seeing, visible > > object, attachment, unpleasant feeling or whatever)? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Of course I do. What I also see is that an ongoing practice which > > includes cultivation of calm creates a layer of peace in the mind that > extends beyond formal meditation periods and contributes to one's > ongoing > mindfulness practice. > ------------------------------------------------- Likewise as regards the idea of the peace of samatha extending beyond actual periods of samatha and somehow contributing to the 'mindfulness practice'. Is this something you see as being consonant with any particular part of the teachings, or is it perhaps based on personal experience (yours or others'; just wanting to clarify, and hope you don't mind me asking, Howard)? As always, appreciate your carefully considered views, Howard. Jon 11293 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 10:01am Subject: India ch 1, no. 4 India Ch 1, no 4. Acharn Sujin reminded us also time and again to have patience (khantí). She remarked that people may be able to be patient when they have lack of sleep or when they have to sit for a long time, but that it is most difficult to be patient with regard to the development of right understanding. Usually people wish for the arising of mindfulness and right understanding and they are impatient when they do not notice any progress. Acharn Sujin often recited the text of the ³Dhammapada²(vs. 184) about patience which is the highest form of ascetism: Forbearing patience is the highest asceticism, nibbåna is supreme say the Buddhas; he verily, is not a recluse who harms another; nor is he an ascetic who oppresses others. Patience is the highest ascetism (tapo). We read in the Commentary to the Cariyåpiìaka, about the perfection of patience the Bodhisatta developed 5 . It is defined as follows: Patience has the characteristic of acceptance; its function is to endure the desirable and undesirable; its manifestation is tolerance or non-opposition; seeing things as they really are is its proximate cause. We can have patience with regard to the desirable and the undesirable when there is no attachment to a pleasant object nor aversion towards an unpleasant object. When there is more understanding we can see that whatever arises is conditioned, no matter it is pleasant or unpleasant, and then there are conditions for patience. As we read, ³seeing things as they really are is the proximate cause of patience². The Dhamma can be our refuge when we have patience while listening to the Dhamma, while studying and considering it. Then there will be conditions for mindfulness of realities and the development of right understanding. Time and again Acharn Sujin said that understanding very gradually develops. During this journey we listened to the Dhamma and heard things that we had heard before, but do we have the patience to really consider what we hear? We are still able to listen to the Dhamma, but the Dhamma will not last forever. Therefore, we should not waste time but develop more understanding now. We are reminded to be aware of the realities that appear by the following text in the ³Gradual Sayings² (Book of the Ones, Ch X): Monks, I know not of any other single thing that conduces to the confusion, to the disappearance of true Dhamma as does negligence. Negligence indeed conduces to the confusion and disappearance of true Dhamma. Monks, I know not of any single thing so conducive to the establishment, to the non-disappearnace of true Dhamma as earnestness 6 . Earnestness indeed conduces to the establishment, to the non-disappearance of true Dhamma. ******* Footnotes 1. This has also been explained in the Commentary to the ³Dialogues of the Buddha², the ³Sumangala Vilåsiní² (III, no. 28, the Faith that satisfied). 2. The Abhidhamma and the Suttanta. 3. The five aggregates or khandhas are: rúpakkhandha, all physical phenomena; vedanåkkhandha, feelings; saññåkkhandha, remembrance or perception; sankhårakkhandha, formations or activities, including all cetasikas other than feeling and perception; viññånakkhandha, consciousness, including all cittas. 4. At the final passing away of the Buddha there was the extinction of the khandhas; they would not arise again because there were no more conditions for rebirth. 5. Translated by Ven. Bodhi. See the All-Embracing Net of Views, B.P.S. Kandy. 6. Earnestness is a translation of the Påli appamåda, non-negligence. It means non-forgetfulness, mindfulness. **** 11294 From: Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 1:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: National/group Kamma?-Howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/12/02 7:52:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > I hope you get your keyboard fixed soon.. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. I just replaced it. -------------------------------------------------------------- I wonder if there's anyone who> > doesn't have computer problems?? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Most of humankind I would suppose! ;-)) ================================ With metta, Howard (The rest of your post follows with no comment.) > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > > ============================ > > You are correct. The internal reaction of anger to a feeling is > > kamma > > and not vipaka, though, of course, it is conditioned by the mind's > > accumulations. What I referred to as "automatic," however, was the > > unpleasant > > *feeling* resulting from the knowledge of the non-payment, and that > > feeling, > > like all feeling, is immediately conditioned by contact (mental contact > > in > > this case). > > Well, yes, I think we could say that because of the accumulated > defilements, so often it's 'automatic'...It's automatic most the time not > to 'guard the senses' as the Buddha advised. In other words it's > 'automatic' for lobha, dosa and moha and proliferations to follow the > sounds and visible objects because there's so very little sati (awareness) > for most of us. > > If we are talking about phassa (contact), then it's always a mental factor > accompanying every citta. Feeling also arises with each citta. Of course > when seeing (vipaka) experiences visible object, the feeling is > indifferent, but the feeling accompanying the dosa arising on account of > this vipaka is unpleasant. > > >I see that specific unpleasant feeling as kamma vipaka due > > to its > > dependence on having a human birth, which, itself, is kamma vipaka. > > I see your point. I suppose we can say the unpleasant feeling is > indirectly dependent on birth (vipaka as you say). If there was no birth > consciousness, there would be no other realities arising at all. Still, I > don't think we can refer to the unpleasant feeling accompanying dosa as > 'kamma vipaka', unlike the unpleasant bodily feeling accompanying body > consciousness (vipaka). > > Oh dear, even on holiday without texts, I'm in danger of sounding > doctrinnaire... > > with metta nonetheless, > Sarah > ========================= > /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) 11295 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) (III) Rob Ep Part III (and final? coming up) > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > no doubt > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > promoting > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > argue the > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > Suttas, > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > world > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > breath, note > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > on > specific objects of mind. It would be a lot easier for us all if traditional acceptance counted for anything, but unfortunately it doesn't - see the Kalama's sutta. (In any event, the real traditional views of the teachings are those found in the most ancient texts, from which some of us quote from time to time.) I would now like to give my thoughts on the specific questions you raised. > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > and that > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > persists? Yes, pretty much so. Just a minor refinement. Wrong view is eliminated at the stage of sotapanna-ship, ignorance only at attainment to arahantship > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > right view > and right practice. Right view (panna cetasika/insight - seeing dhammas as they truly are) is the only means by which wrong view can be corrected, and is also right practice in and of itself. So we are back at the same old question - what are the necessary factors for the development of panna/insight? > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > insight > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > clarification of a > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! As mentioned elsewhere, meeting the right friend is the first and foremost of the necessary factors. This is becasue without hearing them explained *as we need to hear them*, reading the suttas may in fact simply reinforce existing wrong view. > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > after one > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > progress, what > constitutes correct practice? considering what has been explained or read in the right light, and its application to the *present* present moment. > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > extent > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > practice and a > most significant goal. (Sound like there's a major qualification to this coming next!!) Is there any better use of the present moment, in your view? > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > a greatly > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > higher > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > just say that > I believe it is expedient. In the realm of mindfulness, there are no expedient techniques, nor any need for them. Any technique simply serves to take one away from the present present moment. I hope this is to the point. Must fly. Our flight (Samui to BAngkok) has just been called. Apologies for the rushed message. Jon 11296 From: Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 3:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/14/02 6:51:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I see a strongly reactive mind, a mind reacting with aversion and > > > > aversion, as interfering with mindfulness and clear comprehension. The > > development of calm is a palliative with regard to this. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > I like your expression 'strongly reactive mind'. It somehow seems to > aptly describe the effect that latent tendencies for strong attachment and > aversion have. > > However, while a strongly reactive mind is no doubt counter-indicative for > those aspiring to the development of samatha, it is not a bar to the > development of mindfulness and clear comprehension. This I think is > apparent from the Satipattana Sutta itself which makes it clear that the > various arising kilesa are also to be the object of sati. > > The obstacles to the development of mindfulness and clear comprehension > are ignorance and wrong view, as I understand it. If there is a proper > grasp of the details of the teaching on mindfulness, there is no reason it > should not arise even during times of strong anger or attachment (although > not of course at the same precise moment). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This isn't my experience. Moreover, I don't see the Buddha as having put so much emphasis on Right Concentration, defined as attaining the first 4 jhanas, and including it as part of the 8-fold path for no reason. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I think were the situation as you suggest then the Buddha would have > taught 2 modes of development of mindfulness and clear comprehension - 1 > for those of us with strongly reactive minds and another for the fortunate > few (although proportionately many, many, more in those days) who have > attained high levels of concentration. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I see formal meditation practice as merely a part of the total > > practice. It is useful that there be an ongoing mindfulness practice > > throughout all one's daily activities. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I note the distinction you imply between actual mindfulness and a > 'mindfulness practice'. But is this something mentioned in the suttas? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a program of practice, mindfulness practice, the aim of which is the cultivation of insight. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Surely the teachings have relevance to the present> moment regardless > > > of the level of calm or other form of kusala. Do you > > > see the potential, given the right grasp of the teachings, for the > > arising > > > of awareness of any presently appearing reality (be it seeing, visible > > > object, attachment, unpleasant feeling or whatever)? > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Of course I do. What I also see is that an ongoing practice which > > > > includes cultivation of calm creates a layer of peace in the mind that > > extends beyond formal meditation periods and contributes to one's > > ongoing > > mindfulness practice. > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Likewise as regards the idea of the peace of samatha extending beyond > actual periods of samatha and somehow contributing to the 'mindfulness > practice'. Is this something you see as being consonant with any > particular part of the teachings, or is it perhaps based on personal > experience (yours or others'; just wanting to clarify, and hope you don't > mind me asking, Howard)? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is part of my experience that calm supports mindfulness and mindfulness supports calm, and the cultivation of calm was a central part of the practice taught by the Buddha .. again, and again, and again. --------------------------------------------------------- > > As always, appreciate your carefully considered views, Howard. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Jon. Likewise. -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 11297 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 9:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) (III) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > Part III (and final? coming up) > > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > > no doubt > > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > > promoting > > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > > argue the > > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > > Suttas, > > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > > world > > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > > breath, note > > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > > on > > specific objects of mind. > > It would be a lot easier for us all if traditional acceptance counted for > anything, but unfortunately it doesn't - see the Kalama's sutta. > > (In any event, the real traditional views of the teachings are those found > in the most ancient texts, from which some of us quote from time to time.) > > I would now like to give my thoughts on the specific questions you raised. > > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > > and that > > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > > persists? > > Yes, pretty much so. Just a minor refinement. Wrong view is eliminated > at the stage of sotapanna-ship, ignorance only at attainment to > arahantship > > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > > right view > > and right practice. > > Right view (panna cetasika/insight - seeing dhammas as they truly are) is > the only means by which wrong view can be corrected, and is also right > practice in and of itself. So we are back at the same old question - what > are the necessary factors for the development of panna/insight? > > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > > insight > > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > > clarification of a > > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > As mentioned elsewhere, meeting the right friend is the first and foremost > of the necessary factors. This is becasue without hearing them explained > *as we need to hear them*, reading the suttas may in fact simply reinforce > existing wrong view. > > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > > after one > > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > > progress, what > > constitutes correct practice? > > considering what has been explained or read in the right light, and its > application to the *present* present moment. > > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > > extent > > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > > practice and a > > most significant goal. > > (Sound like there's a major qualification to this coming next!!) > > Is there any better use of the present moment, in your view? > > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > > a greatly > > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > > higher > > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > > just say that > > I believe it is expedient. > > In the realm of mindfulness, there are no expedient techniques, nor any > need for them. Any technique simply serves to take one away from the > present present moment. > > I hope this is to the point. It is to the point, I just disagree. I don't see any reason why sitting to concentrate on the present moment would make the present moment more obscure, nor why practicing something in a 'cool' setting will deprive one of doing it in a more busy 'hot' setting, but rather the contrary, that it will help, nor why training in discernment is any more artificial than reading suttas to try to understand the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha never said that one can only practice 'in the natural setting', did he? I would like to know where in the tradition of abhidhamma the idea that meditation had a negative influence on understanding arose. It seems the opposite of how Buddhist philosophy is generally interpreted. Am I mistaken? > Must fly. Our flight (Samui to BAngkok) has just been called. Apologies > for the rushed message. > > Jon good to talk to you Jon. Best, Robert Ep. 11298 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Dear Jon, I still don't understand how our limitations in discerning dictates against practice. Whether or not we are able to presently discern the reality of each moment from moment to moment, the attempt to do so will lead to greater ability. I know that you don't believe this from what you have said, but still don't understand your reasoning very well. Is it really enough to understand that consciousness is a moment to moment phenomena? *Any* attempt to apply the suttas to daily life can be described as a 'technique', just as meditating may be described as a technique to do the same, and it seems to me that some sort of application, however awkward, is exactly what is called for. If meditating is something I do, it becomes part of daily living, and is therefore at least as eligible for discernment as any other daily activity. Best, Robert Ep. ====================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > Let me continue my reply to your post (working backwards). > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > meditate. It > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > > phone, > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > > that all of > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > > observing a less busy field of experience. ... > > Meditation is ... a concentrated period in which one > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > I am sure that many would share your view that awareness of a presently > appearing reality means or suggests 'following' the mind as it jumps from > one activity to another. Yet I think that is a wholly impossible task, > and not really what the Buddha was describing for the development of the > path. It's true that we can find in the suttas descriptions of all the > different mind-states (and other realities), and how extremely fast these > change from one to the other. But only the likes of a Buddha can ever get > to see the mind on a purely moment-to-moment basis. > > For us, as beginners, it is enough to know that consciousness *is* a > moment-to-moment phenomenom and hence a constantly changing one, so that > we do not assume it to be otherwise. When we read in, say, the > Satipatthana Sutta about awareness of a presently appearing reality (e.g. > seeing or visible object), there is nothing that requires this to be *only > a single moment* of that reality. As I understand, there may be many > moments of awareness of the same object as it arises in an apparently > continuous stream (since we don't have the discernment to see these things > on a moment to moment basis). Initially, it is the characteristic of > being a nama or a rupa, or of appearing through a particular doorway, that > is apparent, rather than its purely momentary nature (not to mention the > even more 'advanced' characteristics of impermanence etc.). > > What I am trying to say, Rob, is that the idea of awareness as involving > or being a function of our focussing on the present moment and following > the activity of the mind needs to be put aside if the true nature of the > presently appearing reality is to be discerned. > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as > > always. Let me > > make a few comments in response to your message. > > > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > > and that > > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > > persists? > > > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > > right view > > and right practice. > > > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > > insight > > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > > clarification of a > > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > > after one > > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > > progress, what > > constitutes correct practice? > > > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > > extent > > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > > practice and a > > most significant goal. > > > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > > a greatly > > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > > higher > > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > > just say that > > I believe it is expedient. > > > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > > no doubt > > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > > promoting > > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > > argue the > > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > > Suttas, > > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > > world > > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > > breath, note > > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > > on > > specific objects of mind. > > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > meditate. It > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > > phone, > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > > that all of > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > > observing > > a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and necessary > > practice? > > Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the > > answer is a > > very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really > > developing a > > satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in some > > way, but I > > don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the case > > if I > > 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one > > concentrates on > > learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is no > > different > > than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in which > > one > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > > meditation is > > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > > seems to > > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > > the > > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > > some > > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > > the suttas > > and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason for > > this, but > > I don't quite understand it at present. > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ================================ > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob Ep > > > > > > From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference > > about > > > the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the > > > question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice > > is > > > intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, > > does it > > > matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in > > the > > > texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) > > > > > > The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from > > experience > > > that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago > > (for > > > example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as > > the > > > product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how > > > honestly held at the time). > > > > > > The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual > > suspects' of > > > ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic > > assessment of > > > our own capabilities. > > > > > > I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps > > in > > > somewhat more disguised form. > > > > > > I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on > > having > > > a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by > > the > > > Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when > > it > > > comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is > > > generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary > > delay > > > to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear > > intellectual > > > grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which > > the > > > Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an > > > indispensable first step. > > > > > > No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the > > moment > > > with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems > > > intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are > > the > > > factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as > > > prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the > > > development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. > > > > > > When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the > > idea of > > > attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to > > be > > > *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply > > the > > > moment, with or without perceived distractions. > > > > > > Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and > > ultimately > > > the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. > > > Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us > > > further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of > > > 'reification' in the abstract. > > > > > > At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has > > any > > > significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The > > fact > > > that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments > > other > > > than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a > > > superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to > > shy > > > away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever > > > pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong > > > view. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, 11299 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > There is much in the following that I agree with, for example the > > > > relevance of motivation and underlying sense urgency for effective > > volition. > > Where we differ is, in part, a matter of emphasis. I detect a flavor of > > "randomness" in your analysis, a randomness tending towards the nihilist > > pole > > of wrong view, whereas my tendency is towards the opposite > > substantialist > > pole of wrong view. But most precisely, where we differ is on the issue > > of > > whether the Buddha provided a training program (my position) or only a > > statement of what conditions foster what results (your apparent > > position). > > I seem to recall that 'trainer of gods and men' is one of the attributes > of a Buddha, so I hesitate to give my unqualified agreement to your > characterisation of our difference! > > Let me just say that I'm not aware of any 'program' laid down by the > Buddha for attaining enlightenment. > > I do, however, see the teachings as making known, and encouraging the > development of, the factors that lead to enlightenment. > > Jon Jon, I'm just picking on you, but how is encouraging the development of a set of specific factors that lead to a given result, different than 'laying down a program'? I think it is more a question of what one's philosophy is. As I read it, your point of view goes something like this [I am standing up so you can knock me down]: 1/ there is no self. 2/ therefore there is no one that has volition. 3/ therefore there is no control. 4/ therefore there can be no program that 'one' engages in to get a result. 5/ therefore taking on mundane efforts like meditating or trying to be mindful in order to progress merely enforces the illusion that there is a volitional ego. 6/ therefore the attempt to make progress makes progress more difficult. 7/ therefore there is only one correct path, and that is to do whatever you are already doing, but see clearly to the extent possible, and without creating a separate effort, to discern the true characteristic of the moment My only problem with this, if it is correct, is that even the attempt to read the suttas and apply one's understanding to the 'naturally occurring moment in daily living' is as much a volitional effort as sitting down to meditate. I don't think there's any way to escape the fact that when we set upon the path to try to transcend the illusion of the self and discern the true nature of the moment, we are using the illusion of the volitional self in order to get rid of the illusion of the volitional self. This paradox, I believe, should be utilized, rather than danced away from. The illusion of passivity when in fact one is trying as hard as possible to find the way to enlightenment seems to me to add another layer of illusion on top of the one we already have. Even if we 'try hard' there is still actually no volitional self. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no 'volition'. Best, Robert Ep. 11300 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact Thanks, Jon. I understand what you're saying to some extent. I would ask you though, do you really consider meditation a neutral activity like any other? It seems like you are against taking up meditation practice. If I am wrong, I just want to get clear that this is really not the case. If it is not the case, then I would think you would say 'well meditate it if you want to, but don't be fooled into thinking that this in itself will guarantee the development of the path factors in you'. Is that the case? It also seems from what you say below, that you consider the Abhidhamma indispensible for correct application of the teachings. Do you believe that those who do not study the Abhidhamma cannot reach enlightenment, even if they are following the Buddha's teachings through the suttas? I personally do not believe there is one and only one correct path and that it must be followed in one specified way or enlightenment cannot be gained. I personally feel that the Buddha's teachings are clearly developed in very different ways in the Tibetan Tradition, in Zen, and most certainly in the Theravadin tradition, which itself has quite a lot of variety in terms of emphasis. My evidence for that is that there are very strong pronouncements of the fruits of enlightenment in all of these traditions over hundreds of years. But of course, one must have 'faith' or some other basis for feeling that these pronouncements are true. Do you believe that the Buddha indicated that the Abhidhamma is the only path that leads to enlightenment, and that the 'Masters' of other traditions are deluded? Best, Robert Ep. ================= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep and later, Howard and Victor > > Thanks for your considered and clearly expressed comments. > > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > > meditation is > > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > > seems to > > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > > the > > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > > some > > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > > the suttas > > and discerning the moment in daily life. > > As far as 'specific practices' are concerned, I don't believe there are > any given by the Buddha, and I include here studying the suttas and > discerning the present moment. > > What the teachings are all about, to my understanding, is the why's and > wherefore's of the means to enlightenment, and the factors that are a > necessary prerequisite for (and precursor of) that enlightenment. > > You mention the Buddha's attitude towards meditation. If by 'meditation' > you mean formal practice of some kind, that could of course be either with > right view or with wrong view ('meditation' itself being a morally neutral > term). So we are back with the same old question of how right view is to > be developed. > > I would like to try and bring in here Victor's post on beings/no beings > and Howard's post on Suttanta vs. Abhidhamma discrepancies. I see a > common thread. > > As Victor points out, the suttas talk about, and in terms of, beings and > individuals. Does this mean beings and individuals exist in the absolute > (fundamental, real) sense and, if not, what does? > > The clear answer provided by the commentaries and abhidhamma is that there > is no such thing as beings or individulas, only namas > (cittas/cetasikas)and rupas. > > Does this mean there is any discrepancy between the suttas and the > abhidhamma? Absolutely not. > > Could the same answer be found in the suttas once we have grasped the > truth of this? Yes, it can, but we wouldn't have seen it just from a > reading of the suttas (no matter how many times or how carefully we read > them). > > Now what applies as regards beings/no beings applies equally to other > asepcts of the teachings also. When we read the suttas we see the Buddha > as talking about: > - beings (individuals like us) > - who exert effort > - and practise the 4 satipattha's > - to develop insight > - so they can follow the Noble Eightfold Path > - until attaining enlightenment. > > As understanding begins to develop, however, we start to realise that what > the Buddha is actually talking about is: > - mere aggregations of namas and rupas (the 5 khandhas) > - mental factors such as viriya (energy) performing their functions > - momentary and unforced awareness (another mental factor) directly > experiencing a reality (any reality) > - the momentary arising of direct knowledge (panna cetasika) of a > presently appearing reality > - a moment of path consciousness (magga citta) at each of 4 levels of > enlightenment [these being the path] > > There are no discrepancies here, only different ways of saying the same > things. > > It is a difficult proposition to accept, but the suttas are way over our > heads in terms of our ability to understand the essential message > conveyed. They were pitched at an audience whose level of attainment was > far beyond our own present level. We need the assistance of the > abhidhamma, the commentaries and, most of all, the kalayana mitta (good > dhamma friend) to understand their true import. > > So whether we are talking about beings, practice or contact, we need to > look beyond the mere words of the suttas. > > Jon > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as > > always. Let me > > make a few comments in response to your message. > > > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong view, > > and that > > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > > persists? > > > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and foster > > right view > > and right practice. > > > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of mindfulness, > > insight > > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > > clarification of a > > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, but > > after one > > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > > progress, what > > constitutes correct practice? > > > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > > extent > > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > > practice and a > > most significant goal. > > > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of meditation is > > a greatly > > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that lead to > > higher > > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > > just say that > > I believe it is expedient. > > > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there is > > no doubt > > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries old, > > promoting > > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One may > > argue the > > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in the > > Suttas, > > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > > world > > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > > breath, note > > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to focus > > on > > specific objects of mind. > > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > meditate. It > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering the > > phone, > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the day, > > that all of > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still and > > observing > > a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and necessary > > practice? > > Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the > > answer is a > > very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really > > developing a > > satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in some > > way, but I > > don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the case > > if I > > 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one > > concentrates on > > learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is no > > different > > than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in which > > one > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > > meditation is > > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand why it > > seems to > > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who follow > > the > > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there is > > some > > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in studying > > the suttas > > and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason for > > this, but > > I don't quite understand it at present. > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ================================ > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob Ep > > > > > > From the context of your post (ie., in reply to my sutta reference > > about > > > the factors for development of insight/for enlightenment), I think the > > > question you are posing for discussion is this: If a form of practice > > is > > > intuitively and self-evidently seen as leading to greater insight, > > does it > > > matter that it varies from the factors for development as stated in > > the > > > texts? (Hope i've not over-stated you here, Rob) > > > > > > The difficulty with this proposition is that we all know from > > experience > > > that what seemed intuitively and self-evidently ‘right’ some time ago > > (for > > > example, at a former stage of our lives) is now seen in hindsight as > > the > > > product of uninformed ideas or misguided aspirations (no matter how > > > honestly held at the time). > > > > > > The explanation for this is I think quite simple; the 'usual > > suspects' of > > > ignorance and wrong view about realities, and an unrealistic > > assessment of > > > our own capabilities. > > > > > > I believe these same factors are still with us today, although perhaps > > in > > > somewhat more disguised form. > > > > > > I know from other threads, Rob, that you place great importance on > > having > > > a thorough conceptual grasp of the nature of nibbana, as explained by > > the > > > Buddha, as a proper basis for the practice. I am not sure why, when > > it > > > comes to the real essentials of practice, conformity with the texts is > > > generally seen as being of less importance, or even an unnecessary > > delay > > > to embarking on so-called ‘actual practice’. Surely a clear > > intellectual > > > grasp of these qualities called mindfulness and insight about which > > the > > > Buddha spoke, and of how those qualities are to be developed, is an > > > indispensable first step. > > > > > > No doubt the idea of 'concentrated and repeated attention to the > > moment > > > with the least amount of distraction', as mentioned in you post, seems > > > intuitively self-evident, but to my knowledge nowhere in the texts are > > the > > > factors of volitional (forced?) effort and a quiet place given as > > > prerequisites, in the sense of *must do’s, must have’s*, for the > > > development of awareness and insight into presently arising realities. > > > > > > When you think about it, there is an inherent inconsistency in the > > idea of > > > attention that is *to the moment* and yet that requires that moment to > > be > > > *with the least amount of distraction*. Surely ‘the moment’ is simply > > the > > > moment, with or without perceived distractions. > > > > > > Actually, what you refer to as distractions are essentially and > > ultimately > > > the same dhammas that we seek to have awareness of and insight into. > > > Seeing them as distractions simply conceptualises them, and takes us > > > further away from the present moment. It is really a kind of > > > 'reification' in the abstract. > > > > > > At one level we can accept that it is only the present moment that has > > any > > > significance as regards awareness of and insight into dhammas. The > > fact > > > that we nevertheless persist in thinking in terms of present moments > > other > > > than the *present* present moment (!) suggests that we have only a > > > superficial appreciation of this. Seeing in ourselves the tendency to > > shy > > > away from understanding the presently appearing reality, on whatever > > > pretext, can be the first step in exposing normally unrecognised wrong > > > view. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, 11301 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Jon, Your explanation was helpful. As wrong as it may be, the way I'm conceiving it at the moment is that the rupa is the endpoint of the nama, where it apprehends what seems to be the object. It is the object pole of the citta whose object is the rupa. Okay, I'm out of chalk. Best, Robert Ep. ============= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > In this and your original post, aren't you addressing the issue from a > > > point of view that implies the reification of the external object (the > > > rock)? Doesn't any reference to an external object, as opposed to the > > > rupa being experienced at the sense-door at the moment of contact with > > > consciousness involve a reification? > > Jon, > > I totally agree. That's my problem. I don't understand how the rupa > > can be seen > > as the separate object of a nama, rather than a nama itself, without > > implicating a > > 'real object' being apprehended by perception in the sense door. Am I > > confused > > about what a rupa is? This keeps coming back to haunt me. If the rupa > > is a > > physical object, it implies a reification. If it is purely a > > sensory/mental > > object, why isn't it included as one of the namas? > > Rupas are neither namas nor physical objects. They are simply put, > realties that do not experience an object. > > But I think that trying to understand intellectually what namas are and > what rupas are can only proceed so far, because it is all conceptual. If > however we are interested in knowing more about the reality of the present > moment, by studying the present moment, then namas and rupas may have more > meaning. Namas and rupas can only really be understood in the context of > the present moment and the momentary experiences through the sense and > mind doors. > > Jon 11302 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Hi Sarah, Apologies in advance for being kind of brusque in this post. Explanation at the end. : ) --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > After a nostalgia post full of lobha to Ranil, let me get back on the > parinibbana track here:-) > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Dan and Sarah, > > The view that the kandhas reach cessation in parinibbana may not be a > > view of > > annihilation of a self that never existed, but it is still an > > annihilationist view > > from the point of view of sentience. > > Well I think that as the quotes I’ve given before have shown clearly, when > the Buddha refers to annihilationist views, they are concerned with self > view and ignorance of the khandhas which are all that exist in actuality. > > If you like, you can refer to the cessation of the khandhas at parinibbana > or even to the cessation of the khandhas now on a moment to moment basis > as annihilation of sentience. However, I don’t beleive this would accord > with the Buddha’s use of the term which is very specific and detailed in > Suttas like the Brahmajala Suttas as well as in commentaries and other > parts of the Tipitaka.. > > > If sentience is said to cease in > > parinibbana, then the one property that is not a convenient fiction but > > actually > > takes place is said to be annihilated. > > I think, with respect, this is your definition of annihilation;-). Then what is your definition of sentience? My view of annihilation is that something is destroyed or made to cease. A cooler term is cessation but means basically the same thing. > > There must be a distinction between awakening and cessation. While > > certain things > > cease in parinibbana, does it make sense for the awakening to cease as > > well? In > > that view, the awake state of nibbana also ceases upon death, and that > > makes > > nibbana dependent on physical existence, a strange contradiction in > > terms. > > I take it that by awakening you mean the experience of nibbana, either at > each stage of enlightenment or just at arahantship. Of course, this > ‘awakening’ is quite different to parinibbana and the cessation of the > khandhas. As we have discussed at length, the enlightened consciousness > and wisdom which expereince nibbana are also momentary. There is no > lasting experience, no lasting nama and no lasting rupa. Just as the experience of ignorance goes on continuously although consisting of many different sequential moments, the experience of 'wakefulness' or enlightenment will go on for many moments once ignorance has been eliminated. The experience of being awake is nothing but the clear seeing of what is when ignorance has been removed, so even though it may occur in individual moments it will continue to occur in one who has been awakened. Certainly we wouldn't say that an arahant or Buddha had alternate moments of being enlightened and deluded since all delusion has been eradicated for him. Even if the experience of 'nibbana' is a one-moment experience [something which I respectfully do not understand from anything I've seen in the suttas] the experience of 'liberation' would be continous after that, even if it occurs from moment to moment. If parinibbana is the cessation of this liberated series of cittas, then what is being made to 'cease' in parinibbana is the flow of enlightened cittas. > We don’t say that nibbana is conditioned or depends on ‘physical > existence’ or anything else, but the namas which experience it do. What is nibbana by the way, if it is a sort of solitary object that is perceived for a moment only by arahants? Where does it exist and how is it upheld when no one is perceiving it? Or does nibbana only come into being as an object at the moment when the arahant reaches the point of being able to discern it? And what is the characteristic of nibbana as an object? I have always thought of nibbana as a state in which ignorance has been removed, not an object. I don't quite understand what kind of object it is meant to be, and why it is an object rather than a state. Without > the experiencing of a reality, can we say it exists, except conceptually, > as just discussed with regard to rupas? > > Hope this clarifies a little. I have to run like Num;-) > > Always good to hear from you, Rob, > Sarah > ======================== Thank you, Sarah. You too. Why is everyone always running? I'm always out of breath myself. I'm sorry I sound kind of mean in this post. I realized midway that it was from you and not from Jon. We've been tough with each other lately [male thing ], but I have a tendency to want to be a little nicer with you. Although I suspect that you are actually just as tough. It's just my delusion as usual. : ) With affection, Robert Ep. 11303 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:32pm Subject: Re: another vote for skillful - Re: [dsg] glossing kusala Hi Sarah, Heh heh. I think Frank's photo must be in by now -- I'm working my way backwards through posts, and guaranteeing I won't get enough sleep tonight..... Well, I'll have to go look. Driver's license will do! Yes, we're united by our drive to fill the photo album with everyone's picture. I may as well come out publicly and say that I'd like Anders to send his pboto over. Anders, are you there? If not I'll have to ask him privately. Hope Kom's has arrived by now...... Best, Rob Ep. ============ --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Rob Ep again, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > P.S. Sarah, Dan has indeed left you holding the bag, as all of the > > 'skillful' [or > > unskillful] arguers leap out of the woodwork. > > > > ============== > > I know.... panic attack;-) Still I have an idea that you, Frank and I are > on the same 'skilful side' - Dan didn't get too many 'wholesome' votes, > though I'm a bit of a 'blow with the breeze' on this issue.....desperate > for an easy life;-) > > We're also very much on the same side when it comes to the photo > album.....I think we'll have to gratefully accept Frank's driving licence > photo as it's such a major concession, even though the convict one would > have added a little more variety to the album. (You don't think he 'owns' > a car as well as a computer, do you?;-)) > > Sarah > > p.s more good news..Kom's photo is on its way to the album....slowly due > to technical probs;-) > ====================================================== 11304 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Thanks Sarah, I will save this and read it slowly. Very interesting. Best, Robert Ep. ==== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks for your > efforts, Sarah. > > I think the main point I'm trying to communicate here is obviously not > > clear, at > > least in the way I'm putting it. > > > > Perhaps you could clarify what is meant by the 'actual' rupa. > > That was a polite way of saying that perhaps I went off the track in a > reply;-) > > I think you would find it useful to read Nina’s very useful (and recently > revised, I believe) booklet on rupas. In particular, I recommend the > introduction at this stage (very short;-): > http://www.dhammastudy.com/Rupas1.html > > Let me quote a little from it: > ***** > “As regards physical phenomena or rupa, there are twentyeight kinds of > rupa in all. Rupas are not merely textbook terms, they are realities which > can be directly experienced. Rupas do not know or experience anything; > they can be known by nama. Rupa arises and falls away, but it does not > fall away as quickly as nama. When a characteristic of rupa such as > hardness impinges on the bodysense it can be experienced through the > bodysense by several cittas arising in succession within a process. But > even though rupa lasts longer than citta, it falls away again, it is > impermanent.” > ***** > > > If that > > is not > > meant to denote an actual object in the 'real' world, but simply a > > present reality > > for perception, then the problem may not be there. > > I think this depends on whether we are discussing what is being > experienced now (and therefore what can be directly known) or whether we > are discussing the rupas which arise and fall regardless of any experience > of them. Again I quote from Nina: > ***** > “There are not only rupas of the body, there are also rupas which are the > material phenomena outside the body. What we take for rocks, plants or > houses are rupas and these originate from temperature. We may wonder > whether there are no other factors apart from the element of heat which > contribute to the growth of plants, such as soil, light and moisture. It > is true that these factors are the right conditions which have to be > present so that a plant can grow. But what we call soil, light and > moisture are, when we are more precise, different compositions of rupas > and none of these could arise without the element of heat or temperature > which is the producing factor. Rupas which are outside the body are only > produced by temperature, not by kamma, citta or nutrition.” > ***** > > > What I have been > > trying to say > > is that a 'reality' may be true as a perceptual experience, but if one > > says > > 'hardness' or some other rupa is 'actual', it seems to imply that it > > exists in the > > 'real world' outside of perception. If nothing beyond the act of > > perception is > > spoken of, then I can see rupa being actual and accurate as a perceptual > > object, > > but not as an object that can be said to really exist. > > > > If that is any clearer, great. If not, I'll let it go for now. : ) > > I see your point (I think;-) and I understand the confusion. In terms of > what is important for the development of understanding, only phenomena > being directly experienced can ever be ‘known’. So hardness is being > experienced now every time there is touching of the keyboard. There may, > therefore, be conditions for its charactristic to be the object of > awareness at this moment. As understanding of its nature develops and as > it becomes more and more apparent that it is a rupa and not self, it > becomes clear that this is the characteristic of hardness regardless of > whether it is being directly known at this moment . > > This is how it must be for others too. By inference also, it becomes > apparent that external objects that had been taken for ‘things’ such as > trees and computers are in fact only collections of rupas, but if there is > no touching or seeing them, it is only thinking (wisely, hopefully) about > them. Gradually, with more direct understanding of those phenomena being > directly experienced, there is more confidence in the other intricate > details which the Buddha described about rupas which is purely > intellectual at this stage. Even if direct insight develops to very high > enlightened levels, some thinking or understanding of phenomena will > continue to be at the intellectual level only. No one could directly > understand all the intricate details as the Buddha did. > > Nina summarises the purpose of studying rupas here: > ***** > “Rupas perform their functions, no matter one dresses oneself, eats, > digests one’s food, moves about, gesticulates, talks to others, in short, > during all one’s activities. If we do not study rupas we may not notice > their characteristics which appear all the time in daily life. We will > continue to be deluded by the outward appearance of things instead of > knowing realities as they are. We should remember that the rupa which is > the “earth-element” or solidity can appear as hardness or softness. > Hardness impinges time and again on the bodysense, no matter what we are > doing. When hardness appears it can be known as only a kind of rupa, be it > hardness of the body or hardness of an external object. In the ultimate > sense it is only a kind of rupa. The detailed study of nama and rupa will > help us to see that there isn’t anything which is “mine” or self. The goal > of the study of the Abhidhamma is the development of wisdom which leads to > the eradication of all defilements.” > ***** > I hope a little more light has got in this time too;-) > > Sarah > ====================================================== 11305 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Feb 14, 2002 11:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] one limb of 8 fold path more important - Anders --- anders_honore wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- anders_honore wrote: > > > > > I am not saying to avoid it. Indeed, I will say that such a > > > perception is extremely skilful. But it is perception > nonetheless, > > > and thus only 'partial emptiness'. > > > > Well, Anders, we're pretty close on this. But still have a > familiar problem with > > eliminating samsara in order to have a pure experience of > emptiness, nibbana, or > > other enlightened qualities. If you say that emptiness is 'full' > or 'partial' > > depending on whether phenomena arise or not, > > I am not talking about the seeing of emptiness in dependence on the > absence of phenomena or not, but in dependence on the absence of > ignorance. Anders, I don't know if you're still around here, but that is a good distinction. Thanks. Robert Ep. 11306 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Watching experiences vs. Right Effort (was, Re: sloth/torpor mental or physical?) Lucy --- Lucy wrote: > Dear Jon > > Ooooh. I'm a bit weak in the "Patience" department... Aren't we all! Oddly enough, this may not be a problem. The realities that the Buddha talked about do not necessarily correspond to their conventional counterparts of the same name, and so it is with patience. A person may have endless patience of the conventional kind but none for the development of understanding of realities, and vice versa. > Seriously now, the expectation for quick results can be a very big > hurdle. > The funny thing is, the results appear in areas one doesn't anticipate, > often we don't even notice there have been "results" > > The other day, I was very happy to discover that I now tend to allow the > car behind to overtake mine without even showing the driver two of my > fingers. Now, that is a very important step for me... Without wishing to be discouraging, Lucy, you may find that this apparent progress is not as settled as you might hope. The understanding of realites is not a means of bringing about radical changes in one's personality, or even of 'dealing with' the grosser defilements. But if it helps to reduce the potential for road rage incidents, hey, keep it up. Jon 11307 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dealing with daily issues Dear Lucy & All, --- Lucy wrote: > > No matter how much we consider, what arises is rarely what one expects So very true and the reason that expectations are so useless, I think. > and/or our way of dealing with what arises often surprises us...No, > "consideration" doesn't really help at all. But it seems to me that > there > is something in the Dhamma that prepares us to deal with issues. It's > like > a gentle, effortless training more than a conscious work-out. Somehow, > when the "issue" arises, we discover that we can deal with it. And we > don't > even need to scratch our head to think: "now where in the suttas did I > read > about a solution to this?" Actually, I think the wise consideration helps a lot, but perhaps your point is that this is not the same as the direct understanding or practice which is maybe what you mean by 'dealing with'here. > > You're right there. It isn't a 'dealing with', it's more > going-along-with...or something like that. But don't you think there is > also a case for going along with the "idea of self 'doing' "? Just > allowing > it to develop and let the "self" bump its ugly head against a wall ot > something? It's just that "self" always has a way to spring up and > surprise - it almost seems more efficient to let "self" suffer the > frustration of being unable to do, so we can learn from its failure. Hmm....perhaps we can say that the moments of seeing "self" bumping its ugly head are moments with some kind of wise attention, but those of going along (with moha-ignorance) of 'self'doing are the reverse. I'd say the sooner panna (understanding) begins to see phenomena as being devoid of the self fantasy the better, otherwise the self will always be doing , bumping and suffering....;-) > There are times when the idea of anicca flashes in front of lobha and > one > is forced to consider how to deal with lobha in the context of impending > anicca. ....... It's useful to consider lobha as anicca, even if it's only thinking about it. Again, I don't think it's so much a matter of dealing with lobha (with any idea of self, control or wishing it away) as of understanding its nature when it arises with detachment. Otherwise it just indicates more clinging to self and hoping for less lobha perhaps, don't you think? > Enjoy your beach holiday! Mudita to all those enjoying beach holidays > !!! > I'm not envious, oh, no, I'm not AT ALL envious.... Lucy, I'm having trouble with the computer I'm at (Mike, if you're around, we're in the internet cafe you showed us in Bkk now), so I think this message which I'm not able to check may be pretty garbled. We enjoyed the beach and appreciated the mudita. I was just discussing issa (envy) with another friend who is moving to the same tropical island for weeks or MONTHS....so I fully appreciate the mixed cittas;-)Except for any lurking sotapannas, we all get tested in this regard. > Lucy > PS I'll have to take up "envy" as next week's cetasika I'll look forward to that anytime;-) Actually the topic came up briefly in our discussion w/K.Sujin this afternoon, so I'll try to add one or two comments when I get back to Hong Kong and a computer I understand. I'm not wishing to test the mudita vs issa, but just to let you know that Christine has also come up to join us again for the weekend and she also raised many useful topics today including death and kamma-vipaka. My patience has run out here, so I'll probably leave the rest til I get home. Sarah ======================== 11308 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:30am Subject: India Ch 2, no 1 India, Ch 2, no. 1: Chapter 2 The Teaching of the Abhidhamma We read in the ³Expositor², the Commentary to ³Buddhist Psychological Ethics, the first of the seven Books of the Abhidhamma (I, Introductory Discourse, 1-4), that the prefix ³abhi² in Abhidhamma is used in the sense of preponderance and distinction. The Abhidhamma exceeds and is distinguished from the other Dhamma, namely the Suttanta. In the Abhidhamma all realities are classified fully and in all details. We read in the ³Introductory Discourse² of the ³Expositor² that the Buddha, during the fourth week after his attainment of Enlightenment, sat in the ³Jewel House², contemplating the seven books of the Abhidhamma. I paid respect at this place when we were in Bodhgaya. Near the Jewel House is a stupa commemorating the cremation place of the great Commentator Buddhaghosa, and I also paid respect there. Buddhaghosa, who lived in the first half of the fifth century A.D. , compiled and translated from Singhalese into Påli the ancient commentarial materials he found in Sri Lanka. He also wrote the ³Visuddhimagga², an Encyclopedia on Buddhism. If the Buddha had not attained enlightenment nobody would know that what we take for a person or self, for things or for the world are only different phenomena which do not last and which are not self or belonging to a self. The Abhidhamma is not theory, it explains everything that is real and that appears in our daily life. Realities that appear in our daily life have each their own characteristic that can be directly known, without having to think about them. The Buddha did not need any words in order to penetrate the truth of realities, but he used words when he explained the truth to others. We read in the Commentary to the ³Dhammapada²( Buddhist Legends, Part 3, Book 14, Story 2) that the Buddha, after having performed the ³Twin miracle²1, ascended the Heaven of the Thirtythree (Tåvatiÿsa) and taught the Abhidhamma for the sake of his mother who had passed away on the seventh day after his birth, as is always the case for the Bodhisatta¹s mother. When the Buddha wished to return to the world of men, Sakka, the King of the Devas, created three ladders: one of gold, one of jewels and one of silver. The devas descended upon the ladder of gold, Mahå-Brahma and his retinue upon the ladder of silver, and the Exalted One himself upon the ladder of jewels. The Buddha came down at the gate of the city Saòkassa. We visited this place and paid respect. We went up the hill that marks the place and there we had a Dhamma discussion. Acharn Sujin reminded us to have patience with regard to the development of the eightfold Path. She said that at the Buddha¹s time there were four kinds of people with different capabilities to grasp the Dhamma. Some people could realize the Truth immediately when they heard the teaching (ugghaìitaññú), others after a more detailed explanation (vipacitaññú), others could gradually realize the truth through advice and questioning, wise consideration and association with a good friend in Dhamma (neyya puggala), and others again did not attain enlightenment, although they had heard much, learnt much, knew many things by heart (pada parama) 3 . The first two types of people do not exist anymore in this world. With regard to the third type of person, it is only after wise consideration of the Dhamma and mindfulness of realities over and over again that he can attain enlightenment. With regard to the fourth type of person, the pada parama, the understanding he has accumulated is not lost, it can lead to the attainment of enlightenment in a future life. We read in the Commentary to the ³Middle Length Sayings² (III, 134, Baddhekaratta Sutta, Discourse on ³One Single Excellent Night² 2), that the Buddha, in the Heaven of Thirtythree, taught the Abhidhamma in alternation with the Baddhekaratta Sutta to the devas who could not penetrate the profound and detailed teaching of the Abhidhamma on rúpa and arúpa (nåma) that have the three characteristics (of dukkha, impermanence and non-self). We read in the ³Bhaddekaratta Sutta of Lomasakaògiya² that the deva Candana approached the venerable Lomasakaògiya and asked him whether he remembered the exposition and analysis of the Baddhekaratta Sutta. It appeared that both of them could not remember this, but Candana remembered the verses. He related that the Buddha had taught these when he dwelled in the Heaven of the Thirtythree. They are the following verses: The past should not be followed after, the future not desired. What is past is got rid of and the future has not come. But whoever has vision now here, now there of a present dhamma, The unmovable, unshakable, let him cultivate it 4 . Swelter at the task this very day. Who knows whether he will die tomorrow? There is no bargaining with the great hosts of Death. Thus abiding ardently, unwearied day and night, He indeed is ³Auspicious² called, described as a sage at peace 5 . The Buddha taught people to develop right understanding of what appears at the present moment, and this is satipatthåna. The Abhidhamma explains in detail all realities of our daily life, and therefore it is very meaningful that he taught in the Heaven of the Thirtythree Abhidhamma in alternation with satipatthåna. During our journey Acharn Sujin reminded us frequently not to follow after the past nor to desire for what has not come yet, but to be aware of what appears now. Seeing, hearing, attachment or aversion fall away immediately, but we keep on thinking of what is past already, or we may wish to be aware of what has not arisen yet. If there is mindfulness of the characteristic of reality that appears now, understanding can grow. 11309 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] kusala is a dhamma op 14-02-2002 08:42 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@y...: > Dear Lucy, > I am very happy to hear about this event. Immediately after > I have read the story, I hear a saying in my head (which A. > Sujin has said more than a few times in the recordings), > that we can see the benefit of hearing and considering > (wisely) the dhamma. > > One the other hand, we should also remind ourself that > kusala is also a dhamma. It is not us, and it is not ours. > It has been conditioned to arise, and it has already fallen > away. Right now there is a dhamma that is rising (maybe > akusala: attachment to the kusala, or ignorance of current > realities), whether or not we know what it truly is is > another question. Further, as long as the wrong view about > self (sakaya-dithi) has not been eradicated completely, > there are still conditions for the flood to sweep us into > the bad rebirths, into the beginningless and endless > samsara. Dear Kom, It seems I can never hear enough that kusala is also a dhamma. It falls away and so how can we hold on to it as my kusala? Thank you for the reminder in this post, and more reminders, maybe from what you heard on the tapes, are most welcome! Nina. 11310 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:30am Subject: metta Dear Christine, You and Lucy are very kind, thank you for your encouraging words. I wanted to tell you already for some time that I found the discussions about metta so helpful. Not directing it towards oneself, but, taking oneself just as an example: how does one like to be treated by others, and in the same way one should treat others. And, the Visuddhimagga states, this is for beginners! Now, I did not expect it, but this proved to me such a good reminder not to forget metta. I think, just because it was discussed over and over again and then you just have to remember it. Best wishes, from Nina. 11311 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] hardness and concept of it op 13-02-2002 22:30 schreef Lucy op selene@c...: > Hello all > > (be warned, this is the "beginner's corner") > > In observing realities, am I right to think that what one sees generally is > more the khandhas than the individual citta, etc.? It seems to me that what > I take to be "citta" is actually a very complex manifestation of > innumerable cittas - more on the lines of "aggregates" (khandas) than as > single realities. Even isolating rupa from concept of rupa seems almost > impossible to my mind - what I notice as "hardness", etc. is already > elaborated into something quite different from plain hardness - it's more > like "hardness" + sanna + vedana + vinnana, +/- recollection of & > comparison with other experiences of "hardness" and even expectations of > "hardness" becoming softer and warmer...instead of looking at one door, I'm > looking at a whole building plus the surrounding gardens, parks and > streets... Dear Lucy, when you see the whole building there is a reality, it could not appear if there were no citta that thinks. Thus, thinking is then the reality at that moment, not you who thinks. If we try to separate realities or isolate them, well, that is not satipatthana. As A. Sujin often says, satipatthana should arise naturally and just be aware of what appears, we cannot expect to have clear understanding in the beginning, I join you here in this beginner's corner. Jon just now explained it so clearly, that it is impossible to try to isolate one citta. He also recently said that we do not have great doses of patience and want to see results. It is good to be reminded of this. There are namas and rupas, nama cognizes or knows, rupa does not know anything. Hardness does not know that it is touched. You do not need words to experience hardness, it has a characteristic. Of course, there is thinking about it, but are there not in between also moments without thinking? You do not think non-stop. But it will not help to try to catch different moments, there is self again. > L: So, I wonder, does the practice of satipathana lead to discriminating > individual realities? What's the process by which the aggregates > disaggregate and an individual citta or rupa becomes manifest? > Or is this a stupid question? > N: Not at all stupid, it is very good to discuss such points, we can all benefit. We heard many times in India that considering the realities of our life will condition the arising of sati, provided we do not try having it. We do not have to think of satipatthana, it will arise because of its own conditions. Even just intellectual understanding of the fact that life is only one moment of citta that falls away immediately and is succeeded by the next one is helpful. It can prevent us from thinking, I am kusala, I am akusala, I am happy, I am unhappy. Thus, you do not have to sit still doing nothing, waiting for sati. So many moments of life that can be considered. Take for instance kamma and vipaka. We would like to help others, but they are beyond help, we cannot do anything. Then the brahmavihara of upekkha, evenmindedness can be developed by considering that unpleasant vipaka has conditions for its arising, that kamma brings its appropriate result, that nobody can pprevent this. If we really understand this, it will help us not to have aversion. I just listened to tapes about the brahma viharas, divine abidings, that Jaran was so kind to give me. Then there is envy cetasika you like to consider. Its opposite is sympathetic joy. It is easy to have sympathetic joy for our friends Sarah and Jon, having a vacation on the beach. They do so much for us every day, without expecting praise or gain. These are the perfections of dana and metta. They are perfections when you do not wish anything for yourself. Anumodana to them. But there are also people who are less sympathetic to us, is it not more difficult to rejoice when they have something pleasant like praise or honour? Here are just some thoughts, best wishes from Nina. 11312 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 6:30pm Subject: Fwd: Looking ahead and looking aside : Question: In what sense is my intention to look at the tree through the window a free choice to look at the tree outside the window? Can't one choose / change, as it were, their cetanas? How one have done otherwise when seeing the tree is a vipakacitta? ============================ I give some background info. before discussing Stephens question. I meander a bit so you might need to re-ask the question based on this post. Cetana: usually translated as intention Vipakacitta: vipaka- result; citta - the chief in knowing an object. Thus vipaka citta is a moment conditioned by kamma done in the past (either in this life or past lives). In the Abhidhamma there are 4 types of cittas: Vipaka(result), kiriya , akusala (unwholesome) and kusala (wholesome). In a process of cittas that experiences an object such as visible object only one moment is vipaka, result. The rest are of the other types of citta (not the result of kamma). The vipaka is like a flash and then many, many more moments that are not vipaka. Now that very insignificant vipaka citta is certainly conditioned by kamma, that is by kamma done at an earlier time in the same life or in previous lives. However, even that vipaka is not conditioned solely by kamma. The Sammohavinodani, chapter on Paticcasamuppada (PTS)p181 notes that there is no single fruit from a single cause: "for here there is no single nor multiple fruit of any kind from a single cause, nor is there a single fruit from multiple causes, but only multiple fruit from multiple causes. BUT with one representative fruit and cause given thus 'avijja paccaya vinnana' etc. For the blessed one uses one representative cause and fruit when it is suitable for elegance in teaching and to suit the inclinations of those being taught. And he does so in some instances because it is a basic factor and in some instances because it is obvious and in some instances because of being not shared"...."he mentioned a single cause in the passage 'diseases due to phlegm' because of obviousness,for here it is phlegm that is obvious, not kamma and so on."" So to sum up even vipakacitta is not solely conditioned by kamma. When we look at a tree what happens? Perhaps the tree just happens to be in our line of sight and we have no intention to look at it and don't think about it at all. Nevertheless whether there is thinking about it or not one knows that this is a tree. How is it possible to know something without thinking about it? This is because the processes of mind that occur after the seeing are happening very fast and so concepts are formed up even before they are crystalised into thoughts (by thoughts here I mean words). Thus even animals know who their children are, which food tastes better etc. Or perhaps we turn our head slightly, fix our gaze for a few seconds, remember the name of the tree or realise that we don't know the name of the tree (in my case). Here intention is apparent and I think this is where the importance of Stephen's question will show. In the Satipatthana sutta the Buddha spoke about clear comprehension (Sati and sampajanna): "And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, in going forwards (and) in going backwards, is a person practising clear comprehension; in looking straight on (and) in looking away from the front, is a person practising clear comprehension; in bending and in stretching, is a person practising clear comprehension; in wearing the shoulder-cloak, the robes (and) the bowl, is a person practising clear comprehension; in regard to what is eaten, drunk, chewed and savoured, is a person practising clear comprehension; in defecating and in urinating, is a person practising clear comprehension; in walking, in standing, in sitting, in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a person practising clear comprehension."endquote Notice that "looking straight on and in looking away" is included among the opportunties where sati and sampajanna (comprehension) can arise. What then is meant by sati sampajanna? The samanaphala sutta commentary (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship). notes that there are 4 types of sampajanna 1)puposefulness, 2)suitabilty, 3)resort, and 4)non-delusion -amoha , panna. Number 3, resort, has two meanings: one as "clearly comprehending the resort for ones almsround(for example)" and the other as comprehending the resort of ones meditation subject. On p116 it says "therefore those practising here with with the aggregates, elements and bases as their meditation subjects should look ahead and look aside by way of their own meditation subject: those practising such meditation subjects as the kasinas should look ahead and look aside keeping their meditation subject in mind." A couple of points here: One - that gocara , resort, has levels of meaning. Two- a distinction made between those who are developing samattha and those who are developing vipassana (the object of vipassana is the agggregates, elements or bases - paramattha dhammas). This should not be taken to mean that those who develop vipassana should be so fixed on the khandas etc. that they exclude any samatha. As when one sees people, for example, there can be moments of metta or karuna. Or if one sees a dead body moments where this is taken as an object for reflection. Likewise one who is developing samatha, if he attains jhana, upon leaving the state of jhana can insight those pleasant moments directly as simply dhammas. The same page says " Clear comprehension of non-delusion here is understanding thus "internally there is no self which looks ahead and looks aside. When the thought 'let me look ahead' arises , the mind -originated air element arise together with the thought, producing intimation....." It carries on giving more and more details about mind processes, all to show that there is no-self, only fleeting conditioned phenomena. This is comprehension as non-delusion, asammoha-sampajanna. I guess this has been a rather detailed email that will turn quite a few people off. I find such details helpful though as it helps me to bring attention to what is really occuring . For example, now I push the keys on the computer. But by considering the words from the commentary I am reminded that in fact there is no self who is doing this; that conditioned by the thought (which was itself conditioned) arose the diffusion of the air element that allowed the hand to push the correct(or incorrect) buttons. And the same when I look at the screen, or look away from the screen. And for that matter just now I looked out of my office window at some trees. Stephen's question helped that experience to be just a fraction more insightful than it usually is. This type of understanding can, of course, be rather superficial, just mere lipservice and thinking, but sometimes it can go to the bone, then words are not needed. On page 88 the commentary says "since this Dhamma is deep in doctrine and deep in teaching, listen carefully. Since it is deep in meaning and deep in penetration, attend to it carefully". best wishes robert 11313 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) (III) Rob Ep Thanks for this and the (many) other posts you have sent recently. Back with a vengeance!! --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > In the realm of mindfulness, there are no expedient techniques, nor > any > > need for them. Any technique simply serves to take one away from the > > present present moment. > > > > I hope this is to the point. > > It is to the point, I just disagree. I don't see any reason why sitting > to > concentrate on the present moment would make the present moment more > obscure, nor > why practicing something in a 'cool' setting will deprive one of doing > it in a > more busy 'hot' setting, but rather the contrary, that it will help, nor > why > training in discernment is any more artificial than reading suttas to > try to > understand the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha never said that one can > only > practice 'in the natural setting', did he? There are 2 separate points here which i perhaps did not sufficiently distinguish in my earlier reply (above). The first is that sitting concentrating on the present moment is something that anyone can do. It may or may not be wholesome but it certainly can not be equated with awareness of a presently arising reality. The second is that *having the idea* that sitting concentrating etc is the way in which awareness is best developed necessarily implies, whether or not consciously recognised or acknowledged, the idea that there is a *better time/place/occasion than this very moment* in which realities ccan be directly experienced. This is what I meant by the reference to expedient techniques taking one away from the present moment. > I would like to know where in the tradition of abhidhamma the idea that > meditation > had a negative influence on understanding arose. It seems the opposite > of how > Buddhist philosophy is generally interpreted. Am I mistaken? I don't believe this represents anything I've said, Rob. I have simply tried to distinguish between *awareness of a presently arising reality* and *(sitting) concentrating on the present moment*. Good to have your input again, Rob. Jon (Bangkok) 11314 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 9:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > I still don't understand how our limitations in discerning dictates > against > practice. Whether or not we are able to presently discern the reality > of each > moment from moment to moment, the attempt to do so will lead to greater > ability. > I know that you don't believe this from what you have said, but still > don't > understand your reasoning very well. I think you are saying that- a. The path taught by the Buddha involves seeing clearly each moment-to-moment reality as it arises; and b. The way this seeing clearly is developed is by concentrating on the present moment. I believe that (a) above is not what we are taught as the path. I think what we are told is that our ignorance and wrong view about realities has to be dispelled. This implies *sufficiently* knowing realites so that there is no longer any room for doubt about the matter. As to (b), I can only repeat the comments in my post of a minute ago. Concentrating on the present moment is concentrating with existing misconceptions and preconceptions. Awareness does not arise just because we have sat down to concentrate on things. Jon > Is it really enough to understand that consciousness is a moment to > moment > phenomena? *Any* attempt to apply the suttas to daily life can be > described as a > 'technique', just as meditating may be described as a technique to do > the same, > and it seems to me that some sort of application, however awkward, is > exactly what > is called for. If meditating is something I do, it becomes part of > daily living, > and is therefore at least as eligible for discernment as any other daily > activity. As I said in an earlier post to you-- >> As far as 'specific practices' are concerned, I don't believe there are >> any given by the Buddha, and I include here studying the suttas and >> 'discerning the present moment'. > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ====================== > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep > > > > Let me continue my reply to your post (working backwards). > > > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > > meditate. It > > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering > the > > > phone, > > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the > day, > > > that all of > > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still > and > > > observing a less busy field of experience. ... > > > Meditation is ... a concentrated period in which one > > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > > > I am sure that many would share your view that awareness of a > presently > > appearing reality means or suggests 'following' the mind as it jumps > from > > one activity to another. Yet I think that is a wholly impossible > task, > > and not really what the Buddha was describing for the development of > the > > path. It's true that we can find in the suttas descriptions of all > the > > different mind-states (and other realities), and how extremely fast > these > > change from one to the other. But only the likes of a Buddha can ever > get > > to see the mind on a purely moment-to-moment basis. > > > > For us, as beginners, it is enough to know that consciousness *is* a > > moment-to-moment phenomenom and hence a constantly changing one, so > that > > we do not assume it to be otherwise. When we read in, say, the > > Satipatthana Sutta about awareness of a presently appearing reality > (e.g. > > seeing or visible object), there is nothing that requires this to be > *only > > a single moment* of that reality. As I understand, there may be many > > moments of awareness of the same object as it arises in an apparently > > continuous stream (since we don't have the discernment to see these > things > > on a moment to moment basis). Initially, it is the characteristic of > > being a nama or a rupa, or of appearing through a particular doorway, > that > > is apparent, rather than its purely momentary nature (not to mention > the > > even more 'advanced' characteristics of impermanence etc.). > > > > What I am trying to say, Rob, is that the idea of awareness as > involving > > or being a function of our focussing on the present moment and > following > > the activity of the mind needs to be put aside if the true nature of > the > > presently appearing reality is to be discerned. > > > > Jon > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > Thanks for your response. I appreciate your clear explanation as > > > always. Let me > > > make a few comments in response to your message. > > > > > > 1/ I think it's correct to say that everyone starts with wrong > view, > > > and that > > > wrong view continues to one extent or another as long as ignorance > > > persists? > > > > > > 2/ Then the question is, what to do to correct wrong view and > foster > > > right view > > > and right practice. > > > > > > 3/ Clearly, reading suttas and understanding the nature of > mindfulness, > > > insight > > > and wisdom is very important, with or without the support and > > > clarification of a > > > qualified teacher, which is better than not having one! > > > > > > 4/ Then the question is, during this period of relative delusion, > but > > > after one > > > has been convinced of the basic truth of the dhamma and wants to > > > progress, what > > > constitutes correct practice? > > > > > > 5/ To hedge my bets, I would say that practicing mindfulness to the > > > extent > > > possible at each moment in daily life is both a most significant > > > practice and a > > > most significant goal. > > > > > > 6/ I also believe that relatively undistracted periods of > meditation is > > > a greatly > > > expedient technique for achieving progress in the qualities that > lead to > > > higher > > > attainments. I will leave aside whether it is necessary or not, and > > > just say that > > > I believe it is expedient. > > > > > > If I had come up with this idea myself, I might doubt it, but there > is > > > no doubt > > > that there is a great tradition in Buddhism that is many centuries > old, > > > promoting > > > meditative practices as a core essential of the Buddhist path. One > may > > > argue the > > > extent to which Buddha promoted meditation as an expedient means in > the > > > Suttas, > > > but there is no doubt that Buddhists in many traditions all over the > > > world > > > practice mindfulness and insight meditation, whether they follow the > > > breath, note > > > the breath, attempt to observe arising experiences, or attempt to > focus > > > on > > > specific objects of mind. > > > > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > > meditate. It > > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering > the > > > phone, > > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the > day, > > > that all of > > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still > and > > > observing > > > a less busy field of experience. Is the former a worthy and > necessary > > > practice? > > > Yes. Does meditation help to develop this potentiality? To me the > > > answer is a > > > very big yes. One can argue that I may be fooling myself and really > > > developing a > > > satisfying sense of progress while really increasing ignorance in > some > > > way, but I > > > don't see why that would be the case, any more than it might be the > case > > > if I > > > 'thought' I was becoming more discerning in daily life. If one > > > concentrates on > > > learning something in general, one learns it faster. Meditation is > no > > > different > > > than any other study in that sense, it is a concentrated period in > which > > > one > > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > > > > > I don't think there is anywhere in the suttas where Buddha says that > > > meditation is > > > a negative or delusory practice. So I find it hard to understand > why it > > > seems to > > > be taken as a negative to some extent by yourself and others who > follow > > > the > > > Abhidhamma. Am I wrong that this is the case? It seems that there > is > > > some > > > caution in doing a specific practice that is not included in > studying > > > the suttas > > > and discerning the moment in daily life. Perhaps there is a reason > for > > > this, but > > > I don't quite understand it at present. > > > > > > I look forward to your response. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert Ep. > > > > > > ================================ > > > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: 11315 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 9:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Rob Ep Continuing (with apologies for the jumble at the end of the previous post) > Is it really enough to understand that consciousness is a moment to > moment > phenomena? *Any* attempt to apply the suttas to daily life can be > described as a > 'technique', just as meditating may be described as a technique to do > the same, > and it seems to me that some sort of application, however awkward, is > exactly what > is called for. I pretty much agree with this observation. As I said in an earlier post to you-- >> As far as 'specific practices' are concerned, I don't believe there are >> any given by the Buddha, and I include here studying the suttas and >> 'discerning the present moment'. It's nice to know we can find something to agree on! > If meditating is something I do, it becomes part of > daily living, > and is therefore at least as eligible for discernment as any other daily > activity. No-one is telling anyone they shouldn't meditate. The discussion is about how the Buddha's teaching is to be correctly read/interpreted. Jon 11316 From: egberdina Date: Fri Feb 15, 2002 11:16pm Subject: Update Hi all, Just to let you know that I am now officially unemployed, and am very busy setting up my own business. (computer network support) I'll try and duck in for a peek when I can. Something I've been pondering lately. "The appreciation of wholeness comes only through acceptance, for to analyze means to break down or separate out. The attempt to understand totality by breaking it down is clearly the characteristically contradictory approach of the ego to everything". Be good :-) Herman 11317 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Update Herman Thanks for sharing your news. I had noticed your absence. Sorry to hear that your fears about the job have now been realised. I'm sure everyone here joins me in wishing you success in your new business venture. Do drop in amd say hello whenever you have time. --- egberdina wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to let you know that I am now officially unemployed, and am very > busy setting up my own business. (computer network support) > > I'll try and duck in for a peek when I can. > > Something I've been pondering lately. "The appreciation of wholeness > comes only through acceptance, for to analyze means to break down or > separate out. The attempt to understand totality by breaking it down > is clearly the characteristically contradictory approach of the ego > to everything". The goal is to understand reality, not totality. The problem is lack of discernment of reality (not lack of discernment of totality). My two cents. Jon I'm a seeking a Enter city or ZIP Age: to Show only profiles with photos 11318 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > The obstacles to the development of mindfulness and clear > comprehension > > are ignorance and wrong view, as I understand it. If there is a > proper > > grasp of the details of the teaching on mindfulness, there is no > reason it > > should not arise even during times of strong anger or attachment > (although > > not of course at the same precise moment). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This isn't my experience. Moreover, I don't see the Buddha as > having > put so much emphasis on Right Concentration, defined as attaining the > first 4 > jhanas, and including it as part of the 8-fold path for no reason. > ---------------------------------------------------------- You raise the question of the rationale for the emphasis on Right Concentration and its inclusion in the Noble Eightfold Path. The emphasis I observe is concentration as only 1 of 8 factors that arise together and each perform their repective functions at the moment of supramundane path consciousness (magga citta) or as 1 of 5 factors arising together at moment of mundane path consciousness (vipassana bhavana/insight). At moments of magga citta the concentration factor is said to have its effect with a force corresponding to the (mundane) jhana citta, as described in the 'definition' you refer to. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > I note the distinction you imply between actual mindfulness and a > > 'mindfulness practice'. But is this something mentioned in the > suttas? > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a program of practice, > mindfulness > practice, the aim of which is the cultivation of insight. > ---------------------------------------------------------- I would be interested to know which part of the sutta you see as referring to a practice preparatory to mindfulness, rather than to the actual arising of mindfulness > > Likewise as regards the idea of the peace of samatha extending beyond > > actual periods of samatha and somehow contributing to the 'mindfulness > > practice'. Is this something you see as being consonant with any > > particular part of the teachings, or is it perhaps based on personal > > experience (yours or others'; just wanting to clarify, and hope you > don't > > mind me asking, Howard)? > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is part of my experience that calm supports mindfulness and > mindfulness supports calm, and the cultivation of calm was a central > part of > the practice taught by the Buddha .. again, and again, and again. > --------------------------------------------------------- The cultivation of calm to the highest levels of jhana was practised before the Buddha's enlightenment. Also prevalent were the understanding of kamma/vipaka (one of the 'definitions' of Right View) and the kind of volitinal effort you consider to be Right Effort as 'defined'. It seems a necessary implication of this view of things that the eightfold path factors were being developed even *before* the Buddha's enlightenment; at the very least, those who had already attained jhana would have been on the verge of enlightenment. Is this a fair comment on what you have said, Howard? Jon 11319 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 4:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Howard > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > There is much in the following that I agree with, for example > the > > > > > > relevance of motivation and underlying sense urgency for effective > > > volition. > > > Where we differ is, in part, a matter of emphasis. I detect a flavor > of > > > "randomness" in your analysis, a randomness tending towards the > nihilist > > > pole > > > of wrong view, whereas my tendency is towards the opposite > > > substantialist > > > pole of wrong view. But most precisely, where we differ is on the > issue > > > of > > > whether the Buddha provided a training program (my position) or only > a > > > statement of what conditions foster what results (your apparent > > > position). > > > > I seem to recall that 'trainer of gods and men' is one of the > attributes > > of a Buddha, so I hesitate to give my unqualified agreement to your > > characterisation of our difference! > > > > Let me just say that I'm not aware of any 'program' laid down by the > > Buddha for attaining enlightenment. > > > > I do, however, see the teachings as making known, and encouraging the > > development of, the factors that lead to enlightenment. > > > > Jon > > Jon, I'm just picking on you, but how is encouraging the development of > a set of > specific factors that lead to a given result, different than 'laying > down a > program'? I think it is more a question of what one's philosophy is. No problem, Rob. I'm going to pass this one to Howard, since the distinction was his in the first place (see above) ;-) ;-). > As I read it, your point of view goes something like this [I am standing > up so you > can knock me down]: > > 1/ there is no self. > 2/ therefore there is no one that has volition. > 3/ therefore there is no control. > 4/ therefore there can be no program that 'one' engages in to get a > result. > 5/ therefore taking on mundane efforts like meditating or trying to be > mindful in > order to progress merely enforces the illusion that there is a > volitional ego. > 6/ therefore the attempt to make progress makes progress more > difficult. > 7/ therefore there is only one correct path, and that is to do whatever > you are > already doing, but see clearly to the extent possible, and without > creating a > separate effort, to discern the true characteristic of the moment The above is mostly correct as a statement of my understanding of what is found in the teachings (rather than being a view reached by means of steps 1-7 or the like) > My only problem with this, if it is correct, is that even the attempt to > read the > suttas and apply one's understanding to the 'naturally occurring moment > in daily > living' is as much a volitional effort as sitting down to meditate. I > don't think > there's any way to escape the fact that when we set upon the path to try > to > transcend the illusion of the self and discern the true nature of the > moment, we > are using the illusion of the volitional self in order to get rid of the > illusion > of the volitional self. This paradox, I believe, should be utilized, > rather than > danced away from. The illusion of passivity when in fact one is trying > as hard as > possible to find the way to enlightenment seems to me to add another > layer of > illusion on top of the one we already have. Even if we 'try hard' there > is still > actually no volitional self. That doesn't necessarily mean that there > is no > 'volition'. The fact of what we call volitional effort is not in dispute, Rob. The equating of right effort with that volitional effort is what I have taken issue with. Jon 11320 From: Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Update Hi, Herman - In a message dated 2/16/02 2:16:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Just to let you know that I am now officially unemployed, and am very > busy setting up my own business. (computer network support) > ============================= I hope it goes wonderfully for you! All the best, and 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) 11321 From: Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi, Jon - I'll try to briefly answer the heart of what I believe you are asking me in the following. I agree that the cultivation of calm, ALONE, could be practiced for lifetime after lifetime without liberation resulting. It is, as you say, only a part of the practice, and far from sufficient. But the Buddha incorporated into his practice many already extant practices when he deemed them important. (In fact, in at least one sutta he said something to the effect that whatever is conducive to liberation is part of his teaching.) In any case, as an example, in the Majjhima Nikaya, the the number of times that mastering the first four jhanas is urged by the Buddha probably exceeds any other individual teaching. I don't understand why there is resistance to this part of the teaching by you and some others. As far as my characterization of the Satipatthana Sutta as a "training manual" rather than as a purely descriptive work, all I can say is that this is totally obvious to me. However, I understand that the opposite is totally obvious to you! So we will just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Another, more general issue, it seems, on which we shall have to "agree to disagree" is that of applying effort to engage in specific practices in order to cultivate various factors. You seem to see this as either unimportant or impossible. I see the not making of an effort to engage in specific cultivational practices as leaving one in the position of any non-practitioner, and, by default, tossed about on the waves of desire and aversion - led by craving and ignorance, a helpless victim of past kamma and accumulations. I do understand that you do not see it that way. With metta, Howard (Your post follows without further comment.) In a message dated 2/16/02 6:46:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > > The obstacles to the development of mindfulness and clear > > comprehension > > > are ignorance and wrong view, as I understand it. If there is a > > proper > > > grasp of the details of the teaching on mindfulness, there is no > > reason it > > > should not arise even during times of strong anger or attachment > > (although > > > not of course at the same precise moment). > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > This isn't my experience. Moreover, I don't see the Buddha as > > having > > put so much emphasis on Right Concentration, defined as attaining the > > first 4 > > jhanas, and including it as part of the 8-fold path for no reason. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > You raise the question of the rationale for the emphasis on Right > Concentration and its inclusion in the Noble Eightfold Path. > > The emphasis I observe is concentration as only 1 of 8 factors that arise > together and each perform their repective functions at the moment of > supramundane path consciousness (magga citta) or as 1 of 5 factors arising > together at moment of mundane path consciousness (vipassana > bhavana/insight). > > At moments of magga citta the concentration factor is said to have its > effect with a force corresponding to the (mundane) jhana citta, as > described in the 'definition' you refer to. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I note the distinction you imply between actual mindfulness and a > > > 'mindfulness practice'. But is this something mentioned in the > > suttas? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a program of practice, > > mindfulness > > practice, the aim of which is the cultivation of insight. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I would be interested to know which part of the sutta you see as referring > to a practice preparatory to mindfulness, rather than to the actual > arising of mindfulness > > > > Likewise as regards the idea of the peace of samatha extending beyond > > > actual periods of samatha and somehow contributing to the 'mindfulness > > > practice'. Is this something you see as being consonant with any > > > particular part of the teachings, or is it perhaps based on personal > > > experience (yours or others'; just wanting to clarify, and hope you > > don't > > > mind me asking, Howard)? > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > It is part of my experience that calm supports mindfulness and > > mindfulness supports calm, and the cultivation of calm was a central > > part of > > the practice taught by the Buddha .. again, and again, and again. > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > The cultivation of calm to the highest levels of jhana was practised > before the Buddha's enlightenment. Also prevalent were the understanding > of kamma/vipaka (one of the 'definitions' of Right View) and the kind of > volitinal effort you consider to be Right Effort as 'defined'. > > It seems a necessary implication of this view of things that the eightfold > path factors were being developed even *before* the Buddha's > enlightenment; at the very least, those who had already attained jhana > would have been on the verge of enlightenment. > > Is this a fair comment on what you have said, Howard? > > Jon > /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) 11322 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:02am Subject: India, Ch 2, no. 2 India, Ch 2, no. 2 The Buddha taught that what we take for a person are in reality mental phenomena, nåma, and physical phenomena, rúpa. Seeing or hearing are nåmas, they experience something, they experience an object. Seeing experiences what is visible, colour or visible object. Hearing is quite different from seeing, it experiences sound. Visible object is rúpa, a physical phenomenon that does not experience anything. Visible object impinges on the eyesense that is also rúpa. Eyesense does not experience anything but it is a condition for seeing. Both visible object and eyesense are conditions for seeing. In the same way sound and earsense are conditions for hearing, odour and smellingsense for smelling, flavour and tastingsense for tasting, tangible object and bodysense for body-consciousness. The five senses are rúpas that are called the doorways through which the relevant sense objects, that are rúpas, are experienced. Through the mind-door all kinds of nåma and rúpa can be experienced. We are inclined to cling to a concept of self who is seeing, hearing or thinking, but in reality there are different moments of consciousness, cittas, that experience one object at a time and that do not last. When hearing arises there cannot be seeing at the same time. We cling to an idea of our body that belongs to us, but in reality the body consists of different kinds of physical phenomena, rúpas, that arise and fall away. When we were in the Jeta Grove we saw gardeners at work who were gathering grass and sticks, just as in the Buddha¹s time. Later on Acharn Sujin reminded us of the Sutta in the ³Kindred Sayings² about grass and sticks that are gathered and then burnt. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(IV, Salåyatana vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch 5, §101, Not yours) that the Buddha said: ŒWhat is not of you, monks, put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. And what, monks, is not of you? The eye, monks, is not of you. Put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. Objects are not of you... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that pleasant or unpleasant or indifferent feeling which arises owing to eye-contact... Tongue is not yours...mind, mental objects, etc. are not yours. Put them away. Putting them away will be for your profit and welfare. Just as if, monks, a man should gather, burn or do what he likes with all the grass, all the sticks, branches and stalks in this Jeta Grove, pray, would he say ³This man is gathering, is burning us, doing what he pleases with us²? ¹ ŒSurely not, lord.¹ ŒWhy not?¹ ŒBecause, lord, this is not our self, nor of the nature of self.¹ ŒEven so, monks, the eye is not of you. Put it away. Putting it away will be for your profit and welfare. Objects and the rest are not of you. Put them away. Putting them away will be for your profit and welfare.¹ Grass and sticks are physical phenomena, they are rúpas outside that are not part of the body, they do not belong to anyone. However, also the rúpas of the body do not belong to us, they arise because of the appropriate conditions and then they fall away. When right understanding is developed all objects can be seen as non-self, anattå, and there can be detachment from the concept of self. 11323 From: Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 2/16/02 11:45:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, Jon - > > I'll try to briefly answer the heart of what I believe you are > asking > me in the following. I agree that the cultivation of calm, ALONE, could be > practiced for lifetime after lifetime without liberation resulting. It is, > as > you say, only a part of the practice, and far from sufficient. But the > Buddha > incorporated into his practice many already extant practices when he deemed > > them important. (In fact, in at least one sutta he said something to the > effect that whatever is conducive to liberation is part of his teaching.) > In > any case, as an example, in the Majjhima Nikaya, the the number of times > that > mastering the first four jhanas is urged by the Buddha probably exceeds any > > other individual teaching. I don't understand why there is resistance to > this > part of the teaching by you and some others. > As far as my characterization of the Satipatthana Sutta as a > "training > manual" rather than as a purely descriptive work, all I can say is that > this > is totally obvious to me. However, I understand that the opposite is > totally > obvious to you! So we will just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. > Another, more general issue, it seems, on which we shall have to "agree to > disagree" is that of applying effort to engage in specific practices in > order > to cultivate various factors. You seem to see this as either unimportant or > > impossible. I see the not making of an effort to engage in specific > cultivational practices as leaving one in the position of any > non-practitioner, and, by default, tossed about on the waves of desire and > aversion - led by craving and ignorance, a helpless victim of past kamma > and > accumulations. I do understand that you do not see it that way. ==================================== To say a drop more, I've pasted below part of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (from the Digha Nikaya) to which I add a comment or two: "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. "And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. "And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The preceding could be taken either descriptively or prescriptively, although 'abstaining' usually suggests intentional action. ----------------------------------------------------------- "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The expressions 'generates desire', 'endeavors', 'arouses, upholds & exerts his intent' strike me as unambigiously indicating intentional effort. ------------------------------------------------------------- "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The definition here of what constitutes "right concentration" strikes me as rather clear and unambiguous. Moreover, it constitutes a relatively large part of the sutta. -------------------------------------------------------------------- "This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress. ================================= 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) 11324 From: egberdina Date: Sat Feb 16, 2002 2:45pm Subject: Re: Update Dear Jon, Thank you for your kind words. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: H: > > Something I've been pondering lately. "The appreciation of wholeness > > comes only through acceptance, for to analyze means to break down or > > separate out. The attempt to understand totality by breaking it down > > is clearly the characteristically contradictory approach of the ego > > to everything". J: > The goal is to understand reality, not totality. The problem is lack of > discernment of reality (not lack of discernment of totality). > > My two cents. If I have understood him correctly, then Robert K has recently been emphasising the reality that nothing has a single cause. There is multiplicity of causes and effects at all times. A single step of the paticcasma..... (well you know what I mean) in isolation is meaningless. Any one of the four noble truths in isolation is useless. One division of the noble eightfold path leads nowhere. Still, I accept what you are saying to be so. And I believe totality to be equivalent to reality. An understanding of components is by necessity conceptual and atta in nature. (IMHO) All the best Herman 11325 From: Lucy Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Away for a week Dear All Thanks very much Nina, Larry, Kom, Sarah, Jon for your comments. Much to think about there - which I'll do this week while away from home and probably unable to log on the internet much. Have a wonderful week! Lucy 11326 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 1:06am Subject: Fwd: paticcasamuppada iv (the six doors, volitional effort) Dear group, A little more on Dependent Origination The Samyutta nikaya ii ch xii, 1 ?EAnd what, bhikkhus is dependent origination? With ignorance (avijja) as condition, volitional formations(sankharas) come to be, with volitional formations as condition, consciousness(vinnana); with consciousness as condition, mentality and materiality (nama and rupa); with mentality and materiality as condition the six sense bases (salayatana); with the six sense bases as condition contact (phassa), with contact as condition, feeling (vedana); with feeling as condition, craving (tanha); with craving as condition, grasping (upadana); with clinging as condition, becoming (bhava); with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus is called dependent origination." This pithy explanation by the Buddha describes what life really is. These are elements that make up our?Elife. They are occurring now but usually we are ignorant (avijja -the first link) of the factors. And because of this ignorance comes the view that "I"?Eexist, that feeling is mine or eye is mine, or that "I"?Eam seeing, hearing, tasting, thinking. Knowing about Paticcasamuppada we might decide to do something about it, try to stop craving. However, this decision and trying comes under the link of sankhara (volitional formations). It may reinforce or hide a subtle perception of self and control. The Samyutta nikaya nidanavagga ii ch xii, 40 Volition "Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness?Ethen consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is inclination;?Esuch is the origin of this whole mass of suffering." ?E The first step should be comprehension of the factors of the wheel. One of the links is Salayatana?E the six sense bases. The Samyutta nikaya ii ch xii, 2 "And what bhikkhu are the six sense bases? There are these six bases: eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, mind base" Conditioned by these bases there is contact and because of contact feeling: "there are six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye- contact, feeling born of ear contact, feeling born of nose contact, feeling born of tongue contact, feeling born of body contact, feeling born of mind contact." ibid. And conditioned by the six classes of feeling tanha(craving) arises. Majjhima Nikaya 148 Chachakka Sutta The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known." Note that it says the six classes of craving should be known. I think this is important, craving is part of the wheel. Usually we misperceive it as "my" craving. But craving, as much as other dhammas, can be an object for understanding. if it is seen through the lens of anatta it is not mistaken for "my" craving and so its true characteristic can be seen. (Craving, the English translation of tanha, may make us think of a very strong desire, but tanha includes even very minute aspects of unwholesome desire) Later the sutta says: "'The six classes of craving should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is craving." and it repeats for the other senses of ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. ...... If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. " What then should we do and what is right effort: Ogha-tarana Sutta Crossing the Flood This is the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya A deva asks the Buddha how he crossed the flood (the four floods are sensuality, becoming, views, ignorance). "Sir, how did you cross the flood? Friend, by not remaining still, and by not putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." But Sir, in what way did you cross the flood, neither remaining still, nor putting forth strenuous effort. Friend, if I remained still. I sank; If I put forth strenuous effort, I was swept away Thus, by neither remaining still nor putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." 11327 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 3:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact Rob --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Jon. > I understand what you're saying to some extent. I would ask you though, > do you > really consider meditation a neutral activity like any other? It seems > like you > are against taking up meditation practice. If I am wrong, I just want > to get > clear that this is really not the case. If it is not the case, then I > would think > you would say 'well meditate it if you want to, but don't be fooled into > thinking > that this in itself will guarantee the development of the path factors > in you'. > Is that the case? It's not a question of being 'for' or 'against' anything, but of trying to understand the message of the Buddha. > It also seems from what you say below, that you consider the Abhidhamma > indispensible for correct application of the teachings. Do you believe > that those > who do not study the Abhidhamma cannot reach enlightenment, even if they > are > following the Buddha's teachings through the suttas? There were plenty of people in the Buddha's time who attained enlightenment on hearing the suttas only. On the other hand, an 'understanding' of the suttas that is not consistent with what is in the abhidhamma is not going to be a correct understanding. > I personally do not believe there is one and only one correct path and > that it > must be followed in one specified way or enlightenment cannot be gained. > I > personally feel that the Buddha's teachings are clearly developed in > very > different ways in the Tibetan Tradition, in Zen, and most certainly in > the > Theravadin tradition, which itself has quite a lot of variety in terms > of > emphasis. My evidence for that is that there are very strong > pronouncements of > the fruits of enlightenment in all of these traditions over hundreds of > years. > But of course, one must have 'faith' or some other basis for feeling > that these > pronouncements are true. > > Do you believe that the Buddha indicated that the Abhidhamma is the only > path that > leads to enlightenment, and that the 'Masters' of other traditions are > deluded? I do not regard the abhidhamma as a 'path'. I see it as an aid to coming to an understanding of the path that is taught in the suttas. I don't know enough about the teachings of other traditions to comment, but with respect Rob, I don't think the pronouncements you mention should carry any weight in coming to a conclusion (if one felt the need to do so). Jon 11328 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:29am Subject: India Ch 2, no 3 India Ch 2, no 3. The Buddha taught about realities, dhammas, that appear one at a time through the five senses and through the mind-door. He taught about mental phenomena, nåma, and physical phenomena, rúpa. Consciousness or citta is nåma. There is one citta at a time and it cognizes an object, be it visible object, sound or one of the other sense objects, or a mental object that can be experienced through the mind-door. There is one citta at a time but it is accompanied by several mental factors, cetasikas, that each perform their own function while they assist citta in cognizing an object. Feeling and remembrance, for example, are cetasikas accompanying citta. Thus, what we take for a person is in reality citta and cetasika, which are both nåma, and rúpa. Citta, cetasika and rúpa do not last, they arise and fall away. If one does not learn about the Buddha¹s teaching and develop more understanding of nåma and rúpa, the world seems to be full of people and things which last. We take fleeting realities for things that exist, such as a person, a table, a cup or a chair. Citta, cetasika and rúpa are real in the ultimate or absolute sense, they are different from conventional truth or concepts (paññattis). What is true in the ultimate sense is called in Påli: paramattha dhamma 6 . We can also refer to paramattha dhammas as dhammas, realities. When we speak about the Buddha¹s teachings we refer to it as the Dhamma, but the word dhamma has several meanings. Dhamma can mean that which has its own characteristic and is devoid of self. In that sense it is the same as dhåtu, element. Nåma and rúpa are only elements, devoid of self. Paramattha dhammas have each their own characteristic which is unalterable. Seeing has its own characteristic that cannot be changed, no matter how we name it. We can call it by another name, but seeing is always seeing, its characteristic cannot be changed. Seeing experiences what is visible, colour or visible object. Visible object has its own characteristic and when it appears it can be directly experienced without having to name it. Anger is a type of nåma that has its own characteristic which cannot be changed. Anger is always anger, no matter how we name it. Hardness is a kind of rúpa that can be directly experienced through the bodysense, no matter how we name it. When we touch a cup or a chair we know their different meanings in conventional sense: we drink from a cup and we sit on a chair. However, when we touch them hardness may appear. We can verify that hardness is only an element, a kind of rúpa that has the characteristic of hardness, to be experienced through the bodysense, no matter it is hardness of a cup, a chair or a hand. We can directly experience it without thinking of it, without naming it. It is important to learn the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. Right understanding developed through satipatthåna has as object paramattha dhammas, not concepts. Concepts are not real in the ultimate or fundamental sense, they are objects of thinking. When we see people walking, we cling immediately to shape and form, to a conglomeration of things, to a concept of a whole. In reality seeing sees just visible object, no people. Thinking thinks of the concept of people who are walking; thinking is a paramattha dhamma, it is nåma, but the concept it thinks of is not a paramattha dhamma. Thinking is conditioned by seeing. Acharn Sujin asked us: ³Can there be people without visible object?² 11329 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact Hello all, May this discourse find everyone well. Regards, Victor Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Translator's note: A number of discourses (among them, SN XXXV.191; AN VI.63) make the point that the mind is fettered, not by things like the five aggregates or the objects of the six senses, but by the act of passion & delight for them. There are two ways to try to cut through this fetter. One is to focus on the drawbacks of passion & delight in & of themselves, seeing clearly the stress & suffering they engender in the mind. The other is to analyze the objects of passion & delight in such a way that they no longer seem worthy of interest. This second approach is the one recommended in this discourse: when the Buddha talks of "smashing, scattering, & demolishing form (etc.) and making it unfit for play," he is referring to the practice of analyzing form minutely into its component parts until it no longer seems a fit object for passion & delight. When all five aggregates can be treated in this way, the mind is left with no conditioned object to serve as a focal point for its passion, and so is released -- at the very least -- to the stage of Awakening called non-return. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Revised: Wed 6 February 2002 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html 11330 From: Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 3:37am Subject: The Coming Together of Conditions Hi all - A brief question: It is said that no condition arises from a single condition, but from the coming together of conditions. A technical question would then be "What is it that constitutes the 'coming together' of conditions?" From the Abhidhammic perspective, at any point there is the discernment of a single object together with a variety of accompanying functions, all associated with that same object. Does this mean, then, that from the Abhidhammic perspective, of the conditions which come together, only one act of discernment of an object is included, with the other conditions being the cetasikas? Or, is it multiple mindstates, involving the discernment of several objects, which are the conditions that "come together", resulting in the arising of a new condition? This latter proposition seems to me to be more in step with the Dhamma as a whole. In which case, what restrictions on mindstates, what interrelationships among them in time, proximity, and content, are required to consider that they "come together". 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) 11331 From: Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 5:35pm Subject: how to study? Anyone have any guidelines on how to study abhidhamma? I'm reading The Survey of Paramattha Dhammas and plan to read Abhidhammattha Sangaha next but what then? I have no idea how to approach the books and commentaries of abhidhamma. Also I don't know if my brain is capable of learning another language; is that really necessary? thanks, Larry 11332 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 6:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact --- Thanks Victor, a favorite sutta! robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > Hello all, > > May this discourse find everyone well. > > Regards, > Victor > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. > For free distribution only. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > ---- > Translator's note: A number of discourses (among them, SN XXXV.191; AN > VI.63) make the point that the mind is fettered, not by things like the five > aggregates or the objects of the six senses, but by the act of passion & > delight for them. There are two ways to try to cut through this fetter. One > is to focus on the drawbacks of passion & delight in & of themselves, seeing > clearly the stress & suffering they engender in the mind. The other is to > analyze the objects of passion & delight in such a way that they no longer > seem worthy of interest. This second approach is the one recommended in this > discourse: when the Buddha talks of "smashing, scattering, & demolishing > form (etc.) and making it unfit for play," he is referring to the practice > of analyzing form minutely into its component parts until it no longer seems > a fit object for passion & delight. When all five aggregates can be treated > in this way, the mind is left with no conditioned object to serve as a focal > point for its passion, and so is released -- at the very least -- to the > stage of Awakening called non-return. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > ---- > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi > at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the > Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he > was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' > it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is > caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being > (satta).' > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... > fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one > is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' > > "Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt > houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, > fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have > fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of > them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & > craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, > demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and > make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. > Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for > play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for > play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for > play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- for the ending > of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > ---- > Revised: Wed 6 February 2002 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html 11333 From: Date: Sun Feb 17, 2002 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food Dear Nina, <> My aunt asked to me to say thank you to you. <> Sure, I always do not mind sharing but I have to inform you upfront that my appetite can be a little weird. Well, as I mentioned, I pretty much read sutta or abhidhamma and then mark questions to ask her. I ask her all kinds of stuffs, for example there are 2 sutta in silakhandhavagga, dighanikaya which have names which have no direct connection with the persons in the sutta, one is brahmachala. I asked her why the sutta got this name, and what does it mean. She looked up atthakatha. It says that this sutta has many synonyms and brahma means the sappa~n~nuta~n~nana of the Buddha and chala means net, so it refers to the limitless net of the knowledge of the Bhuddha. I do not have the atthkatha, so my aunt helps me looking it up and if she cannot answer it, she then ask Aj.Supee or Aj.Sujin for me. I also ask her a lot about vocabulary in Vibhanga, It's kind of funny to find that the English version of Vibhanga is easier to read that the Thai version. Every term was translated in Eng. Version, in Thai version, there are a lot of Pali terms and definitions. <> I am reading your Dhamma in Cambodia. It's a great food as well. In Ch.III, you mentioned the Bodhipakkhiya dhamma. From what I have read the samma-padhana, 4 right efforts, consists of 1) the avoidance of akusala states as yet unarisen 2) the overcoming of akusala states already arisen 3) the development of kusala states as yet unarisen, and 4)the maintaining of kusala states already arisen. There may be some discussion on this before, but I am curious what it really means by 2) the overcoming of akusala states already arisen. Akusala which has already arisen and then completely fallen away, what to overcome?? So what does it mean by overcome sth which has already arisen and gone? What has been done, is done. If it means for future akusala, then it will have the meaning as 1). Let me ask you another question from Silakhandhavagga, almost all 13 sutta say about chulasila, machimasila, mahasila, indriyasavara(which is all about ayatana), satisampajanna, santosa, nivarana, 4 rupajhana and 8 vijja(6 abhinna, lokiya-vipassana~n~nana (about knowing rupa and nama dhamma) and then lokuttara ~n~nana). I think this whole vagga is pretty explicit about developing satipatthana/pannna in daily life. One sutta also mentions that sila and panna cannot be separated, where there is panna, there is sila, and vice versa. I am a little curious why only the rupajhana is mentioned in the suttas, not including the arupajhana? Appreciate, Num 11334 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Rob --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Your explanation was helpful. > > As wrong as it may be, the way I'm conceiving it at the moment is that > the rupa is > the endpoint of the nama, where it apprehends what seems to be the > object. It is > the object pole of the citta whose object is the rupa. > > Okay, I'm out of chalk. To intellectualise too much about this may be to miss the point somewhat. The classification into namas and rupas is one that can be tested and investigated by one's own experience. What this classification says is that the dhamma that appears at this very moment is either a dhamma that experiences an object or a dhamma that does not experience an object, and that the 2 are quite different in nature. You might like to consider whether this is in accordance with your present experience or not, Rob. Jon 11335 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] how to study? Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Anyone have any guidelines on how to study abhidhamma? I'm reading The > Survey of Paramattha Dhammas and plan to read Abhidhammattha Sangaha > next but what then? I have no idea how to approach the books and > commentaries of abhidhamma. Also I don't know if my brain is capable of > learning another language; is that really necessary? I admire your commitment. Both texts are well worth spending time on. However, whether one reads them through or dips into them for reference on particular topics is a personal thing. I suppose I my advice would be, take it bit by bit! Jon 11336 From: frank kuan Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact --- Victor Yu wrote: > Hello all, > > May this discourse find everyone well. > > Regards, > Victor I didn't realize discourses went around hoping people are well, but now I am obligated to reply, "I am well, Discourse. How are you?" :-) -fk 11337 From: Victor Yu Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 8:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact That is funny. :-) Anyway, I am glad that you are well. Victor > --- Victor Yu wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > May this discourse find everyone well. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > I didn't realize discourses went around hoping > people are well, but now I am obligated to reply, "I > am well, Discourse. How are you?" > > :-) > > -fk 11338 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 10:05am Subject: India ch 2, no 4 India, Ch 2, no 4 When we are reading we are immediately absorbed in the story we read and we have different feelings about it, we feel happy or sad. At such moments we live in the world of concepts and ideas that are real merely in conventional sense. When we are reading, different cittas experience different objects. The citta that sees experiences only colour or visible object which impinges on the eyesense. Other types of cittas think of the meaning of the letters and of the whole story. Acharn Sujin reminded us that in real life we are also as it were ³reading². We are looking at lines and shapes and we define these as this or that person. We should not try to avoid thinking of concepts of people and things, but we can learn the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts. When the object citta experiences is not a paramattha dhamma it is a concept. The Buddha spoke time and again of all the objets appearing one at a time through the six doors so that people would understand what paramattha dhammas are. Through mindfulness of paramattha dhammas as they appear one at a time, understanding of their nature of anattå can be developed. Acharn Sujin often reminded us that everything is dhamma. It is true that dhammas appear all the time: seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking. Usually we are absorbed in our thoughts about the conventional world, we do not realize that there is dhamma. Acharn Sujin said that when we learn that everything is dhamma, we should not leave it at that, but that we should develop understanding until we know through our own experience that everything is dhamma. If there never is awareness of what appears through the eyes at this moment, realities cannot appear as just dhammas. Our life can change: first we were clinging to a self who sees or hears, but now we can learn that there are only different dhammas each with their own characteristic. Dhammas are ephemeral, many conditions must coincide for one moment of seeing. We take seeing for granted and we think that it lasts, that we can control it. We see and then we remember what it is, but it is no longer there. How could we direct or control a reality that has fallen away already? Nåma and rúpa do not belong to anybody, they are beyond control, non-self. We cannot select the dhammas that appear now, seeing or hearing have arisen already. We have to see, we have to hear, we have to be born again and again so that we see, hear and experience objects through the six doors. We cannot select what reality arises at a particular moment, but understanding of them can be gradually developed. The Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to the devas in the Heaven of the Thirtythree, and he also taught vipassanå when he expounded the Discourse on ³One Single Excellent Night². He used conventional expressions in the sutta, when he said that one should not cling to the past nor desire for the future, but attend to the present moment. We read in the Commentary to the ³Discourse on no Blemishes² (Middle Length Sayings I, no 5): There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Måra. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Impermanence, dukkha, anattå, the aggregates, the elements, the sensefields, satipatthåna. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. But he taught by way of ultimate realities to those who, after having heard the teaching, penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Also when the Buddha taught by way of conventional terms he explained what is dhamma: namely, what appears right now. ****** Footnotes 1. This miracle consisted in the appearance of flames from the upper part of the body and streams of water from the lower part, and then alternatively, there were streams of water from the upper part of the body and flames from the lower part. Moreoever, flames of fire and streams of water also proceeded each in alternation from the right side of the body and from the left side. The Twin Miracle and his ascent to the Heaven of the Thirtythree took place in the seventh year after his enlightenment. 2. In the Middle Length Sayings III there is a series of four suttas (no. 131-135) the first one of which is the Bhaddekarattasutta. There are different translations of the title. The P.T.S. translates it as ³Discourse on the Auspicious², whereas Ven. Bodhi translates it as ³One Single Excellent Night². The following suttas in this series of four are the Bhaddekarattasutta of Ånanda, of Mahåkaccåna and of Lomasakaògiya. 3. See ³Designation of Human Types², Ch IV, § 5. 4. This is from the translation of Ven. Nånananda, Wheel 188, Kandy. The P.T.S. translation has: knowing that it is immovable, unshakable. 5. The Thai translation has: he is called someone who has only one night of development. Night in Påli stands for day and night. Someone who knows that he may only have one day and night has a sense of urgency to develop insight. 6. Parama means highest. Paramattha dhamma is what is real in the highest, the ultimate sense, what is fundamentally true. ******* 11339 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] llumination of rocks, namas and rupas-Sarah: uh-oh, really long!!! Dear Jon, Yes, I can make that distinction. If I look at the computer, the computer as it appears at the moment [not calling it a computer but just what I see] is a rupa. It clearly is 'just there', isn't taking 'another object' as its own. If I think about what it is, then that computer is the object of that thought. That thought has computer as its object. That thought is a nama. In a very colloquial, inaccurate sense, a nama is a thought, and a rupa is an object. Thanks, Robert Ep. ======= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Your explanation was helpful. > > > > As wrong as it may be, the way I'm conceiving it at the moment is that > > the rupa is > > the endpoint of the nama, where it apprehends what seems to be the > > object. It is > > the object pole of the citta whose object is the rupa. > > > > Okay, I'm out of chalk. > > To intellectualise too much about this may be to miss the point somewhat. > > The classification into namas and rupas is one that can be tested and > investigated by one's own experience. > > What this classification says is that the dhamma that appears at this very > moment is either a dhamma that experiences an object or a dhamma that does > not experience an object, and that the 2 are quite different in nature. > > You might like to consider whether this is in accordance with your present > experience or not, Rob. > > Jon > > > > > 11340 From: onco111 Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:09pm Subject: Dear Sarah ("kusala" revisited) [I recently wrote a note to Sarah, and she asked me to post excerpts here so we could consider some of the points together with the whole crew. The relevant parts follow.] Dear Sarah, ...I am just so surprised to see you glossing "kusala" as "skillful"! Last winter, I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation would steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people are more loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about Right Effort). I was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss for "kusala" because I could use it in my quest to steer the conversation back to the more comfortable realm of mistaking conventional effort for Right Effort and of making it easier to stay firmly rooted in sakaya-ditthi [personality view]. Now Sarah is doing the same thing (albeit, unintentionally). How so? First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can get good at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? Yeah, yeah, I know. You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas themselves... But how would that work? When a citta rooted in alobha, adosa, amoha arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or demonstrate skill? The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do something well, arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm curious. What talent, training, or practice has the citta engaged in to give it that ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it doesn't do any such thing; it is there for just a brief moment before passing away. It would be nice to just remove the "arising from talent, training, or practice" clause from the definition. The desire to do so might be there, but it's not such an easy thing to do! The definition of "skill" was skillfully constructed with the "arising from..." clause included precisely because that's what naturally comes to mind when people think of the word. To ignore it or try to "remove" the clause is to shut one's eyes to the strong tendency of people to associate training and practice with the word "skillful," and imagine the skillful being rather than the kusala dhamma. It is because of this tendency that the word "skillful" is (only?) applied to beings and their works (and is precisely why I used to use it to keep the conversation on dsg comfortable for sakayaditti). For example, skillful teachers, dancers, and liars, or skillful lessons, performances, and deceptions. In both cases, the being is rather forcefully implied. To apply the word to inanimate objects has an awkward ring to it. For example, no one says the sun is skillful at warming the earth or the watch is skillful at measuring time. The reason these sound funny is that there is clearly no being for skillful to refer to. In thinking about dhammas, there is such a strong tendency to subconsciously look for self in the dhammas that "skillful" can feel quite comfortable and preferable to less "animate" words. It is strange to hear of your preference for the comfort of the Self-validating "skillful" over other, less ditthi-inducing words. What do the commentaries say? Well, we briefly discussed Asl. earlier ["skilful" is excluded from the list of appropriate glosses for kusala when it applies to dhammas, but is explicitly mentioned as a fine way to think about dancing, singing, etc.], and U Narada, in his Introduction to "Conditional Relations", writes: "'Skilful'. ...it cannot apply to moral states, not even to the sensuous, leave alone the lofty and supramundane. The Commentary states that 'skilful' is not a suitable meaning....The meaning of 'kusala' is also given in the Commentaries on the Suttas..." He then goes on to list where the word is defined in some 14 places in sutta commentaries. None of them include "skilful", and some explicitly say 'skilful' is not an appropriate gloss for kusala as applied to mental states. Why do you think the commentaries, Ven. Nyanatiloka [in his dictionary], and U Narada would so clearly reject 'skillful'?... Dan 11341 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't know enough about the teachings of other traditions to comment, > but with respect Rob, I don't think the pronouncements you mention should > carry any weight in coming to a conclusion (if one felt the need to do > so). Hi Jon. The only conclusion I guess one would want to come to is 'how to practice or put into practice' the Buddha's teachings in order to reach the end of suffering. Anyway, thanks for at least trying to answer my questions. Best, Robert Ep. 11342 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Howard > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > > > There is much in the following that I agree with, for example > > the > > > > > > > > relevance of motivation and underlying sense urgency for effective > > > > volition. > > > > Where we differ is, in part, a matter of emphasis. I detect a flavor > > of > > > > "randomness" in your analysis, a randomness tending towards the > > nihilist > > > > pole > > > > of wrong view, whereas my tendency is towards the opposite > > > > substantialist > > > > pole of wrong view. But most precisely, where we differ is on the > > issue > > > > of > > > > whether the Buddha provided a training program (my position) or only > > a > > > > statement of what conditions foster what results (your apparent > > > > position). > > > > > > I seem to recall that 'trainer of gods and men' is one of the > > attributes > > > of a Buddha, so I hesitate to give my unqualified agreement to your > > > characterisation of our difference! > > > > > > Let me just say that I'm not aware of any 'program' laid down by the > > > Buddha for attaining enlightenment. > > > > > > I do, however, see the teachings as making known, and encouraging the > > > development of, the factors that lead to enlightenment. > > > > > > Jon > > > > Jon, I'm just picking on you, but how is encouraging the development of > > a set of > > specific factors that lead to a given result, different than 'laying > > down a > > program'? I think it is more a question of what one's philosophy is. > > No problem, Rob. I'm going to pass this one to Howard, since the > distinction was his in the first place (see above) ;-) ;-). > > > As I read it, your point of view goes something like this [I am standing > > up so you > > can knock me down]: > > > > 1/ there is no self. > > 2/ therefore there is no one that has volition. > > 3/ therefore there is no control. > > 4/ therefore there can be no program that 'one' engages in to get a > > result. > > 5/ therefore taking on mundane efforts like meditating or trying to be > > mindful in > > order to progress merely enforces the illusion that there is a > > volitional ego. > > 6/ therefore the attempt to make progress makes progress more > > difficult. > > 7/ therefore there is only one correct path, and that is to do whatever > > you are > > already doing, but see clearly to the extent possible, and without > > creating a > > separate effort, to discern the true characteristic of the moment > > The above is mostly correct as a statement of my understanding of what is > found in the teachings (rather than being a view reached by means of steps > 1-7 or the like) > > > My only problem with this, if it is correct, is that even the attempt to > > read the > > suttas and apply one's understanding to the 'naturally occurring moment > > in daily > > living' is as much a volitional effort as sitting down to meditate. I > > don't think > > there's any way to escape the fact that when we set upon the path to try > > to > > transcend the illusion of the self and discern the true nature of the > > moment, we > > are using the illusion of the volitional self in order to get rid of the > > illusion > > of the volitional self. This paradox, I believe, should be utilized, > > rather than > > danced away from. The illusion of passivity when in fact one is trying > > as hard as > > possible to find the way to enlightenment seems to me to add another > > layer of > > illusion on top of the one we already have. Even if we 'try hard' there > > is still > > actually no volitional self. That doesn't necessarily mean that there > > is no > > 'volition'. > > The fact of what we call volitional effort is not in dispute, Rob. The > equating of right effort with that volitional effort is what I have taken > issue with. > > Jon Okay. Best, Robert Ep. 11343 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Dear Jon, Give the clarifications below, which I read as you saying that there basically is no practice, there is only the arising of discernment or understanding, brought on by the concordance of factors, what is the practitioner given to do or understand in order to accord with or bring about those conditions? Or does it in fact have nothing to do with the practitioner and there is basically nothing to do. If one studies the suttas, that is because the conditions have arisen to cause this, and one cannot decide to study them, or refrain from studying them. The conditions will make the decision. Or is there something that we are in fact called upon to do in order to create the proper environment for these conditions to arise? Best, Robert Ep. ==================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > I still don't understand how our limitations in discerning dictates > > against > > practice. Whether or not we are able to presently discern the reality > > of each > > moment from moment to moment, the attempt to do so will lead to greater > > ability. > > I know that you don't believe this from what you have said, but still > > don't > > understand your reasoning very well. > > I think you are saying that- > a. The path taught by the Buddha involves seeing clearly each > moment-to-moment reality as it arises; and > b. The way this seeing clearly is developed is by concentrating on the > present moment. > > I believe that (a) above is not what we are taught as the path. I think > what we are told is that our ignorance and wrong view about realities has > to be dispelled. This implies *sufficiently* knowing realites so that > there is no longer any room for doubt about the matter. > > As to (b), I can only repeat the comments in my post of a minute ago. > Concentrating on the present moment is concentrating with existing > misconceptions and preconceptions. Awareness does not arise just because > we have sat down to concentrate on things. > > Jon > > Is it really enough to understand that consciousness is a moment to > > moment > > phenomena? *Any* attempt to apply the suttas to daily life can be > > described as a > > 'technique', just as meditating may be described as a technique to do > > the same, > > and it seems to me that some sort of application, however awkward, is > > exactly what > > is called for. If meditating is something I do, it becomes part of > > daily living, > > and is therefore at least as eligible for discernment as any other daily > > activity. > > As I said in an earlier post to you-- > > >> As far as 'specific practices' are concerned, I don't believe there are > >> any given by the Buddha, and I include here studying the suttas and > >> 'discerning the present moment'. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ====================== > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob Ep > > > > > > Let me continue my reply to your post (working backwards). > > > > > > > It is also my experience that the mind is much more focussed when I > > > > meditate. It > > > > makes sense to me that if one is talking and writing and answering > > the > > > > phone, > > > > jumping from one activity to the next in the normal course of the > > day, > > > > that all of > > > > these changes are harder to follow as a practice than sitting still > > and > > > > observing a less busy field of experience. ... > > > > Meditation is ... a concentrated period in which one > > > > focuses the mind on the moment. > > > > > > I am sure that many would share your view that awareness of a > > presently > > > appearing reality means or suggests 'following' the mind as it jumps > > from > > > one activity to another. Yet I think that is a wholly impossible > > task, > > > and not really what the Buddha was describing for the development of > > the > > > path. It's true that we can find in the suttas descriptions of all > > the > > > different mind-states (and other realities), and how extremely fast > > these > > > change from one to the other. But only the likes of a Buddha can ever > > get > > > to see the mind on a purely moment-to-moment basis. > > > > > > For us, as beginners, it is enough to know that consciousness *is* a > > > moment-to-moment phenomenom and hence a constantly changing one, so > > that > > > we do not assume it to be otherwise. When we read in, say, the > > > Satipatthana Sutta about awareness of a presently appearing reality > > (e.g. > > > seeing or visible object), there is nothing that requires this to be > > *only > > > a single moment* of that reality. As I understand, there may be many > > > moments of awareness of the same object as it arises in an apparently > > > continuous stream (since we don't have the discernment to see these > > things > > > on a moment to moment basis). Initially, it is the characteristic of > > > being a nama or a rupa, or of appearing through a particular doorway, > > that > > > is apparent, rather than its purely momentary nature (not to mention > > the > > > even more 'advanced' characteristics of impermanence etc.). > > > > > > What I am trying to say, Rob, is that the idea of awareness as > > involving > > > or being a function of our focussing on the present moment and > > following > > > the activity of the mind needs to be put aside if the true nature of > > the > > > presently appearing reality is to be discerned. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, 11344 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 1:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) (III) Thanks for writing from Bangkok, Jon! I am slowly getting clearer about the understanding you are expressing, but it still may take me a while. Thanks for putting up with all the questions I've been posing, 'with a vengeance' as you say. Best, Robert Ep. ========= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > Thanks for this and the (many) other posts you have sent recently. Back > with a vengeance!! > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > In the realm of mindfulness, there are no expedient techniques, nor > > any > > > need for them. Any technique simply serves to take one away from the > > > present present moment. > > > > > > I hope this is to the point. > > > > It is to the point, I just disagree. I don't see any reason why sitting > > to > > concentrate on the present moment would make the present moment more > > obscure, nor > > why practicing something in a 'cool' setting will deprive one of doing > > it in a > > more busy 'hot' setting, but rather the contrary, that it will help, nor > > why > > training in discernment is any more artificial than reading suttas to > > try to > > understand the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha never said that one can > > only > > practice 'in the natural setting', did he? > > There are 2 separate points here which i perhaps did not sufficiently > distinguish in my earlier reply (above). > > The first is that sitting concentrating on the present moment is something > that anyone can do. It may or may not be wholesome but it certainly can > not be equated with awareness of a presently arising reality. > > The second is that *having the idea* that sitting concentrating etc is the > way in which awareness is best developed necessarily implies, whether or > not consciously recognised or acknowledged, the idea that there is a > *better time/place/occasion than this very moment* in which realities ccan > be directly experienced. This is what I meant by the reference to > expedient techniques taking one away from the present moment. > > > I would like to know where in the tradition of abhidhamma the idea that > > meditation > > had a negative influence on understanding arose. It seems the opposite > > of how > > Buddhist philosophy is generally interpreted. Am I mistaken? > > I don't believe this represents anything I've said, Rob. I have simply > tried to distinguish between *awareness of a presently arising reality* > and *(sitting) concentrating on the present moment*. > > Good to have your input again, Rob. > > Jon > (Bangkok) 11345 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 5:39pm Subject: Re: Dear Sarah ("kusala" revisited) --- Dear Dan, Really interesting! I hadn't thought of the controlling connotations of skillful but they are there, for sure, now that you bring it to light. I never noticed that Narada had specificially rejected it. One of my mothers dislikes in Nina's books are the words wholesome and unwholesome (it reminds her of homemade bread she says)- (the other is the pali terms) - but these are more accurate than skilful and unskilful. Narada uses faultless and faulty which are accurate but a little technical; BTW I was thinking to send you a few tapes and some unpublished letters of Nina's if you are interested. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" wrote: > [I recently wrote a note to Sarah, and she asked me to post excerpts > here so we could consider some of the points together with the whole > crew. The relevant parts follow.] > > Dear Sarah, > ...I am just so surprised to see you glossing "kusala" as "skillful"! > Last winter, I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation would > steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people are more > loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! > > I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I > thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about > anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it > with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of > course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort > (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about Right Effort). I > was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss for "kusala" > because I could use it in my quest to steer the conversation back to > the more comfortable realm of mistaking conventional effort for Right > Effort and of making it easier to stay firmly rooted in sakaya- ditthi > [personality view]. Now Sarah is doing the same thing (albeit, > unintentionally). > > How so? First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can > get good at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? > > Yeah, yeah, I know. You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas > themselves... But how would that work? When a citta rooted in alobha, > adosa, amoha arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or > demonstrate skill? The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do > something well, arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm > curious. What talent, training, or practice has the citta engaged in > to give it that ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it > doesn't do any such thing; it is there for just a brief moment before > passing away. It would be nice to just remove the "arising from > talent, training, or practice" clause from the definition. The desire > to do so might be there, but it's not such an easy thing to do! The > definition of "skill" was skillfully constructed with the "arising > from..." clause included precisely because that's what naturally > comes to mind when people think of the word. To ignore it or try > to "remove" the clause is to shut one's eyes to the strong tendency > of people to associate training and practice with the > word "skillful," and imagine the skillful being rather than the > kusala dhamma. It is because of this tendency that the > word "skillful" is (only?) applied to beings and their works (and is > precisely why I used to use it to keep the conversation on dsg > comfortable for sakayaditti). For example, skillful teachers, > dancers, and liars, or skillful lessons, performances, and > deceptions. In both cases, the being is rather forcefully implied. To > apply the word to inanimate objects has an awkward ring to it. For > example, no one says the sun is skillful at warming the earth or the > watch is skillful at measuring time. The reason these sound funny is > that there is clearly no being for skillful to refer to. In thinking > about dhammas, there is such a strong tendency to subconsciously look > for self in the dhammas that "skillful" can feel quite comfortable > and preferable to less "animate" words. It is strange to hear of your > preference for the comfort of the Self-validating "skillful" over > other, less ditthi-inducing words. > > What do the commentaries say? Well, we briefly discussed Asl. earlier > ["skilful" is excluded from the list of appropriate glosses for > kusala when it applies to dhammas, but is explicitly mentioned as a > fine way to think about dancing, singing, etc.], and U Narada, in his > Introduction to "Conditional Relations", writes: "'Skilful'. ...it > cannot apply to moral states, not even to the sensuous, leave alone > the lofty and supramundane. The Commentary states that 'skilful' is > not a suitable meaning....The meaning of 'kusala' is also given in > the Commentaries on the Suttas..." He then goes on to list where the > word is defined in some 14 places in sutta commentaries. None of them > include "skilful", and some explicitly say 'skilful' is not an > appropriate gloss for kusala as applied to mental states. Why do you > think the commentaries, Ven. Nyanatiloka [in his dictionary], and U > Narada would so clearly reject 'skillful'?... > > Dan 11346 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 6:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) --- Dear Rob, From another angle: One of the descriptions of the khandas given in the Patisambhidhimagga is that they are alien, not us. What discerment discerns is the utter anattaness of all dhammas. If we have the idea of me doing something to get somewhere this is being caught in the whirl of view. But dhammas arise because of conditions, there is not even a hint of self who could make them arise. Now you are studying Dhamma and there is right effort arising together with right concentration that supports right view that can understand this. This is at the theoretical level but these factors can develop to much higher degrees. Usually people want high levels of concentration because this feels different from normal life - it is calmer- and so one perceives progress. But the progress of vipassana is about wearing away wrong view - and any concentration that arises with vipassana is always associated with right insight. You perhaps find it a little worrying that there is no self who can decide to do this or that to make sure he is going in the right direction. But seeing this leads to detachment from the idea of self and that is the beginning of insight. I think you don't feel concerend that, for instance, there is seeing whenever the eyes are open - no one can stop it occuring. But all dhammas , all realities are the same: they arise by conditions and cease when those conditions are not present. Understanding must comprehend whatever dhammas - whether kusala or akusala or vipaka or kiriya - arise as being essentially the same; that is they are anatta, dukkha and anicca. Then one doesn't turn away from whatever arises and there is right effort that assists investigation. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Give the clarifications below, which I read as you saying that there basically is > no practice, there is only the arising of discernment or understanding, brought on > by the concordance of factors, what is the practitioner given to do or understand > in order to accord with or bring about those conditions? Or does it in fact have > nothing to do with the practitioner and there is basically nothing to do. If one > studies the suttas, that is because the conditions have arisen to cause this, and > one cannot decide to study them, or refrain from studying them. The conditions > will make the decision. Or is there something that we are in fact called upon to > do in order to create the proper environment for these conditions to arise? > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ==================== > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep 11347 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 6:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana Sutta (was, The Two Truths (for Howard) (II)) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - ... > > As far as my characterization of the Satipatthana Sutta as a > > "training > > manual" rather than as a purely descriptive work, all I can say is > that > > this > > is totally obvious to me. However, I understand that the opposite is > > totally > > obvious to you! So we will just have to "agree to disagree" on this > one. ... > ==================================== > To say a drop more, I've pasted below part of the > Mahasatipatthana > Sutta (from the Digha Nikaya) to which I add a comment or two: > The part of the Satipatthana Sutta that you have chosen (below) is the standard description of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path as found throughout the sutta pitaka. As such, although it is useful to a consideration of the meaning of the Noble Eightfold Path and the 4th Noble Truth, it is not, I think, relevant to the question of the descriptive/prescriptive nature of the Satipatthana Sutta itself (in fact, as you would know, this particular passage is not included in the Majjhima Nikaya version of the sutta). More pertinent, I suggest, is the passage that precedes the section you have quoted. This reads as follows (from the Wisdom translation ‘Long Discourses of the Buddha’): ------- ‘A monk abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in respect of the Four Noble Truths. How does he do so? Here, a monk knows as it really is: “This is suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the origin of suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the cessation of suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering.” [Then follows the standard description of the Four Noble Truths, including the passage you have quoted ...] ‘So he abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects ... And that, monks, is how a monk abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in respect of the Four Noble Truths.’ ------- I do not see anything *prescriptive*, or descriptive of a *practice preliminary to/leading to* satipatthana, in this. It seems to be talking about actual moments of awareness accompanied by right understanding, in other words, moments of vipassana. A further point to consider is this. Mind-objects as object of satipatthana encompasses dhammas of all kinds, including unwholesome mental factors and rupas also. The full list of mind-objects given in the Satipatthana Sutta is as follows: a/. the 5 hindrances (nivarana) b/. the 5 aggregates (khandhas) c/. the 6 sense-bases d/. the 7 factors of enlightenment e/. the Four Noble Truths In each instance, the passage in question states that the mind-object is *known as it really is*, and this to me is the essence of the sutta. It is something that applies regardless of the nature of the mind-object in question – kusala or akusala, nama or rupa. Jon > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with > > regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the > cessation > of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the > cessation of stress: This is called right view. "And what is right > resolve? > Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: > This is > called right resolve. "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, > from > divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is > called > right speech. "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, > from > stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. "And > what > is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble > ones, > having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right > livelihood: This is called right livelihood. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The preceding could be taken either descriptively or > prescriptively, > although 'abstaining' usually suggests intentional action. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > desire, > endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake > of > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > arisen... for > the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have > arisen... > for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet > arisen... > (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, > development, & > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right > > effort. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The expressions 'generates desire', 'endeavors', 'arouses, > upholds & > exerts his intent' strike me as unambigiously indicating intentional > effort. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- > putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused > on > feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental > qualities in > & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & > distress > with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. "And what > is > right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn > from > sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & > remains > in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied > by > directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & > evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure > born > of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & > evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains > in > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters > & > remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous > & > mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure > & > pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he > enters & > remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, > neither > pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The definition here of what constitutes "right concentration" > strikes > me as rather clear and unambiguous. Moreover, it constitutes a > relatively > large part of the sutta. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > "This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the > cessation of stress. > ================================= > 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) > I'm a: Seeking a: Age: to City or ZIP: 11348 From: Leonardo Neves Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 6:49pm Subject: Pali Canon Anywhere For those friends who have a Palm device ... http://www.mindspring.com/~darrengoh/canon/ Metta, Leonardo 11349 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 9:09pm Subject: Back from Bkk and Rob Ep's 'busque' post Dear Rob Ep & friends, We’re back in Hong Kong and Christine is back in Oz (not the Wizard’s) after an action-packed dhamma discussion weekend, both at the Foundation w/ K.Sujin and other friends including Sukin and Jaran and light-hearted dhamma-related ‘chats’ together in the garden of our hotel...We got back midday yesterday and Jon had a quick change and straight into the office to catch up on legal drafts waiting for him. Meanwhile I was straight into teaching some teenage boys and the more down to earth language of what ‘sucks’and doesn’t ‘suck’ and what is still ‘cool’ or no longer ‘cool’ rather than the niceties of definitions of ‘kusala’ and ‘akusala’. I know Christine was meanwhile going to be straight off her flight in Brisbane (after a very long trip and change of flights in Sydney) and into the hospital where she works, but she'll be adding her own far wittier account and maybe Jaran will add his, if he managed to get the stand-by flight back to Singapore. Different stories, different concepts, but the same realities and different moments of vipaka (result of kamma) followed by likes, dislikes and thinking. We discussed a lot about what is taken for being a good result, such as a holiday on the beach in Samui or pleasant surroundings, or bad result, such as an accident or worse, which are really only very brief experiences through different doorways such as the eye or body-sense, followed by the story. Each brief moment of vipaka is conditioned by kamma (with so many other complex conditions at play as Rob K has pointed out), that there’s really nothing to be envious of at all. Hence more understanding of realities and conditions leads to less envy and less taking the ‘world’ for selves or beings. The sotapanna has no more wrong view of self and issa (envy) has been totally eradicated. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Apologies in advance for being kind of brusque in this post. > Explanation at the > end. : ) I’m going to leave the meat for later as I have some office work I need to attend to first;-( Believe me, meanwhile, that your idea of ‘brusque’ or ‘harsh’ is always very polite and considerate from my point of view. I prefer and appreciate the “I strongly disagree because of a) b) c)..” response to the “thankyou for trying to answer my questions ” or “ I’ve read your response and no comment ” replies;-) > I'm sorry I sound kind of mean in this post. I realized midway that it > was from > you and not from Jon. We've been tough with each other lately > [male thing > ], but I have a tendency to want to be a little nicer with you. Jon feels this is a little sexist ....meanwhile, as I mentioned, my students are pretty tough with me, (especially after a long holiday when I’ve set them lots of ‘sucks’ homework and have to face the consequences;-) ), so be as tough or nice as you like... > Although I suspect that you are actually just as tough. > It's just my delusion as usual. : ) I appreciate the good intentions. Best wishes for now...will catch up w/ the meat from your post, Dan’s and any others later. Sarah p.s a computer that works - my definition of 'bliss' for today;-) ===================================== 11350 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Canon Anywhere Hi Leonardo, This is an easy one to respond to quickly as I don't have a Palm device;-) Thanks for thinking of us and I'm sure some do. You might consider a brief translation to tell us what we're missing out on meanwhile. Could be just the thing on the beach for all I know. Btw, are you still carefully following dsg? How's the dhamma in Brazil these days? Seems like a long time since we heard from you and Alex..... ..and of course, we'd all love you both to add yr pixs to the photo album.... with a little metta and quite a lot of lobha ;-), Sarah ================================ --- Leonardo Neves wrote: > > For those friends who have a Palm device ... > > http://www.mindspring.com/~darrengoh/canon/ > > Metta, > Leonardo > 11351 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Back from Bkk and Rob Ep's 'busque' post Dear Rob Ep, Sorry about the 'busque' heading which should of course be a 'brusque' heading.....(hope my students aren't reading;-) S. 11352 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 10:50pm Subject: Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Dear All, After my first visit to Bangkok over New Year, I felt that this time I would be much better prepared. I knew how to get from Oz-home to Thai-hotel, so the anxiety level was much reduced. Last time I was wondering about meeting unknown people, but this time I was happily anticipating seeing Dhamma friends again. My plan (uh-oh) was to read certain articles and books, and bring a list of any questions that arose to the English Discussion Group and Khun Sujin. But events outside my control threw some completely different questions onto the table. Some sad events in the days before I was to travel, caused a dear one emotional and mental pain, and put the trip in doubt for a while. So, there was no well prepared list of questions....just an intense feeling about the fragility of life, the preciousness and finiteness of time, and the need to use both wisely. Thoughts were filled with death/kamma, attachment/dukkha, and anatta/no-control.......it's one thing to read about, discuss and try to understand these topics, considering them at a safe distance, but it is quite another to have them crash through the imaginary safety barrier surrounding ones' own family. It was the attachment/dukkha link pointed out by one friend and discussed with others, that resulted in a growth in understanding for me, and a tentative beginning of discussing Dhamma with family members. Reading the chapters on Lobha in Ninas' books 'Cetasikas', and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' was an 'education' , particularly when I had the tragic incident and everyones' reactions (mine included) to reflect on.....and Lobha is everywhere even in seemingly tiny, previously unconsidered and insignificant things.......and it hides under different names.....(it's much more serious and pervasive than I had realised before). So - the visit to Bangkok went ahead..... Much gratitude and appreciation for the presence and teaching of Khun Sujin.... It was wonderful to see Jon and Sarah, K. Amara (too briefly), K. Sukin (almost taking over K. Amaras' title of rally driver supreme - I closed my eyes Sukin, when you were crossing the path of oncoming traffic to get into the Marriott - masterly skill!!), K. Jaran, K. Saengchan, K. Sujit, K. Ivan and K. Ell, and to once again enjoy the delightful and generous hospitality of K. Duangduen. Thankful for those who could be there, and missing those from last time, who were otherwise engaged....Betty, Mike, Erik and Eath among these...... {And when are all the rest of you coming? ....... I encourage you to think about it, it won't happen unless you form the intention .......New Year sounds a good time..... :-)} As to what I learned this time - I'm not sure I can articulate it exactly yet, .......... need a while (firstly to sleep) and then to process and reflect on events, and the formal (and, equally valuable, informal) discussions. This time I have brought home the valued gift of tapes of the sessions with Khun Sujin, to listen to. Having only 'seen' Pali words, not 'heard' them prior to Bangkok, I seem to have invented my own pronunciation, and now have to re-learn the correct way. I definitely learned more about all of the topics mentioned above, as well as understanding a little more the difference between 'thinking' and 'seeing this moment and having awareness of this moment' - plus something (new to me) about the attributes of compassion (not always overtly warm and fuzzy), and the power of kilesas and accumulations to strongly influence or even 'take control' of our behaviour. I was brought back to earth with a thump after the long afternoon/night/morning journey to Brisbane. Taxi straight from the Airport to the Hospital to be met by big grins and a volley of remarks (a couple bordering on salacious) from a mob of irreverent workmates, about the 'style' of the weekend in Bangkok..... Sarah and Jon - you would have been 'almost' proud of me, when I 'almost' didn't respond....... I have to admit I came off second best this time though, outnumbered, outgunned and outmanouevred ......... only due to jetlag though..... there is always another time. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- And though the cruelest torture wouldn't wring the details from me - I keep getting visions of a couple of people creeping (?) around the Hotel en deshabille (about 2 a.m. wasn't it, Sarah? is that right, Jon?) - or was it a dream?....... :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 'what' was continually turning the lights on and off at that hour? (Perhaps it was Ivans' "Clingons" from the Star Trek repeats?)...... and who WAS that other (unmasked) man in your room? (Someone Scotty "beamed DOWN"?) :-) :-) Does this constitute a 'squaring' of the account, after you two produced my naively trusting breakfast time questions (on the last visit) during the Discussions? :-) .... Or have I started a payback feud?? ..... Do I have to unsubscribe? :-) :-) I can abjectly and servilely apologise if that would help? Or, ..... I can be helpful and ask MORE questions, if you'd like me to.....? :-) :-) :-) ......Strangely, I have this overpowering feeling of being so glad I'm physically a thousand kilometres away from you both just at this time....... that's Vedana, right? Somanassa or Domanassa? Now Jon, you probably see you have a case for a Civil Action against me of 'slander' and 'impugning of reputation', I need to state, at the outset, that I'll claim 'mental incompetence to stand trial, due to sleep deprivation' - and besides which, I made no statements...I only asked questions...... :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- metta, Christine 11353 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dear Sarah ("kusala" revisited) Dear Rob K, > Dear Dan, > Really interesting! I hadn't thought of the controlling connotations > of skillful but they are there, for sure, now that you bring it to > light. I never noticed that Narada had specificially rejected it. > One of my mothers dislikes in Nina's books are the words wholesome > and unwholesome (it reminds her of homemade bread she says)- (the > other is the pali terms) - but these are more accurate than skilful > and unskilful. > Narada uses faultless and faulty which are accurate but a little > technical; I'm glad to hear your comments too....I don't think I'd ever thought of these connotations before either....there are several Pali words like 'nama, 'rupa', 'citta', 'viriya', 'sanna' and certainly 'kusala' which I'd be very happy never to have to translate;-) Still, the Pali can be read with misunderstanding and wrong view too;-) Yes, my mother also reacts to 'wholesome'...I 'm smiing at the 'homemade bread' ;-) I'll look f/w to any further comments on this topic and hope to add some too. > BTW I was thinking to send you a few tapes and some unpublished > letters of Nina's if you are interested. By coincidence, Dan had just told me he'd like to listen to some tapes while doing chores, so I'm sure he'll gratefully accept your offers. I'm sure the series of tapes from our weekend in Bkk will also be a good series -clear and action-packed (though unedited) Q&A w/ K.Sujin (about 10hrs of tape), so I'll repeat the details of how anyone can receive these in a separate post when I've found the links. Meanwhile, I know that Tom (a lurking member) who was on the India trip has worked hard to edit and digitise the English discussions from that trip and these and other tapes should be available on one or more of the websites before too long. Dan also asked about any of K.Sujin's books which have been translated and published in English. I'm wondering if either you or Nina would kindly list these and perhaps Sukin would add a note as to which are available for free distribution from Bkk. Is 'Metta' or anything else available from Wisdom Bks or Amazon, I wonder? Thanks for any help. Sarah ================================ 11354 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 18, 2002 11:25pm Subject: Tapes & Books from Bangkok Dear Friends, If you would like to order tapes or books for personal use from the Foundation in Bangkok (the centre where Khun Sujin teaches), send your request to: dhammastudy00@h... cc: fsciunh@k... specifying the titles (for books) and dates of discussion (for tapes) you would like. Please make sure you give your name and postal address exactly as it should appear on the package. Costs have all been covered in advance. The editing & copying of tapes and sending of tapes and books is done by volunteers in their spare time, so please expect delays! If you mention that they don’t need to be edited, it’ll be faster. The dates to be specified for tapes of our recent weekend discussions are 15th,16th and 17th Feb. If you lose these email adds, they're in the posts under 'Books and Tapes' in 'Useful Posts' on the homepage. ********** Sukin previously sent the following message and I know he’s always happy to help if anyone prefers to contact him directly (off-list). (Some of the tites may now be out of stock). Dear Group, For new members and old members who might have not read the original post or who might have forgotten about it, I am reposting the list of books that are available from the foundation, for free distribution. 1. Realities and Concepts. 2. Letters from Nina.(En/Th) 3. Understanding Reality.(En/Th) 4. Abhidhamma in Daily Life. 5. Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka.(En/Th) 6. Mental Development in Daily Life.(En/Th). A set of four books as follows:- a.) The Greatest Blessings. b.) Death c.) The Eighhtfold Path. d.) Tranquil Meditation and Vipassana. The (En/Th) means that these books are half in English and half in Thai (one facing the other side by side). Those of you who might have made the request and have not yet recieved the books, please kindly let me know. Metta, Sukin. PS: Please note that all correspondence regarding this matter is to be made privately to me and not to the group. ====================================================== 11355 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Dear Num & friends, I think we could do with a professional diagnosis here.....are these the ravings of a) sleep-deprivation b) an overdose of dhamma discussion c)Star Trek addiction in a former life d) other -pls indicate --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > And though the cruelest torture wouldn't wring the details from me - > I keep getting visions of a couple of people creeping (?) around > the Hotel en deshabille (about 2 a.m. wasn't it, Sarah? is that > right, Jon?) - or was it a dream?....... > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 'what' was continually turning the lights on > and off at that hour? (Perhaps it was Ivans' "Clingons" from the > Star Trek repeats?)...... and who WAS that other (unmasked) man in > your room? (Someone Scotty "beamed DOWN"?) :-) :-) I’ll see if I can add a little translation to help with the diagnosis first;-) I think she’s trying to say that on Saturday nite at 2am, Jon and I decided to change rooms. Neither the respectable and properly attired engineer nor we in our barely semi- respectable nightware were able to solve the mystery of the lights turning on and off in our room with plenty to challenge the kilesa (the defilements) I'm sorry to say. A very normal procedure I would have thought. Now if the patient hadn’t subsequently recounted the Star Trek adventures to me, I’d have no idea about the rest. I rather advise a Google search rather than a request for more details, unless you have considerable patience;-) > Does this constitute a 'squaring' of the account, after you two > produced my naively trusting breakfast time questions (on the last > visit) during the Discussions? :-) .... Or have I started a payback > feud?? ..... Do I have to unsubscribe? :-) :-) I can abjectly and > servilely apologise if that would help? Or, ..... I can be helpful > and ask MORE questions, if you'd like me to.....? > :-) :-) :-) Oh my goodness....help, Num....don’t let her ask MORE > ......Strangely, I have this overpowering feeling of being so glad > I'm physically a thousand kilometres away from you both just at this > time....... that's Vedana, right? Somanassa or Domanassa? Does she think we’re psychic too? > Now Jon, you probably see you have a case for a Civil Action against > me of 'slander' and 'impugning of reputation', I need to state, at > the outset, that I'll claim 'mental incompetence to stand trial, due > to sleep deprivation' - and besides which, I made no statements...I > only asked questions...... :-) Oh dear again, I think there will be no doubt about the mental incompetence...I’m sure Num, you will write a kind report. I’ll have to let the law draftsman comment on the finer points of when a question becomes a statement. I'm not sure if it can be given a dhammic twist either;-) ***** In her defence I must also say that spending time with Christine is a real inspiration. The sincere interest in the dhamma and the willingness to make such a big trip (twice now) for a weekend of discussion has impressed and encouraged everyone in Bangkok. On a personal level, she has become a highly valued friend and good example for me in many, many respects. Sarah p.s Chris....I have a picture of you sleep-walking round the wards and telling Rusty (your dog, I think) about your adventures....what a ‘sport’ you are;-)) Thanks for touching base and sharing your reflections with us. It was a real joy to spend time with you and to hear your questions and ponderings. ================================================ 11356 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Tapes & Books from Bangkok Dear Friends, I wrote: > send your request to: > dhammastudy00@h... cc: fsciunh@k... I've been told by one member that the first add for the Foundation doesn't seem to be working, so for the time being, pls send any requests to K. Unnop at what was the cc address: fsciunh@k... If you have any problems, I know Sukin is happy to help too: sukin@k... Sarah =========================================== 11357 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 10:05am Subject: India Ch 3, no. 1 India Ch 3, no. 1 Chapter 3 Clinging to Concepts Citta, consciousness, experiences something, it experiences an object. Acharn Sujin reminded us many times during our journey that each citta experiences an object. Citta could not arise if there were no object. The object is one of the conditions for the arising of citta. Without citta, colour, sound and the other sense objects could not appear. We should apply what the Abhidhamma teaches about citta and object to this moment of our daily life. We heard Acharn Sujin say many times that visible object appears now, and that it could not appear if there were no seeing that experiences it. We listen to the Dhamma and we read the texts about the objects experienced through the six doorways, but do we really consider this deeply and apply it to this very moment? Theoretical knowledge, pariyatti, is a foundation for the understanding of the level of paìipatti, practice, that is direct understanding of realities appearing one at a time through the six doorways. Acharn Sujin spoke during our journey about seeing, hearing, the other sense-cognitions and the sense objects time and again, but we found this not monotonous. It is a vivid reminder to begin to investigate those dhammas as they appear in daily life. In this way all we hear and read in the Suttas can become more meaningful, we can come to see that everything that appears is dhamma. Thus, studying dhamma, reality, is studying with mindfulness of what appears at this very moment. The purpose of our study should be understanding of our life at this moment. This is a new approach to life, to the world. We are used to being infatuated with the world of people and all the things around us without understanding what is really there: nåma and rúpa that arise because of their appropriate conditions and then fall away immediately. When we perceive people there are in reality different moments of citta: seeing is different from thinking of the meaning of what we see. When we perceive a person or a thing, we pay attention to a mental image of a whole, and we are absorbed in all the details of what is seen. This happens during all our activities in daily life when we, for example, add sugar and milk to our coffee, use knife and fork when we are eating, when we are reading or walking. A mental image of a whole is not a reality, a dhamma, it is a concept, paññatti. The word concept, in Påli paññatti, has different meanings: it is a name or term that conveys a meaning as well as the idea it makes known. Thus, it makes known and also, it is what has been made known. Names can denote persons or things that are not realities, or they can denote realities, such as different nåmas and rúpas. When we have a notion of a ³whole², such as a person or thing, we are thinking of an idea, a concept, not a reality, not a nåma or rúpa. When we were in Nålandå, we went to the grounds where the ancient monastic university has been excavated and sat down on the grass for a Dhamma discussion. The Buddha used to stay in Nålandå in Påvårika¹s Mango Grove where people from different religious groups visited him to discuss with him. Several centuries later a university was founded in Nålandå that became a famous center of learning for different religious groups. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang, who lived in the seventh cetury, became a bright scholar in this university and he stayed in Nålandå for a long time. At that time Buddhism was already disappearing from India. There must have been many debates in Nålandå between different schools of thought. Acharn Sujin mentioned that one should carefully consider different points of view and that one should investigate the scriptures and commentaries in order to understand the subtle points of Dhamma, so that the teachings can be kept free from corruptions. She mentioned that, after her return, there would be a board meeting in Bangkok of the Dhamma Study and Support Foundation to compare different viewpoints and clear up misunderstandings. The goal of such meetings is preserving the purity of the Buddha¹s teachings. In Nålandå we discussed the meaning of nimitta, the Påli term for image or mental picture. She explained that we think of an image on account of what we see, hear, and experience through all the sense-doors. We pay attention to an image of a whole and we are absorbed in all its details (in Påli: anuvyañjana). When we perceive a rose we think immediately of its shape and form, of an image, a concept; we may not even think of the name ³rose², but when we perceive the shape and form of a rose we are bound to take it for something that really exists. Each citta is accompanied by the cetasika saññå, perception or remembrance, that remembers or ³marks² the object so that it can be recognized later on. The recognition of a thing or a person is the result of many different processes of cittas, each of which is accompanied by saññå performing its function of marking and remembering. We may reason about the way saññå operates and wonder how and when it remembers a past object. This is only thinking, and by thinking we shall not understand realities. When someone found it difficult to understand that saññå marks as well as remembers, she answered that it is difficult to find a term that covers the real meaning of saññå. Acharn Sujin said that we should not cling to terms but understand the characteristics of realities appearing at this moment. The purpose of our study of the Dhamma is detachment, detachment from the idea of self. We can begin to understand, whenever we perceive different things we handle or use in daily life, such as a cup and a saucer or the computer, or whenever we perceive people, that it is not due to a self who remembers but to saññå. Saññå is an important condition for clinging. 11358 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Christine --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear All, > > And though the cruelest torture wouldn't wring the details from me - > I keep getting visions of a couple of people creeping (?) around > the Hotel en deshabille (about 2 a.m. wasn't it, Sarah? is that > right, Jon?) - or was it a dream?....... > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 'what' was continually turning the lights on > and off at that hour? (Perhaps it was Ivans' "Clingons" from the > Star Trek repeats?)...... and who WAS that other (unmasked) man in > your room? (Someone Scotty "beamed DOWN"?) :-) :-) > > Does this constitute a 'squaring' of the account, after you two > produced my naively trusting breakfast time questions (on the last > visit) during the Discussions? :-) .... Or have I started a payback > feud?? ..... Do I have to unsubscribe? :-) :-) I can abjectly and > servilely apologise if that would help? Or, ..... I can be helpful > and ask MORE questions, if you'd like me to.....? > :-) :-) :-) > ......Strangely, I have this overpowering feeling of being so glad > I'm physically a thousand kilometres away from you both just at this > time....... that's Vedana, right? Somanassa or Domanassa? > Now Jon, you probably see you have a case for a Civil Action against > me of 'slander' and 'impugning of reputation', I need to state, at > the outset, that I'll claim 'mental incompetence to stand trial, due > to sleep deprivation' - and besides which, I made no statements...I > only asked questions...... :-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously the Guidelines need further tightening to prohibit any comments tending to impugne the dignity and authority of the Moderators. However, since we failed to forese the possibility of such scandalous remarks, we are compelled to let you go without a formal warning on this occasion. Seriously though, we enjoyed seeing you again and appreciated your contribution to the discussion (both at the Foundation and 'off-list') over the weekend. Jon 11359 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 7:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hi Victor Could we put in the perspective that all beings are the five aggregates and in this view is not consider there is a denial of self or beings. I think Buddhaghosa may not be too explicit in his meaning that there is no self or being. He may just considered them as aggregates. Kind regards Ken O --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > ---Dear Lucy, Howard, Victor and all, > Thanks for your comments. Great to see you considering so carefully > Lucy, in your posts. > > Victor, > Thanks for carrying on the points you brought up on D-l. > I'll just repeat them here as they give extra details. You noted that > you disagree with the Visuddhimagga and find that Buddhaghosa was > holding to an extreme view in his denial of self and being. I found > this interesting as my letters were in responses to Buddhadasa of > Thailand who thought that the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa went to > the opposite extreme and implied a self. > 11360 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 9:55pm Subject: Luminosity yet again! Dear Ken O and Rob Ep, Jon just pointed out a note by B.Bodhi at the back of his anthology from Anguttara Nikaya (p.278, note 13) which gives his own quite neat summary of the meaning of Luminous (pabhassaram) in the suttas we've discussed so much. I think this pretty much accords with what some of us have been saying and quoting. (Note AA refers to the commentary): "Luminous (pabhassaram). AA states that here "the mind" (citta) refers to the bhavanga-citta, the "life-continuum" or underlying stream of consciousness which supervenes whenever active consciousness lapses, most notably in deep sleep. The 'adventitious defilements' are greed, hatred and delusion, which appear at a stage of the cognitive process which, in later Buddhist literature, is called javana, "impulsion". AA says that the defilements do not arise simultaneously with the bhavanga, but they 'arrive' later, at the phase of javana. the fact that this expression "luminous mind" does not signify any "eternal and pure mind-essence" is evident for the preceding text, in which the mind is said to be extremely fleeting and transitory. the "uninstructed worldling" (assutavaa puthujjana) is one who lacks adequate knowledge of the dhamma and training in its practice." (I would just question the comment about 'in later Buddhist literature'...) Ken O, you also asked someone to check w/ K.Sujin about bhavanga cittas being pabhassaram (luminous) in hell realms or animal realms. She confirmed that this must be so (i.e. they are always pbhassaram). I understand this is because they are not yet affected by the defilements. Btw, a few people have been commenting on your long holiday from dsg....hope you're back for a while and have had a happy family Chinese New Year in Singapore. How about a nice family photo in the dsg photo album as a New Year gift to us all??? Best wishes, Sarah ================================== 11361 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 10:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: llumination of rocks, namas and rupas -ANDERS Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: R:> > > If sentience is said to cease in > > > parinibbana, then the one property that is not a convenient fiction > but > > > actually > > > takes place is said to be annihilated. > > S:> > I think, with respect, this is your definition of annihilation;-). > R:> Then what is your definition of sentience? My view of annihilation is > that > something is destroyed or made to cease. A cooler term is cessation but > means > basically the same thing. ..... Usually when we refer to sentience or sentient being, I think we are referring to a concept of essence or life or being (usually with wrong view of a being or self). When the Buddha talked about annihilation belief (as in the examples I gave before), I understand he was referring to the idea (convenient fiction) of there being such essence or self which is destroyed or annihilated at the end of this life. In fact, of course, what we take for a sentient being are in fact merely 5 khandhas with no being inside or outside them. At each moment there is the cessation of khandhas, but there remain conditions for new khandhas to arise at the next moment. This process of arising and falling away of khandhas continues ad finitum while there are conditions (i.e. avijja-ignorance) from moment to moment and from life to life. At the moment of arahatship, the cause for future arising in future births has been eradicated and therefore, at the end of the arahat’s life span, there is a final cessation of khandhas which has nothing to do with annihilation (view). ..... R:> Just as the experience of ignorance goes on continuously although > consisting of > many different sequential moments, the experience of 'wakefulness' or > enlightenment will go on for many moments once ignorance has been > eliminated. The > experience of being awake is nothing but the clear seeing of what is > when > ignorance has been removed, so even though it may occur in individual > moments it > will continue to occur in one who has been awakened. ..... I think we have to differentiate between panna (understanding) which will continue to understand many, many realities at different moments and nibbana, the unconditioned state, which is the object of very specific cittas arising with panna, of course. ..... R:>Certainly we > wouldn't say > that an arahant or Buddha had alternate moments of being enlightened and > deluded > since all delusion has been eradicated for him. Even if the experience > of > 'nibbana' is a one-moment experience [something which I respectfully do > not > understand from anything I've seen in the suttas] the experience of > 'liberation' > would be continous after that, even if it occurs from moment to moment. ..... This sounds pretty much right....although ‘continuous’ rather sounds like without any break, whereas we know that, for example at moments of vipaka citta (result of kamma), there is no panna or experience of liberation. At other moments of panna, the object will be realities rather than liberation. There is also still the thinking of concepts, but as you say, with no delusion at all. ..... R:> If > parinibbana is the cessation of this liberated series of cittas, then > what is > being made to 'cease' in parinibbana is the flow of enlightened cittas. ..... Not just the enlightened cittas, but all cittas, cetasikas and rupas. ..... S:> > We don’t say that nibbana is conditioned or depends on ‘physical > > existence’ or anything else, but the namas which experience it do. > R:> What is nibbana by the way, if it is a sort of solitary object that is > perceived > for a moment only by arahants? Where does it exist and how is it upheld > when no > one is perceiving it? Or does nibbana only come into being as an object > at the > moment when the arahant reaches the point of being able to discern it? ..... It only appears at the moment when it is directly experienced (firstly by the magga and phala cittas of the sotapanna). As it is the unconditioned reality, we cannot talk about where it exists or how it is upheld. I think that as understanding grows more and more deeply of the conditioned phenomena, it knows and has more confidence that there must be the unconditioned phenomena, but really, Rob, I’m not sure it’s useful (or I’m able) to speculate further on this. ..... R:> And what > is the characteristic of nibbana as an object? I have always thought of > nibbana > as a state in which ignorance has been removed, not an object. I don't > quite > understand what kind of object it is meant to be, and why it is an > object rather > than a state. ..... Hmm...as object, I think we can only say it is the unconditioned ‘deathless’ reality...the opposite to what is usually experienced. At any moment of panna, there is no ignorance and there is a glimpse of a reality. Ignorance is a mental factor that either arises or doesn’t with each citta. ..... R:> I'm sorry I sound kind of mean in this post. I realized midway that it > was from > you and not from Jon. ..... Am I beginning to sound like Jon I wonder???Is that good or bad??? I still haven’t detected any meanness in this or any post of yours. Good points and questions and I realize that though nibbana and parinibbana don’t seem very useful as topics to study for some of us, for others like yourself, the understanding of these areas affects the consideration of all other dhammas. Perhaps this is because of the different dhamma backgrounds we all come from. Hope I’ve clarified the points a little as I understand them and thanks for all your other posts. Hope you've caught up by now:-) Sarah ========================================= 11362 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Luminosity yet again! Dear Sarah, Thanks for this sub-commentary of BB's. I don't actually see any further definition of 'luminous' in the quote, only an assertion that it does not refer to an external or permanent mind of any sort. I do appreciate any commentaries on this subject, and enjoyed reading it. Also wondering what happened to Suan's 'sub-sub-commentary'. Suan, are you out there?? I'm waiting with some attachment for your comments....... Regards, Robert Ep. ================ --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Ken O and Rob Ep, > > Jon just pointed out a note by B.Bodhi at the back of his anthology from > Anguttara Nikaya (p.278, note 13) which gives his own quite neat summary > of the meaning of Luminous (pabhassaram) in the suttas we've discussed so > much. I think this pretty much accords with what some of us have been > saying and quoting. (Note AA refers to the commentary): > > "Luminous (pabhassaram). AA states that here "the mind" (citta) refers to > the bhavanga-citta, the "life-continuum" or underlying stream of > consciousness which supervenes whenever active consciousness lapses, most > notably in deep sleep. The 'adventitious defilements' are greed, hatred > and delusion, which appear at a stage of the cognitive process which, in > later Buddhist literature, is called javana, "impulsion". AA says that > the defilements do not arise simultaneously with the bhavanga, but they > 'arrive' later, at the phase of javana. the fact that this expression > "luminous mind" does not signify any "eternal and pure mind-essence" is > evident for the preceding text, in which the mind is said to be extremely > fleeting and transitory. the "uninstructed worldling" (assutavaa > puthujjana) is one who lacks adequate knowledge of the dhamma and training > in its practice." > > (I would just question the comment about 'in later Buddhist > literature'...) > > Ken O, you also asked someone to check w/ K.Sujin about bhavanga cittas > being pabhassaram (luminous) in hell realms or animal realms. She > confirmed that this must be so (i.e. they are always pbhassaram). I > understand this is because they are not yet affected by the defilements. > > Btw, a few people have been commenting on your long holiday from > dsg....hope you're back for a while and have had a happy family Chinese > New Year in Singapore. How about a nice family photo in the dsg photo > album as a New Year gift to us all??? > > Best wishes, > Sarah > ================================== > > > > 11363 From: smallchap Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 0:56am Subject: Hi Hi, Dhamma Friends, Chance upon this forum through Nibbana.com forum. Have been practising meditation for many years. Hope to become wiser through reading your discussions. I don't talk much. So will remain as a passive member. Smallchap 11364 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 1:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] The Coming Together of Conditions Hi Howard, I would like to make a short comment, which by no means would be comprehensive enough to even begin to address the topics. If you take a short look at the summary of patthana [the book of conditions in the abhidhamma tipitaka], http://www.zolag.co.uk/condf.pdf you will see that for a dhamma [reality] to arise (even for something as "simple" as seeing), there are many dhammas (both extant and no longer extant) involved. For extant dhammas, there are the visible object, the seeing consciousness, its accompanying cetasikas, and the eye base, (and probably others that I have missed). For examples of no-longer-extant dhammas, there are kamma done previously and the previous, already fallen away citta. These dhammas condition one another in so many different ways that the relationship links (if you draw a graph) between them can be said to be explosive. I have no doubt that what you said in the latter case (of what it means to be conditioned) is closer to realities. What arises now conditions what is co-arising, what immediately arises subsequently, and what arises after (and well into the rest of samsara). Although I think only the buddha can really say [by way of well-rounded, total, and direct penetration, in every aspects, whereas we are just thinking] what are the exact conditions of the dhamma rising now, we can (obviously) say that the dhamma arising now is the manifestation of the complete culmination of its immensely complex conditions. When there is kusala rising now, it is the culmination of all those conditions, which may include the dhamma that has been heard previously and/or wise consideration of what is heard, but it also includes all the consciousness and mental factors that are arising now. A. Sujin said that (stronger) panna rises from (weaker) panna: panna doesn't rise out of ignorance (and no wisdom). I interpret this to be involving many different conditions involving panna. The most prominent would be hearing the dhamma from a wise friend (panna at the hearing level), considering what has already been heard or not heard (panna at the thinking level), and the actual realization of the dhamma (panna rising understanding the actual, present or close to present, characteristics of the dhamma). On the other hand, being able to hear the dhammas and being associated with a wise friend are the results of good deeds in the past, one that may even involve panna. Being able to understand the dhamma in this life would be attributed to having a good rebirth (with all the alobha, adosa, and amoha, which are the bases that allow the panna to grow) which are definitely a result of good deed done with panna in previous lives. If you understand how complex these conditions are, you can get a glimpse of why dhamma is considered (by some) to be uncontrollable, why it is relatively difficult for panna to arise, and why developing panna is necessarily a slow process which requires lifetimes of development (4 aeons 100,000 kappas for the Buddha, 1 aeons 100,000 kappas for Sariputta, 100,000 kappas for Ananda, and probably less than 100,000 kappas for the rest of us, if conditions allow it.) kom ps: When I first had a bit of understanding of how complex conditions are, I sort of equate it with studying the weather. You know different factors condition one another, but you are not really quite sure how the result is going to be because it depends on so many conditions. Weather is obviously anatta too... ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 8:37 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] The Coming Together of Conditions > > > Hi all - > > A brief question: It is said that no > condition arises from a single > condition, but from the coming together of > conditions. A technical question > would then be "What is it that constitutes the > 'coming together' of > conditions?" From the Abhidhammic perspective, at > any point there is the > discernment of a single object together with a > variety of accompanying > functions, all associated with that same object. > Does this mean, then, that > from the Abhidhammic perspective, of the > conditions which come together, only > one act of discernment of an object is included, > with the other conditions > being the cetasikas? Or, is it multiple > mindstates, involving the discernment > of several objects, which are the conditions that > "come together", resulting > in the arising of a new condition? This latter > proposition seems to me to be > more in step with the Dhamma as a whole. In which > case, what restrictions on > mindstates, what interrelationships among them in > time, proximity, and > content, are required to consider that they "come > together". > > With metta, > Howard 11365 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] three rounds and a glimpse of nibbana Nina I thought you might be interested in these brief (and rough) recollections from the discussions last weekend on the meaning of sacca-nana and kicca-nana as 'rounds' of the Four Noble Truths (raised by Jaran, as I recall). Sacca-nana: Of the first Noble Truth, is firm intellectual understanding of the fact that everything is dhammas, namas and rupas; appreciation of the importance of this fact. Of the 2nd Noble Truth, means that attachment is seen as the cause of suffering. Attachment here includes attachment to wrong practice, since while there is the wrong idea about practice the natural development of understanding is not possible. Of the 3rd Noble Truth, means understanding that everything must have an end, that there is the possibility of extinction, since otherwise it would not be possible for ignorance to be eradicated. Of the 4th Noble Truth, means firm understanding that this only is the path, firm understanding of the difference between right view and wrong view, and of the first 3 Noble Truths. Kicca-nana: Any direct awareness of a nama or rupa is kicca-nana of all 4 Noble Truths. Hope this is of interest. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Num, Jon, Sarah, Jaran and others, > It is difficult to understand all 12 factors , and in particular how the > round of sacca ~naa.na, knowledge of the truth, and kicca ~naa,na, > knowledge > of the task relate to nibbana when one has not attained enlightenment. I > tried to think these matters over and would appreciate input from > others. > These are no statements, "just my own thoughts". > 11366 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > I'll try to briefly answer the heart of what I believe you are > asking > me in the following. I agree that the cultivation of calm, ALONE, could > be > practiced for lifetime after lifetime without liberation resulting. It > is, as > you say, only a part of the practice, and far from sufficient. But the > Buddha > incorporated into his practice many already extant practices when he > deemed > them important. (In fact, in at least one sutta he said something to the > > effect that whatever is conducive to liberation is part of his > teaching.) In > any case, as an example, in the Majjhima Nikaya, the the number of times > that > mastering the first four jhanas is urged by the Buddha probably exceeds > any > other individual teaching. I don't understand why there is resistance to > this > part of the teaching by you and some others. I believe the difference between us, Howard, is not that I have some innate resistance to the idea of samatha development, but that I have after careful consideration come to a different understanding of the texts on the role of samatha in the Buddha's teaching on vipassana. (Actually, my innately-held views are pretty much the same as everyone else's -- mostly wrong, according to a true view of the teachings!!) As I'm sure you'll agree, the role of samatha in the teachings cannot be discerned simply from how frequently it is mentioned, but only by finding out exactly what is being said about it. Without a correct reading on this, one will inevitably be on the wrong track. Just as an example, a reference to samatha bhavana occurring in a talk to monks who are already skilled in the practice of samatha may well carry a different import than a similar reference occurring in a talk given to, say, lay people with no apparent background in samatha. Much depends I think on the previously discussed question of 'descriptive vs. prescriptive' interpretations. I think it's crucial to discern whether in a given instance the Buddha saying 'if your situation is X, then Y is what may be done' or whether he is saying 'everyone should do X, and then they will be able to do Y'. Personally, I don't consider an understanding based on this sort of inquiry to be resistance, even if it runs counter to the generally accepted view. > As far as my characterization of the Satipatthana Sutta as a > "training > manual" rather than as a purely descriptive work, all I can say is that > this > is totally obvious to me. However, I understand that the opposite is > totally > obvious to you! So we will just have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Hmm, hardly your usual spirited reply, Howard! > Another, more general issue, it seems, on which we shall have to "agree > to > disagree" is that of applying effort to engage in specific practices in > order > to cultivate various factors. You seem to see this as either unimportant > or > impossible. I see the not making of an effort to engage in specific > cultivational practices as leaving one in the position of any > non-practitioner, and, by default, tossed about on the waves of desire > and > aversion - led by craving and ignorance, a helpless victim of past kamma > and > accumulations. I do understand that you do not see it that way. Again, any position I take on this subject represents my best reading of the texts, putting aside as far as possible any views of my own (for reasons given above). My primary concern here is to understand the texts, since I believe they hold the key to right understanding. In this spirit, let me say again that references in the texts to right effort are not, on my reading of the texts, references to volitional effort, since this interpretation doesn't fit with other aspects of the teaching in the texts. > With metta, > Howard (Your post follows without further comment.) One point in my post that I'm a little disappointed you did not pick up on was my comment regarding anyone who was making effort to have kusala, or was developing the jhanas, *before* the Buddha's enlightenment. It seems to be a necessary corollary of your interpretation of the Noble Eightfold Path that such people were in fact developing the path factors of right effort or right concentration, and that similarly at least 6 of the 8 path factors (i.e., excluding only samma ditthi and samma sati at most) were capable of development, and were in fact being developed, even before the Buddha's enlightenment and teaching on the Noble Eightfold Path. (But I'm happy to leave this for discussion on another occasion(?)) Jon 11367 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Practice, beings and contact Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > I don't know enough about the teachings of other traditions to > comment, > > but with respect Rob, I don't think the pronouncements you mention > should > > carry any weight in coming to a conclusion (if one felt the need to do > > so). > > Hi Jon. > The only conclusion I guess one would want to come to is 'how to > practice or put > into practice' the Buddha's teachings in order to reach the end of > suffering. > > Anyway, thanks for at least trying to answer my questions. > > Best, > Robert Ep. I may not have been clear in my answer. What I meant was that pronouncements of self-enlightenment do not carry any weight as far as coming to a conclusion on whether the person has indeed attained enlightenment, assuming we felt the need to come to any conclusion on that score at all anyway (the implication being that I can see no benefit in trying to come to a conclusion on that question -- I happen not to believe that someone can know this about another, absent special powers, perhaps). Sorry that you felt that my answers were not useful (not my intention). Please follow up if you wish, as I am always happy to explain my position better. Jon 11368 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (cont.) Rob Ep The question you have formulated is a good one, Rob: if there is no practice, only the arising of discernment or understanding, brought on by the concordance of factors, what is a person to do or understand in order to accord with or bring about those conditions? The answer is there to be found in the suttas. On many, many occasions the importance is stressed of meeting the right person, hearing the true dhamma, reflecting on what one has heard and relating it to the present moment. We can hear this many times and yet not grasp its significance. The reason for that, it seems to me (and speaking from experience), is that we have strongly held innate ideas about practice as being something quite different, something that is not consistent with such a subtle ('softly, softly') approach. You will notice that these factors are not so much things *to be done* as we normally understand that expression, but nor on the other hand are they things that can *just happen*. The factors can only take hold in one who has some inkling of the danger and unsatisfactoriness in attachment and, most of all, in ignorance as the ultimate 'baddie', and who has some idea of the importance of developing understanding as the means of overcoming that attachment and ignorance. Again, there's no need to intellectualise too much about how this is all going to have its effect. There can be useful reflection about the dhamma and its relation to the present moment at any time, even as one reads posts. And asking pertinent questions (which is something you excel at) is also given in the texts as being a key asset. Jon --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Give the clarifications below, which I read as you saying that there > basically is > no practice, there is only the arising of discernment or understanding, > brought on > by the concordance of factors, what is the practitioner given to do or > understand > in order to accord with or bring about those conditions? Or does it in > fact have > nothing to do with the practitioner and there is basically nothing to > do. If one > studies the suttas, that is because the conditions have arisen to cause > this, and > one cannot decide to study them, or refrain from studying them. The > conditions > will make the decision. Or is there something that we are in fact > called upon to > do in order to create the proper environment for these conditions to > arise? > > Best, > Robert Ep. 11369 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi Dear Smallchap, Many thanks for making your presence known. I'm sure we all hope you'll enjoy reading the posts and find some points for wise reflection. --- smallchap wrote: > Hi, Dhamma Friends, > > Chance upon this forum through Nibbana.com forum. Have been > practising meditation for many years. Hope to become wiser through > reading your discussions. I don't talk much. So will remain as a > passive member. That's fine of course, but the occasional question or comment or even objection to what we say will help encourage us all too;-) I hope we get to know you a little more, such as where you live, too. Meanwhile, thanks again for saying 'hi' and welcome from us all. Sarah ====== 11370 From: small chap Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi Dear Sarah, Thank you for your kind words. >I hope we get to know you a little more, such as where you live, too. I am a male Chinese Singaporean. Have been practising meditation irregularly for about 20 years and still learning. Smallchap 11371 From: srnsk Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Hi Christine and Sarah, Thanks for sharing your kusala time and experience with us. I really smiled and luaghed with your mails. I am really admire your viriya (energy), Christine. Seeing an example of good friends (kalayanamitta) is also uplifting. Let me anumodhana with you guys. As I see it, and as I heard before, panna is the leading factor in all parami. Dana, sila, viriya, ... without a conducting of panna can go completely opposite way. It's not the "I" who do this. Anumodhana. Num 11372 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:03am Subject: India Ch 3, no. 2 India Ch 3, no. 2 When we cling to concepts we misinterprete realities and take them as a unity. We take a compact mass or collection of things as something that exists, such as a table or a chair. We join different objects, such as visible object or tangible object, into a whole but they appear one at a time, through different doorways. What we take for a whole can be resolved by paññå into different elements which arise and fall away. We also take different cittas performing their different functions for a ³whole², such as seeing and thinking. We believe that there is a long moment of seeing, that it lasts. We have to think of concepts so that we can perform our daily activities. Also the Buddha used concepts when he went out on his alms rounds, when he recognized his disciples and spoke to different people. However, he did not cling to concepts and he had no ignorance about them. We should lead our daily life naturally, but we can learn the difference between concepts and realities, dhammas. Acharn Sujin said that when seeing sees visible object, a concept does not arise together with seeing, but after seeing has fallen away, thinking can arise with a concept as object. We pay attention to concepts time and again, but we can learn to develop more understanding of a reality such as visible object appearing right now. We can learn to understand it as only a dhamma, not a person or thing that exists. Gradually we can know the difference between what is real and what is not real in the ultimate sense. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(IV, Sal åyattana vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, § 78, Rådha, 3): Then the venerable Rådha came to the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Rådha said to the Exalted One: - ³Well for me, lord, if the Exalted One would teach me a teaching in brief, hearing which I might dwell remote and earnest, ardent and aspiring.² ³What is non-self, Rådha, -for that you must abandon desire. And what is non-self, Rådha? The eye... visible objects... eye-consciousness... eye-contact... that pleasant or unpleasant or indifferent feeling, which arises owing to eye-contact. What is non-self, you must abandon desire for that. Tongue... body... mind... mental objects... mind-consciousness... mind-contact... you must abandon desire for all that.² Time and again the Buddha spoke about realities appearing through the six doorways so that people could develop understanding of their true nature of impermanence and anattå. Usually we live in the world of concepts and stories about life, but when understanding of dhammas such as seeing, visible object or feeling has been developed more, the concept of the whole world, a person, a body, can be broken down, resolved into elements. Then we learn that what we find so important are only insignificant dhammas that arise and fall away, which are non-self. When we read a Sutta about dhammas appearing through the six doorways we can be reminded to deeply consider its meaning: seeing, hearing or feeling appear time and again, even now. They are realities each with their own distinct nature and characteristic.The Buddha said that one must abandon desire for all realities. Understanding, paññå, is associated with a level of detachment: the development of paññå leads to detachment from the idea of self and eventually from all realities. 11373 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food op 18-02-2002 06:32 schreef srnsk@a... op srnsk@a...: > I am reading your Dhamma in Cambodia. It's a great food as well. In Ch.III, > you mentioned the Bodhipakkhiya dhamma. From what I have read the > samma-padhana, 4 right efforts, consists of 1) the avoidance of akusala > states as yet unarisen 2) the overcoming of akusala states already arisen 3) > the development of kusala states as yet unarisen, and 4)the maintaining of > kusala states already arisen. There may be some discussion on this before, > but I am curious what it really means by 2) the overcoming of akusala states > already arisen. Akusala which has already arisen and then completely fallen > away, what to overcome?? So what does it mean by overcome sth which has > already arisen and gone? What has been done, is done. If it means for future > akusala, then it will have the meaning as 1). Nina: Dear Num, first of all, would you askyour aunt to explain to K. Kanchana that the translation from English into Thai can be very free. If it is literal it will not sound so good, because the structures of both languages are so different. I have the same matter to deal with when I translate from Thai into English. The second padhana: when you have dosa and you are about to speak an unpleasant word sati can arise and be aware of the dosa that has just fallen away as only a nama, not self, and prevent you from speaking such a word. Then there is the "guarding of the doorways", indriya samvara sila. When satipatthana arises there are conditions for the four padhanas. However only at the moment of enlightenment they have reached fulfillment. Jon has written a lot on the four samma-padhanas and explained that they are non-self. We may intellectually understand this, but... we still take them for mine, even though we do not notice this. So long as there is no direct awareness of nama and rupa it is difficult for us to understand the four samma-padhanas as only nama and the way they function. > >Num: Let me ask you another question from Silakhandhavagga, almost all 13 sutta > say about chulasila, machimasila, mahasila, indriyasavara(which is all about > ayatana), satisampajanna, santosa, nivarana, 4 rupajhana and 8 vijja(6 > abhinna, lokiya-vipassana~n~nana (about knowing rupa and nama dhamma) and > then lokuttara ~n~nana). I think this whole vagga is pretty explicit about > developing satipatthana/pannna in daily life. One sutta also mentions that > sila and panna cannot be separated, where there is panna, there is sila, and > vice versa. I am a little curious why only the rupajhana is mentioned in the > suttas, not including the arupajhana? Nina: I do not know the passage referred to, and I know nothing about jhanas, therefore I cannot answer this. It is beyond my scope. There can be sila without panna, someone can observe precepts without panna, but when there is vipassana panna, there is indriya samvara sila. Paying respect or helping is included in sila. These can be performed with panna or without it. There may be often paying respect or helping with an idea of self who does so. It is good if this can be realized. Best wishes, from Nina. > 11374 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] three rounds and a glimpse of nibbana op 20-02-2002 13:44 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > > I thought you might be interested in these brief (and rough) recollections > from the discussions last weekend on the meaning of sacca-nana and > kicca-nana as 'rounds' of the Four Noble Truths (raised by Jaran, as I > recall). > > Sacca-nana: > Of the first Noble Truth, is firm intellectual understanding of the fact > that everything is dhammas, namas and rupas; appreciation of the > importance of this fact. > > Of the 2nd Noble Truth, means that attachment is seen as the cause of > suffering. Attachment here includes attachment to wrong practice, since > while there is the wrong idea about practice the natural development of > understanding is not possible. > > Of the 3rd Noble Truth, means understanding that everything must have an > end, that there is the possibility of extinction, since otherwise it would > not be possible for ignorance to be eradicated. > > Of the 4th Noble Truth, means firm understanding that this only is the > path, firm understanding of the difference between right view and wrong > view, and of the first 3 Noble Truths. > > Kicca-nana: > Any direct awareness of a nama or rupa is kicca-nana of all 4 Noble > Truths. > Dear Jonothan, this is most helpful. I think that we first have to understand intellectually that everything is dhamma, that is, non-self, before dhammas can be understood as impermanent and thus dukkha? The word dukkha is not used in: everything is dhamma. What do you think? It must amount to the same , but it is not quite clear. Nina. 11375 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 1:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Hi Num, Thanks for your post .... time to settle down again, and use the energy more constructively :-) I'm starting to study the Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views - Bhikkhu Bodhi. That should keep me quiet for a while .... a considerable while, by the looks. (All I ask is - please don't let me find that I hold ALL of the erroneous views ....) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "srnsk" wrote: > Hi Christine and Sarah, > > Thanks for sharing your kusala time and experience with us. I really > smiled and luaghed with your mails. I am really admire your viriya > (energy), Christine. Seeing an example of good friends (kalayanamitta) > is also uplifting. Let me anumodhana with you guys. > > As I see it, and as I heard before, panna is the leading factor in all > parami. Dana, sila, viriya, ... without a conducting of panna can go > completely opposite way. It's not the "I" who do this. > > Anumodhana. > > Num 11376 From: Victor Yu Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 2:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hello Ken, These five aggregates are not what I am. Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Ong" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) > Hi Victor > > Could we put in the perspective that all beings are the five aggregates > and in this view is not consider there is a denial of self or beings. I > think Buddhaghosa may not be too explicit in his meaning that there is no > self or being. He may just considered them as aggregates. > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > --- "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > > ---Dear Lucy, Howard, Victor and all, > > Thanks for your comments. Great to see you considering so carefully > > Lucy, in your posts. > > > > Victor, > > Thanks for carrying on the points you brought up on D-l. > > I'll just repeat them here as they give extra details. You noted that > > you disagree with the Visuddhimagga and find that Buddhaghosa was > > holding to an extreme view in his denial of self and being. I found > > this interesting as my letters were in responses to Buddhadasa of > > Thailand who thought that the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa went to > > the opposite extreme and implied a self. 11377 From: michael newton Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 2:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Hello!Christine; Could you send me Bhikkhu Bodhi's email address(if you've got it) I was a monk ordained by his teacher by Ven,Ananda Maitreya,his teacher,at Balangoda,but now I'm disrobed.I always admired Bhikkhu Bodhi,his depth of practice and knowledge.Thank's to this dhamma study group,I'm reconnecting with my past that was so rich and rewarding and now feel it's always there,but just hadn't seen it lately.Thank's to the world wide web,I've met others i used to know.Khun Sujin,Nina,and Sarah. I've recently connected with Ven.Sravista Dhammika,Australian monk,now living in Singapore,but travels to India,Sri Lanka,and Euope most recently.Downloaded some of his online PDF FILES.He's most recent work is"Good Questions,Good Answers".His email address is pitijoy@y.... MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY,YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL NEWTON >From: "christine_forsyth" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:14:38 -0000 > >Hi Num, > >Thanks for your post .... time to settle down again, and use the >energy more constructively :-) >I'm starting to study the Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of >Views - Bhikkhu Bodhi. That should keep me quiet for a while .... a >considerable while, by the looks. (All I ask is - please don't let me >find that I hold ALL of the erroneous views ....) > >metta, >Christine > >--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "srnsk" wrote: > > Hi Christine and Sarah, > > > > Thanks for sharing your kusala time and experience with us. I >really > > smiled and luaghed with your mails. I am really admire your viriya > > (energy), Christine. Seeing an example of good friends >(kalayanamitta) > > is also uplifting. Let me anumodhana with you guys. > > > > As I see it, and as I heard before, panna is the leading factor in >all > > parami. Dana, sila, viriya, ... without a conducting of panna can >go > > completely opposite way. It's not the "I" who do this. > > > > Anumodhana. > > > > Num > > > > 11378 From: srnsk Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food Dear Nina, << Dear Num, first of all, would you askyour aunt to explain to K. Kanchana that the translation from English into Thai can be very free. If it is literal it will not sound so good, because the structures of both languages are so different. I have the same matter to deal with when I translate from Thai into English.>> Yes, I will tell my aunt when I talk to her next time. I forgot to ask her about the topics discussed in the lecturer discussion, will try to ask her next time. <> Hmm, from your explanation, I still count that as 1) to prevent future akusala to arise, not 2). I also think of pakatupanissayapaccaya as a factor for the future akusala. For me, personally, I think this (2) means to discard whatever akusala actions we have already committed as not self, not ours and to move on. Kind of do not regret (kuccucca) for what have already been done. I may like to analyze but I agree that at the moment of satipatthana there is samma-viriya in there, no matter how we call or classify it. <> The pairing of sila and panna is from Sonadanda-sutta, sutta # 4 in silakhandhavagga. I agree with you that when there is panna, there is sila but not always vice versa. I know nothing about jhana either. I always ask my aunt, do I need to know how many planes of existence are there, should I read about jhana at all because I personally do not care much about it. I do not know about next life, the minute moment of vithicitta and definitely know nothing about nibbana. I mean all I know about those is from reading. From reading I know a lot of new names and vocabularies. I can think, analyze and memorize them with some difficulties but kind of understandable (intellectually not intuitively). I agree that dhamma, here and now, is provable and can be studied. She told me that listening and reading more even in pariyatti level is useful and can be a source for future yonisomanasikara and panna but without patipatti, it can be misleading or fruitless. The goal of listening and reading are not just to memorize, but to see and understand the truth, the 4 noble truths. To me, I see pariyatti and patipatti as the same thing, not completely separated. Again, as I see it, understanding is the key, not a wish or clinging to get a result. I find out that the tipitaka is pretty much talking about the reality and truths in our bodies, here and now. I enjoy reading Dhamma in Cambodia a lot. Thanks and appreciate. Num 11379 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 5:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - .... > To say a drop more, I've pasted below part of the > Mahasatipatthana > Sutta (from the Digha Nikaya) to which I add a comment or two: I’d like to follow up on a slightly different aspect of this discussion. In my previous reply to this post I pointed out how in the Satipatthana Sutta the Noble Eightfold Path is given as a ‘mind-object’ to be known as it really is. Specifically, as regards the Four Noble Truths, the sutta says: ‘A monk abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in respect of the Four Noble Truths. How does he do so? Here, a monk knows as it really is: “This is suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the origin of suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the cessation of suffering”; he knows as it really is: “This is the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering.” The last of these (the 4th Noble Truth) is of course the Noble Eightfold Path. I believe you see the Noble Eightfold Path as a series of separately occurring factors to be developed individually (now right effort, now right concentration, now right view etc). It's not clear to me how, under such a scenario, the *path-as-comprising-all-8-factors* could ever be a ‘mind-object’, that is to say, the object of a single moment of consciousness, capable of being ‘known as it really is’. (It could of course be an object of thinking, as a concept – but concepts have no quality (sabhava) by which they can be known as they really are). If, on the other hand, the Noble Eightfold Path is understood to be a moment of supramundane path consciousness (magga citta) comprising all 8 factors arising together, then that moment (or a moment of mundane insight comprising 5 of the same factors) can clearly be ‘known as it really is’. My point is, then, that the inclusion of the Noble Eightfold Path as one of the mind-objects of satipatthana supports the interpretation of the Path as describing a single moment of consciousness, rather than as separately occurring factors to be developed individually. Such a moment can accurately be described in terms of the description of the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path contained in the passage from the sutta (your post below). Jon > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with > > regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the > cessation > of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the > cessation of stress: This is called right view. "And what is right > resolve? > Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: > This is > called right resolve. "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, > from > divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is > called > right speech. "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, > from > stealing, & from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. "And > what > is right livelihood? There is the case where a disciple of the noble > ones, > having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right > livelihood: This is called right livelihood. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The preceding could be taken either descriptively or > prescriptively, > although 'abstaining' usually suggests intentional action. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > "And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates > desire, > endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake > of > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > arisen... for > the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have > arisen... > for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet > arisen... > (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, > development, & > culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right > > effort. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The expressions 'generates desire', 'endeavors', 'arouses, > upholds & > exerts his intent' strike me as unambigiously indicating intentional > effort. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > "And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains > focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- > putting > aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused > on > feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental > qualities in > & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & > distress > with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. "And what > is > right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn > from > sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & > remains > in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied > by > directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & > evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure > born > of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & > evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains > in > equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters > & > remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous > & > mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure > & > pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he > enters & > remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, > neither > pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The definition here of what constitutes "right concentration" > strikes > me as rather clear and unambiguous. Moreover, it constitutes a > relatively > large part of the sutta. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > "This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the > cessation of stress. > ================================= > 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) > 11380 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 6:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computers and dhammas Rob Ep I can see you are giving some careful thought to this. It is not easy to grasp, but very worthwhile persevering with. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > Yes, I can make that distinction. If I look at the computer, the > computer as it > appears at the moment [not calling it a computer but just what I see] is > a rupa. > It clearly is 'just there', isn't taking 'another object' as its own. > > If I think about what it is, then that computer is the object of that > thought. > That thought has computer as its object. That thought is a nama. > In a very colloquial, inaccurate sense, a nama is a thought, and a rupa > is an object. Just a comment on a particular part of this: > That thought has computer as its object. That thought is a nama. > In a very colloquial, inaccurate sense, a nama is a thought, and a rupa > is an object. I suggest it is thinking that has thought/concept (in this case, of computer) as its object. Thinking is a mental activity, the nature of which is to conceptualise (think); thoughts are the currency of that conceptualisation, and the object of that mental activity. Now in our example, the thinking of the thought/concept of ‘computer’ is conditioned by, or based on, certain experiences through the sense-doors (seeing, touching, etc) that precede the thinking (and also of course on recollections of previous sense-door experiences). Another way of saying this is that the realities that comprise the object we take for computer are experienced through the sense-doors initially, by way of seeing, touching etc., and it is by conceptualising about these sense-door experiences that the thought/concept of a computer arises. In terms of dhammas/realities: -- The consciousness experiencing the visible aspect of (what we take for) computer is nama, and its object is the rupa of visible data -- The thinking/conceptualising about ‘computer’ is also nama, and its object is the thought/concept of computer. Since we are exchanging ideas, we are using concepts (words), but the concepts refer to realities that can be directly experienced at the present moment. However, a correct intellectual grasp of what is real/not real (dhamma/not dhamma) at the present moment is essential. Jon 11381 From: Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 1:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Coming Together of Conditions Hi, Kom - Thank you for a thoughtful and detailed reply. Much of value here - thanks. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/20/02 4:04:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, tikmok@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I would like to make a short comment, which by no means > would be comprehensive enough to even begin to address the > topics. > > If you take a short look at the summary of patthana [the > book of conditions in the abhidhamma tipitaka], > http://www.zolag.co.uk/condf.pdf > you will see that for a dhamma [reality] to arise (even for > something as "simple" as seeing), there are many dhammas > (both extant and no longer extant) involved. For extant > dhammas, there are the visible object, the seeing > consciousness, its accompanying cetasikas, and the eye base, > (and probably others that I have missed). For examples of > no-longer-extant dhammas, there are kamma done previously > and the previous, already fallen away citta. These dhammas > condition one another in so many different ways that the > relationship links (if you draw a graph) between them can be > said to be explosive. > > I have no doubt that what you said in the latter case (of > what it means to be conditioned) is closer to realities. > What arises now conditions what is co-arising, what > immediately arises subsequently, and what arises after (and > well into the rest of samsara). > > Although I think only the buddha can really say [by way of > well-rounded, total, and direct penetration, in every > aspects, whereas we are just thinking] what are the exact > conditions of the dhamma rising now, we can (obviously) say > that the dhamma arising now is the manifestation of the > complete culmination of its immensely complex conditions. > > When there is kusala rising now, it is the culmination of > all those conditions, which may include the dhamma that has > been heard previously and/or wise consideration of what is > heard, but it also includes all the consciousness and mental > factors that are arising now. > > A. Sujin said that (stronger) panna rises from (weaker) > panna: panna doesn't rise out of ignorance (and no wisdom). > I interpret this to be involving many different conditions > involving panna. The most prominent would be hearing the > dhamma from a wise friend (panna at the hearing level), > considering what has already been heard or not heard (panna > at the thinking level), and the actual realization of the > dhamma (panna rising understanding the actual, present or > close to present, characteristics of the dhamma). > > On the other hand, being able to hear the dhammas and being > associated with a wise friend are the results of good deeds > in the past, one that may even involve panna. Being able to > understand the dhamma in this life would be attributed to > having a good rebirth (with all the alobha, adosa, and > amoha, which are the bases that allow the panna to grow) > which are definitely a result of good deed done with panna > in previous lives. > > If you understand how complex these conditions are, you can > get a glimpse of why dhamma is considered (by some) to be > uncontrollable, why it is relatively difficult for panna to > arise, and why developing panna is necessarily a slow > process which requires lifetimes of development (4 aeons > 100,000 kappas for the Buddha, 1 aeons 100,000 kappas for > Sariputta, 100,000 kappas for Ananda, and probably less than > 100,000 kappas for the rest of us, if conditions allow it.) > > kom > > > ps: > When I first had a bit of understanding of how complex > conditions are, I sort of equate it with studying the > weather. You know different factors condition one another, > but you are not really quite sure how the result is going to > be because it depends on so many conditions. Weather is > obviously anatta too... ;-) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 8:37 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [dsg] The Coming Together of Conditions > > > > > > Hi all - > > > > A brief question: It is said that no > > condition arises from a single > > condition, but from the coming together of > > conditions. A technical question > > would then be "What is it that constitutes the > > 'coming together' of > > conditions?" From the Abhidhammic perspective, at > > any point there is the > > discernment of a single object together with a > > variety of accompanying > > functions, all associated with that same object. > > Does this mean, then, that > > from the Abhidhammic perspective, of the > > conditions which come together, only > > one act of discernment of an object is included, > > with the other conditions > > being the cetasikas? Or, is it multiple > > mindstates, involving the discernment > > of several objects, which are the conditions that > > "come together", resulting > > in the arising of a new condition? This latter > > proposition seems to me to be > > more in step with the Dhamma as a whole. In which > > case, what restrictions on > > mindstates, what interrelationships among them in > > time, proximity, and > > content, are required to consider that they "come > > together". > > > > 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) 11382 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Dear Chris, I hope you're catching up on the much needed rest and that all the reflections are helping with the hospital and chores;-) --- christine_forsyth wrote: > But events outside my control threw some completely different > questions onto the table. Some sad events in the days before I was > to travel, caused a dear one emotional and mental pain, and put the > trip in doubt for a while. > So, there was no well prepared list of questions....just an intense > feeling about the fragility of life, the preciousness and finiteness > of time, and the need to use both wisely. Thoughts were filled with > death/kamma, attachment/dukkha, and anatta/no-control.......it's one > thing to read about, discuss and try to understand these topics, > considering them at a safe distance, but it is quite another to have > them crash through the imaginary safety barrier surrounding ones' own > family. Chris, I'm thinking it may be useful for everyone (inc. perhaps your family?), if you were to give some brief details about the 'events' you refer to and then make a few comments on what you heard or read that was helpful in terms of both your understanding and also in assisting others. I'd be interested, for one, to hear and will happily 'chip' in if there is anything I can add usefully. > It was the attachment/dukkha link pointed out by one friend and > discussed with others, that resulted in a growth in understanding > for me, and a tentative beginning of discussing Dhamma with family > members. Reading the chapters on Lobha in Ninas' books 'Cetasikas', > and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' was an 'education' , particularly when > I had the tragic incident and everyones' reactions (mine included) to > reflect on.....and Lobha is everywhere even in seemingly tiny, > previously unconsidered and insignificant things.......and it hides > under different names.....(it's much more serious and pervasive than > I had realised before). Can you elaborate on any of these comments - the Dhamma w/family members, the 'education', the reflections on 'reactions', and the pervasive nature of lobha. (Just in your own time - no hurry at all;-)) > As to what I learned this time - I'm not sure I can articulate it > exactly yet, .......... need a while (firstly to sleep) and then to > process and reflect on events, and the formal (and, equally > valuable, informal) discussions. I know how you feel.... > I definitely learned more about all of the topics mentioned above, > as well as understanding a little more the difference > between 'thinking' and 'seeing this moment and having awareness of > this moment' - plus something (new to me) about the attributes of > compassion (not always overtly warm and fuzzy), This would be interesting to hear more about too... (Now I'm sounding 'greedy' as Ken O would say;-)) > and the power of > kilesas and accumulations to strongly influence or even 'take > control' of our behaviour. Perhaps the close correlation between idea of self and control is more apparent now? Again, I think these points would be useful for us all to consider if and when you feel like starting the ball rolling. Chris, it sounds like about half a dozen posts I've asked for, but I know you'll just add your comments in your own time and delightful way. Maybe this is my response to being 'forced' to explain away our night-time exploits to all these good people;-) Sarah =================================================== > 11383 From: Michael Newton Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Smallchap, > > Many thanks for making your presence known. I'm sure > we all hope you'll > enjoy reading the posts and find some points for > wise reflection. > > --- smallchap wrote: > Hi, > Dhamma Friends, > > > > Chance upon this forum through Nibbana.com forum. > Have been > > practising meditation for many years. Hope to > become wiser through > > reading your discussions. I don't talk much. So > will remain as a > > passive member. > > That's fine of course, but the occasional question > or comment or even > objection to what we say will help encourage us all > too;-) I hope we get > to know you a little more, such as where you live, > too. > > Meanwhile, thanks again for saying 'hi' and welcome > from us all. > > Sarah > ====== > Hello!Sarah; Did you meet Ven.Srivasti Dhammika,from Australia?He was a good friend of Ven.Dhammadaro in Sri Lanka.Dhammika is still a monk and lives in Singapore,but travels,India,Sri Lanka,thailand,Malaysia,and Europe.He has written several pamphlets on Buddhism.One popular one is Good Questions,Good Answers and believe he met Nina,Khun Sujin,and was at talks in 1976 with us in Sri Lanka.Maybe,he he can get involved in group.(email addressis-pitijoy@y...) Michael 11384 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hi Victor Then what are you? If these five aggregates are not what you are, would you like to tell me what are you compose of. In the same way, that is how Buddhaghosa said that there is no being, bc that is not what they are. Is it the same as what you have said below. Be it conventional or ultimate definition, as you always also said "this is not I" is the basis for Buddhaghosa argument for no existence of beings. He is not here to defend for himself now, I believe he is not an extremist, to me, he is just stating a fact. Kind regards Ken O Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:22:19 -0500 From: "Victor Yu" Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hello Ken, These five aggregates are not what I am. Regards, Victor 11385 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Luminosity yet again! Hi Sarah, Actually I asked this question out of curiousity. Since beings in hell and other realms all have bhavanga cittas, hence luminious is applied to them too. I don't think my position is about an external pure mind essence, I dont think I have disagree with what is said in AA. What fathoms me is that why bavanga citta is used initially in the commentary to explain luminious citta then change to kusala cittas for development of the mind. To me as in my previous mail, it is not consistent. Nevertheless, till then, I do accept the commentary position. I not on holiday now, I am trying to be a lurker (he he :)). But sometimes the topic just too much for me not to say something. Hmm got to be more mindful of my tanha. Kind regards Ken O --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Ken O and Rob Ep, > > Jon just pointed out a note by B.Bodhi at the back of his anthology from > Anguttara Nikaya (p.278, note 13) which gives his own quite neat summary > of the meaning of Luminous (pabhassaram) in the suttas we've discussed > so > much. I think this pretty much accords with what some of us have been > saying and quoting. (Note AA refers to the commentary): > > "Luminous (pabhassaram). AA states that here "the mind" (citta) refers > to > the bhavanga-citta, the "life-continuum" or underlying stream of > consciousness which supervenes whenever active consciousness lapses, > most > notably in deep sleep. The 'adventitious defilements' are greed, hatred > and delusion, which appear at a stage of the cognitive process which, in > later Buddhist literature, is called javana, "impulsion". AA says that > the defilements do not arise simultaneously with the bhavanga, but they > 'arrive' later, at the phase of javana. the fact that this expression > "luminous mind" does not signify any "eternal and pure mind-essence" is > evident for the preceding text, in which the mind is said to be > extremely > fleeting and transitory. the "uninstructed worldling" (assutavaa > puthujjana) is one who lacks adequate knowledge of the dhamma and > training > in its practice." > > (I would just question the comment about 'in later Buddhist > literature'...) > > Ken O, you also asked someone to check w/ K.Sujin about bhavanga cittas > being pabhassaram (luminous) in hell realms or animal realms. She > confirmed that this must be so (i.e. they are always pbhassaram). I > understand this is because they are not yet affected by the defilements. > > Btw, a few people have been commenting on your long holiday from > dsg....hope you're back for a while and have had a happy family Chinese > New Year in Singapore. How about a nice family photo in the dsg photo > album as a New Year gift to us all??? > > Best wishes, > Sarah > ================================== 11386 From: Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Two Truths (for Howard) (II) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/20/02 8:45:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > .... > > To say a drop more, I've pasted below part of the > > Mahasatipatthana > > Sutta (from the Digha Nikaya) to which I add a comment or two: > > I’d like to follow up on a slightly different aspect of this discussion. > > In my previous reply to this post I pointed out how in the Satipatthana > Sutta the Noble Eightfold Path is given as a ‘mind-object’ to be known as > it really is. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand mind-objects to include thoughts, ideas, and concepts (as well as emotions, dispositions, etc) --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Specifically, as regards the Four Noble Truths, the sutta says: > ‘A monk abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in respect of > the Four Noble Truths. > How does he do so? > Here, a monk knows as it really is: “This is sufferingâ€?; > he knows as it really is: “This is the origin of sufferingâ€?; > he knows as it really is: “This is the cessation of sufferingâ€?; > he knows as it really is: “This is the way of practice leading to the > cessation of suffering.â€? > > The last of these (the 4th Noble Truth) is of course the Noble Eightfold > Path. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is an idea, and it is contemplated as such, or so it seems to me. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe you see the Noble Eightfold Path as a series of separately > occurring factors to be developed individually (now right effort, now > right concentration, now right view etc). It's not clear to me how, under > such a scenario, the *path-as-comprising-all-8-factors* could ever be a > ‘mind-object’, that is to say, the object of a single moment of > consciousness, capable of being ‘known as it really is’. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Where in this sutta, or in any other, does it say anything about the path being contemplated in a single mind-moment? --------------------------------------------------------------------- (It could of> > course be an object of thinking, as a concept – but concepts have no > quality (sabhava) by which they can be known as they really are). > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The key word was 'contemplate', as in "contemplating mind-objects". To contemplate is to think about, mull over, analyze with the mind. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If, on the other hand, the Noble Eightfold Path is understood to be a > moment of supramundane path consciousness (magga citta) comprising all 8 > factors arising together, then that moment (or a moment of mundane insight > comprising 5 of the same factors) can clearly be ‘known as it really is’. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't understand it so. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > My point is, then, that the inclusion of the Noble Eightfold Path as one > of the mind-objects of satipatthana supports the interpretation of the > Path as describing a single moment of consciousness, rather than as > separately occurring factors to be developed individually. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not as I see it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Such a moment can accurately be described in terms of the description of > the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path contained in the passage from the > sutta (your post below). > > 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) 11387 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 10:44pm Subject: other trip to India "Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Missed you all while in India and hope that nothing > will arise to keep me away next time you come to > Bangkok. But the next best thing will be to be able > to get copies of the tapes for the days you were > there. Hope they will give them to me. While a > feeling of deep regret for not having gone on the > Foundation's trip there back in October arose, it > quickly changed to acceptance for what circumstances > did arise. And although going with the group would > probably have helped me deal a lot better with what > I faced in that country, I did "bring home" a deeper > understanding of 3 points for which "I" needed > additional reminding: the insidious way in which > lobha and dhosa prevent panna from arising and how > much more difficult it is to study/learn dhamma in a > "woeful" lifetime. There also arose a keener > appreciation for the depth of emotion Lord Buddha > must have experienced upon facing the "real India" > when he came out of the protective confines of his > palace for the first time, before his enlightenment. > For the many in India, their lives must be surely > classified as a woeful existence, and yet it was > there that Lord Buddha began, or put in motion, the > "wheel" or path of the Dhamma. We each learn what is > needed at the right time and place, so these > "points" are probably what "I" needed to learn at > the time, given the vipaka arising at those times. > > India and all its color, sounds, smells, tastes and > other sensations were paccaya to cause what best can > be described in modern terms as sensory overload. > This lead to almost constant dhosa arising > throughout the trip. Hands flung into the face with > "How much will you pay for this?" and insistence on > an immediate answer, begging children, cow dung, > lepers (yes, there were a number of them also with > their wrapped hands and faces), crowds of moving > humanity, with never a moment of quiet to think or > contemplate, all came together in a "panic attack" > of sorts along the twisted lanes leading down to, > and back from, the ghats in Varanasi. Even thinking > the whole while that these constant sensations were > vipaka was not enough to alleviate the constant > dhosa arising, that dominated my thoughts. And > trying to "ignore" all of it, as a way of trying to > get those hawkers and beggars to leave me alone, was > also a form of dhosa too. It was also frustrating > (dhosa) never to have enough small change to give to > the beggars who were too pitiful for words. Perhaps > that is what the upper class Hindus do: they try to > ignore what goes on around them, find justification > for it in the caste system, and don't realize that > constant dhosa towards that which arises around them > leads them to run a government which does next to > nothing to try and alleviate somewhat the terrible > conditions because dhosa prevents it from finding a > way to best run its country. It is government > without dhamma (as are most world governments, to a > large extent). It puts forth the usual execuses: > overpopulation, etc., yet with Dhamma, understanding > could arise to how best to deal with the poverty. > > But, who am I to judge the Indian gov't? I had > constant dhosa all the time, so of course, I could > not see the reality either. But just when I would > think of all the sights being just color, the sounds > being just sound, etc., a hand or something to buy > was thrust in my face, breaking all thought. I never > could look "at the moment" either and be aware of > what reality was arising at the time; satipattana > never arose in India (for "me".) But an increasing > realization of just how difficult it would be to > study and understand dhamma under such circumstances > did arise, along with a greater appreciation and > understanding why an enlightened being, the Buddha, > would be born into such an environment and to later > teach the Dhamma there. What better place than India > to begin? with metta, Betty > _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 11388 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dear Sarah ("kusala" revisited) Dear Dan, --- onco111 wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > ...I am just so surprised to see you glossing "kusala" as "skillful"! ...and here you are putting me in the ‘hot’ seat;-) I'm not fooled by the 'Dear' heading......;-) Many thanks, nonetheless, for your instructive and useful comments. I hope this time that I’ve considered this issue more carefully and will add a few points from these reflections (in no special order). ********** 1. Any definitions of Pali terms tend to carry their own ‘baggage’ and the more one thinks about them, the more baggage they seem to carry. Other translations of ‘kusala’ certainly do, such as ‘wholesome’ (the bread and all), ‘pure’ (white lights and Pure Yoga now in Hong Kong!), ‘good’ (I’m always telling my stuedents to avoid good, bad and nice in essays), and ‘faultless’ (w/the opposite ‘faulty’ reminding me of ‘Fawlty Towers’ the John Cleese commedy). ..... 2. Even if we just use ‘kusala’ and some other Pali terms like ‘nama’ and ‘rupa’ and don’t translate further (as in Thailand), the baggage of micha ditthi still has a way of misinterpreting and understanding the terms according to its own agenda ..... 3. Usually when I write here, I’m thinking in terms of the Pali term for these words, but try to put a definition in brackets or delete the Pali if I’m writing to someone new to the list. To be honest, I don’t think too much about the translation and usually copy ones I’m used to using or ones that friends I respect are used to using ..... 4. I think that as Nina mentioned in one of her recent letters or articles (India?), we shouldn’t be attached or too concerned about labels or terms in that they are merely ways of referring to realities to be known. As we know, we have to hear a lot more details about any of these terms before they are really understood at all. ..... 5.. > Last winter, I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation would > steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people are more > loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! Actually, I had no idea at all about your hidden agenda here..Very interesting indeed;-) Of course, now I know, I’ll be on the lookout for others with the same bag of tricks. I’d honestly never thought of this implication before this post of yours. ..... 6.> I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I > thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about > anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it > with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of > course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort > (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about Right Effort). I > was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss for "kusala" > because I could use it in my quest to steer the conversation back to > the more comfortable realm of mistaking conventional effort for Right > Effort and of making it easier to stay firmly rooted in sakaya-ditthi > [personality view]. Now Sarah is doing the same thing (albeit, > unintentionally). Yes, quite unintentional and I have no idea if others have the same ‘subversive intent’ Dan....they’re all in danger now of having their intents tarnished now in any case;-) Of course I’d rather someone react with aversion to ‘wholesome’ than with sakkaya ditthi to ‘skilful’, so you may have persuaded me to avoid skilful for now;-) Probably in conversation I’d say something like ‘skilful in the sense of inherently good..’ but it’s too much of a mouthful here. ..... 7. I’ve checked a few small, medium and big pali dictionaries. The large Rhys Davids one translates kusala as clever, skilful, expert, good, right, meritorious. At the back of the Vism in the glossary, we find skilful, but profitable or faultless in the sections I checked . U Narada seems to go for faultless, Bodhi for wholesome, Buddhadatta for clever (as adj), Nyantiloka for wholesome. ..... 8. I conducted a mini-survey of translations of kusala in one particular Dhp verse which obviously is using kusala in its moral sense. I found good, refined, and skilful. ..... 9.. Perhaps of greatest importance is that what I think I hadn’t appreciated or taken note of (even tho’ I must of read or skimmed many times) until you pointed it out are the refs from the Atthasalini. What I now understand from these is that kusala in Pali actually has several different meanings and it depends on the context as to which is being referred to. (I had thought it always referred to the morally good and bad contexts and had never taken note of other uses). > What do the commentaries say? Well, we briefly discussed Asl. earlier > ["skilful" is excluded from the list of appropriate glosses for > kusala when it applies to dhammas, but is explicitly mentioned as a > fine way to think about dancing, singing, etc.] Ok, now I see your meaning: Kusala can refer to ‘good health’, ‘blameless conduct’ ‘faultless states’’skilful as in singing etc’’kamma productive of happy results’. the details are on p.48, 49 of the PTs Atth translation. I agree that as a result, skilful can be misleading if it is used (as I do) to ‘faultless states’. (Now what about ‘states’, Dan...;-) I still don’t understand, though (and don’t have the Pali), why the same translator on p.83 writes: ‘Moreover, from the absence of the faultiness, hate, and torments of the ‘corruptions’, kusala has the sense of ‘faultlessness.’ Understanding is described as SKILFULNESS. ‘Good’ has the sense of ‘brought about by SKILFULNESS.’ (my caps- comments?) ..... 10. > How so? First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can > get good at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? > > Yeah, yeah, I know. You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas > themselves... But how would that work? If someone asks this kind of question, I think the problem is with the idea of self practicing and doing rather than the particular use of skilful, but you should know better having had firsthand experience in subversive methodology;-) ..... 11.Dan you also asked me (off-list) to consider the following in my reply: Dan “O.K. Could you also consider the eel-wriggler section of the Brahmajala sutta in this context? In particular, one type of eel-wriggler refuses to consider anything as kusala/akusala because it might occasion distress, tension, etc. This sounds eerily (if not eelily) like choosing to gloss "kusala" as "skilful" in order to avoid thinking about the moral dimension of kusala/akusala. Of course, the moral dimension is inherent in the meaning and cannot be avoided by choosing a morally neutral word like "skilful"--witness the dsg discussion about excising half the meaning of "skilful" so that it cannot mean "good at" as applied to lying, dancing, chariots, etc.--the moral dimension is still there, but it is just swept under the carpet for the moment because it is uncomfortable to consider (a la the eel-wriggler).” I hope any final comments I make don’t sound eerily or eelily wriggly;-) As I mentioned at the outset, whenever I’ve used kusala/akusala and any terms in translation, I’ve always been referring to the moral dimension or inherently good/bad dimension. My only reason for using skilful has only ever been to avoid using wholesome/unwholesome, not because of the moral tone of the latter, but because of its ‘ring’ to English speakers (bread or other associations). Now you’ve fully enlightened me, I will probably use wholesome in preference (better some half-baked bread misundestanding than the sakkaya ditthi of the accomplished subersive list members like your former self;-) As I said before, I seldom have any strong feelings when it comes to translations. (Chris, when you get to the ‘eel-wriggling’ in the Brahmajala, pls share any further reminders as I’ve run out of time to check now). ..... 12. Dan, it’s been really interesting to learn more about your dsg tactical confessions and these tactical mistakes on my part. I think by now, most people know that I’m not in the habit of knowingly giving the wrigglers such an easy ‘under the carpet’ delay in facing up to what I see as being the true facts. (Btw, would you give me a page ref. to U Narada’s comments you refer to. Thanks). ********** Look forward to your ‘proper’ March visit.....and to comments on any other ‘gloss’ or easy options I may have inadvertently given to the ‘subversive’ folk like yourself. Sarah p.s Rob Ep......I have to admit that this reminded me of how ‘tough’ Dan’s posts used to be for us all in the old days;-) Now, he’d make a good lawyer..;-) ====================================================== extract from Nyantiloka’s dictionary: kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skillful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', when the term is applied to states of consciousness. ********** Dan’s comments which I haven’t replied to in context: ..... >When a citta rooted in alobha, > adosa, amoha arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or > demonstrate skill? The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do > something well, arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm > curious. What talent, training, or practice has the citta engaged in > to give it that ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it > doesn't do any such thing; it is there for just a brief moment before > passing away. It would be nice to just remove the "arising from > talent, training, or practice" clause from the definition. The desire > to do so might be there, but it's not such an easy thing to do! The > definition of "skill" was skillfully constructed with the "arising > from..." clause included precisely because that's what naturally > comes to mind when people think of the word. To ignore it or try > to "remove" the clause is to shut one's eyes to the strong tendency > of people to associate training and practice with the > word "skillful," and imagine the skillful being rather than the > kusala dhamma. It is because of this tendency that the > word "skillful" is (only?) applied to beings and their works (and is > precisely why I used to use it to keep the conversation on dsg > comfortable for sakayaditti). For example, skillful teachers, > dancers, and liars, or skillful lessons, performances, and > deceptions. In both cases, the being is rather forcefully implied. To > apply the word to inanimate objects has an awkward ring to it. For > example, no one says the sun is skillful at warming the earth or the > watch is skillful at measuring time. The reason these sound funny is > that there is clearly no being for skillful to refer to. In thinking > about dhammas, there is such a strong tendency to subconsciously look > for self in the dhammas that "skillful" can feel quite comfortable > and preferable to less "animate" words. It is strange to hear of your > preference for the comfort of the Self-validating "skillful" over > other, less ditthi-inducing words. > > What do the commentaries say? Well, we briefly discussed Asl. earlier > ["skilful" is excluded from the list of appropriate glosses for > kusala when it applies to dhammas, but is explicitly mentioned as a > fine way to think about dancing, singing, etc.], and U Narada, in his > Introduction to "Conditional Relations", writes: "'Skilful'. ...it > cannot apply to moral states, not even to the sensuous, leave alone > the lofty and supramundane. The Commentary states that 'skilful' is > not a suitable meaning....The meaning of 'kusala' is also given in > the Commentaries on the Suttas..." He then goes on to list where the > word is defined in some 14 places in sutta commentaries. None of them > include "skilful", and some explicitly say 'skilful' is not an > appropriate gloss for kusala as applied to mental states. Why do you > think the commentaries, Ven. Nyanatiloka [in his dictionary], and U > Narada would so clearly reject 'skillful'?... > > Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11389 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002 11:53pm Subject: Re: Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Dear Sarah, Sweet Revenge ..... can this be regarded as an abuse of power by the moderators? I will be happy to expand on my previous post, but will need to take a little while - the day I arrived back my brother was unexpectedly admitted to hospital - hopefully home tomorrow. I don't wonder why bad things happen, but why they are happening in clusters........ The only 'folk-wisdom' / 'superstition' explanation people keep telling me is that 'You'll be O.K. now, bad things come in threes' ...... Depends where they're counting from, I suppose...... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Chris, > > I hope you're catching up on the much needed rest and that all the > reflections are helping with the hospital and chores;-) > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > > But events outside my control threw some completely different > > questions onto the table. Some sad events in the days before I was > > to travel, caused a dear one emotional and mental pain, and put the > > trip in doubt for a while. > > So, there was no well prepared list of questions....just an intense > > feeling about the fragility of life, the preciousness and finiteness > > of time, and the need to use both wisely. Thoughts were filled with > > death/kamma, attachment/dukkha, and anatta/no-control.......it's one > > thing to read about, discuss and try to understand these topics, > > considering them at a safe distance, but it is quite another to have > > them crash through the imaginary safety barrier surrounding ones' own > > family. > > Chris, I'm thinking it may be useful for everyone (inc. perhaps your > family?), if you were to give some brief details about the 'events' you > refer to and then make a few comments on what you heard or read that was > helpful in terms of both your understanding and also in assisting others. > I'd be interested, for one, to hear and will happily 'chip' in if there > is anything I can add usefully. > > > It was the attachment/dukkha link pointed out by one friend and > > discussed with others, that resulted in a growth in understanding > > for me, and a tentative beginning of discussing Dhamma with family > > members. Reading the chapters on Lobha in Ninas' books 'Cetasikas', > > and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' was an 'education' , particularly when > > I had the tragic incident and everyones' reactions (mine included) to > > reflect on.....and Lobha is everywhere even in seemingly tiny, > > previously unconsidered and insignificant things.......and it hides > > under different names.....(it's much more serious and pervasive than > > I had realised before). > > Can you elaborate on any of these comments - the Dhamma w/family members, > the 'education', the reflections on 'reactions', and the pervasive nature > of lobha. (Just in your own time - no hurry at all;-)) > > > As to what I learned this time - I'm not sure I can articulate it > > exactly yet, .......... need a while (firstly to sleep) and then to > > process and reflect on events, and the formal (and, equally > > valuable, informal) discussions. > > I know how you feel.... > > > I definitely learned more about all of the topics mentioned above, > > as well as understanding a little more the difference > > between 'thinking' and 'seeing this moment and having awareness of > > this moment' - plus something (new to me) about the attributes of > > compassion (not always overtly warm and fuzzy), > > This would be interesting to hear more about too... (Now I'm sounding > 'greedy' as Ken O would say;-)) > > > and the power of > > kilesas and accumulations to strongly influence or even 'take > > control' of our behaviour. > > Perhaps the close correlation between idea of self and control is more > apparent now? Again, I think these points would be useful for us all to > consider if and when you feel like starting the ball rolling. > > Chris, it sounds like about half a dozen posts I've asked for, but I know > you'll just add your comments in your own time and delightful way. > > Maybe this is my response to being 'forced' to explain away our night-time > exploits to all these good people;-) > > Sarah > =================================================== 11390 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi- Michael Dear Michael, --- Michael Newton wrote: > --- > > Hello!Sarah; > Did you meet Ven.Srivasti Dhammika,from > Australia? > He was a good friend of Ven.Dhammadaro in > Sri Lanka. I don't remember having met, but I tend to remember faces better than names. Tadao (who sometimes lurks here) would probably know him as he was with Ven Dhammadharo for most that period as Ven Jetananda. >Dhammika is still > a monk and lives in Singapore,but travels,India,Sri > Lanka,thailand,Malaysia,and Europe.He has written > several pamphlets on Buddhism.One > popular one is Good Questions,Good Answers > and believe he met Nina,Khun Sujin,and was at talks in > 1976 with us in Sri Lanka.Maybe,he he can get involved > in group. He may also be in a photo I have from that time. We'd be very honoured if he'd care to join us here. Please pass him or the other mutual friend you mentioned before who knew me in B.Gaya this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup I'm very glad that you're finding so many friends and links here, Michael and I hope you're enjoying the discussions. Sarah ============================================ 11391 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02.Dr NUM Dear Num, --- srnsk wrote: > Hi Christine and Sarah, > > Thanks for sharing your kusala time and experience with us. I really > smiled and luaghed with your mails. Thanks for your good humour and apologies for abusing your role as 'list psychiatrist'. Jon pointed out your aunt to me but she was giving a dhamma talk at the time. Jon said she was asking questions in the Thai session w/ K.Sujin but I forget if he told me what they were about...perhaps he'll fill in the details. I'm appreciating all the discussion between herself, you and Nina (even if most of it is 'over my head';-)). I'm always so impressed (read-amazed) by your keen interest and attention to details. Sarah =================================================== 11392 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food Num Just a short comment on the 4 padhanas (right endeavours) --- srnsk@a... wrote: > Dear Nina, > > I am reading your Dhamma in Cambodia. It's a great food as well. In > Ch.III, > you mentioned the Bodhipakkhiya dhamma. From what I have read the > samma-padhana, 4 right efforts, consists of 1) the avoidance of akusala > states as yet unarisen 2) the overcoming of akusala states already > arisen 3) > the development of kusala states as yet unarisen, and 4)the maintaining > of > kusala states already arisen. There may be some discussion on this > before, > but I am curious what it really means by 2) the overcoming of akusala > states > already arisen. Akusala which has already arisen and then completely > fallen > away, what to overcome?? So what does it mean by overcome sth which has > already arisen and gone? What has been done, is done. If it means for > future > akusala, then it will have the meaning as 1). I paste below the description given in the Visuddhimagga as translated by Nanamoli. In the same passage it explains how, at mundane path moments, the accompanying viriya is one or other of the 4 endeavours, depending on the circumstances giving rise to the citta, while at moment of supramundane path consciousness the accompanying viriya performs the function f all 4 endeavours. Jon The Path of Purity XXII, 39 And at the time when, on seeing an unprofitable state arisen in someone else, which has not yet arisen in his own person, he strives for its non-arising thus ‘I shall not behave as he has done in whom this is now arisen, and so this will not arise in me’, then he has the first right endeavour; when, seeing something unprofitable in his own behaviour, he strives to abandon it, then he has the second; when he strives to arouse jhana or insight so far unarisen in this person, he has the third; and when he arouses again and again what has already arisen so that it shall not diminish, he has the fourth. ... 11393 From: onco111 Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dear Sarah ("kusala" revisited) > 5.. > Last winter, I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation > would > > steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people are more > > loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! > > Actually, I had no idea at all about your hidden agenda here..Very > interesting indeed;-) Of course, now I know, I'll be on the lookout for > others with the same bag of tricks. I'd honestly never thought of this > implication before this post of yours. Well, if you'd asked me about it then, I'd probably have said, "No, I'm not doing that," because it wasn't entirely clear to me that that was what I was doing. Of course, if someone else would have asked me about it then, I may have paused, thought about it, and said, "Hmmm...You're right! I am!" Debating with someone can very easily lead to hardending views because we get so caught up in our positions that we view our position as "Self" and can't bear the thought of doing anything to harm that Self. > 6.> I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I > > thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about > > anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it > > with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of > > course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort > > (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about Right Effort). I > > was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss for "kusala" > > because I could use it in my quest to steer the conversation back to > > the more comfortable realm of mistaking conventional effort for Right > > Effort and of making it easier to stay firmly rooted in sakaya- ditthi > > [personality view]. Now Sarah is doing the same thing (albeit, > > unintentionally). > > Yes, quite unintentional and I have no idea if others have the same > `subversive intent' Dan....they're all in danger now of having their > intents tarnished now in any case;-) It's clear to me that my intents are tarnished 99.9% of the time. (On the other hand, I sure don't want other people to know that! "*I* am GOOD!" Ha Ha!) Kusala cittas are rare and precious, and looking closely at how we use words can sometimes illustrate this clearly. > 7. I've checked a few small, medium and big pali dictionaries. The large > Rhys Davids one translates kusala as clever, skilful, expert, good, right, > meritorious. At the back of the Vism in the glossary, we find skilful, but > profitable or faultless in the sections I checked . U Narada seems to go > for faultless, Bodhi for wholesome, Buddhadatta for clever (as adj), > Nyantiloka for wholesome. Yes, of course "kusala" has all these meanings, but "skillful" is not appropriate for cittas or cetasikas. Another example: Even though her husband used "clever, skilful, expert" in his dictionary, C.A.F. Rhys Davids elaborates further in the introduction to her translation of Dhammasangani (p. lxxxiii): "Of these four [viz. (a) wholesome, (b) virtuous, (c) skilful, (d) productive of happy result], (c) alone is ruled out as not applicable to the eight types of good thoughts constituting dhamma kusala." It can be quite dangerous to just look through the dictionary for the gloss of a word that makes us feel the most comfortable about our ditthi! > 8. I conducted a mini-survey of translations of kusala in one particular > Dhp verse which obviously is using kusala in its moral sense. I found > good, refined, and skilful. Some translations are certainly better than others! > What I now understand from these is that kusala in Pali actually has > several different meanings and it depends on the context as to which is > being referred to. (I had thought it always referred to the morally good > and bad contexts and had never taken note of other uses). Right. The "skilful" sense is not properly used when applied to dhammas. > I agree that as a result, skilful can be misleading if it is used (as I > do) to `faultless states'. (Now what about `states', Dan...;-) "States" is a good word to use when you want to blur the distinctions between citta, cetasika, and dhamma -- a fine thing to do in this context! You are a sharp one, Sarah. I'm a bit rushed now, so to zoom through your comments... > as being the true facts. (Btw, would you give me a page ref. to U Narada's > comments you refer to. Thanks). Page cix (last page in the introduction to CR [not "Guide to CR"], vol. 1). > extract from Nyantiloka's dictionary: > > kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: > of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, > skillful. It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', > when the term is applied to states of consciousness. 11394 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit/Michael Hi Michael, (I posted this reply a couple of hours ago, but it hasn't appeared on the List yet. So, I am re-posting it. Sorry if you end up reading it twice.) Sorry, I don't have any contact address for Bhikkhu Bodhi ..... he is one of my favourite writers though. Thank you for your interesting post. I enjoyed reading about your past Dhamma connections, and I'm so glad you are finding your way back in touch again. I don't think we ever lose the true parts of our life - sometimes we just wander away for a while, and get distracted by other things. But eventually we come back to our "hearts' home" and find the beauty is still the same and wonder how we ever could have stopped noticing it........ Hope to see more of your posts on this list, Michael.... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "michael newton" wrote: > Hello!Christine; > Could you send me Bhikkhu Bodhi's email address(if you've got it) > I was a monk ordained by his teacher by Ven,Ananda Maitreya,his > teacher,at Balangoda,but now I'm disrobed.I always admired Bhikkhu > Bodhi,his depth of practice and knowledge.Thank's to this dhamma study > group,I'm reconnecting with my past that was so rich and rewarding and > now feel it's always there,but just hadn't seen it lately.Thank's to the > world wide web,I've met others i used to know.Khun Sujin,Nina,and Sarah. > I've recently connected with Ven.Sravista Dhammika,Australian monk,now > living in Singapore,but travels to India,Sri Lanka,and Euope most > recently.Downloaded some of his online PDF FILES.He's most recent work > is"Good Questions,Good Answers".His email address is pitijoy@y... > MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY,YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL NEWTON > > > >From: "christine_forsyth" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@y... > >To: dhammastudygroup@y... > >Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. > >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:14:38 -0000 > > > >Hi Num, > > > >Thanks for your post .... time to settle down again, and use the > >energy more constructively :-) > >I'm starting to study the Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of > >Views - Bhikkhu Bodhi. That should keep me quiet for a while .... a > >considerable while, by the looks. (All I ask is - please don't let me > >find that I hold ALL of the erroneous views ....) > > > >metta, > >Christine > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "srnsk" wrote: > > > Hi Christine and Sarah, > > > > > > Thanks for sharing your kusala time and experience with us. I > >really > > > smiled and luaghed with your mails. I am really admire your viriya > > > (energy), Christine. Seeing an example of good friends > >(kalayanamitta) > > > is also uplifting. Let me anumodhana with you guys. > > > > > > As I see it, and as I heard before, panna is the leading factor in > >all > > > parami. Dana, sila, viriya, ... without a conducting of panna can > >go > > > completely opposite way. It's not the "I" who do this. > > > > > > Anumodhana. > > > > > > Num 11395 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok - another visit/Michael --- Dear Michael, Ven. bodhi's address is venbodhi@i... You could mention this group to him. When I wrote to him last year he had only occasional internet access so felt unable to get involved in lists (plus he is busy) but you never know. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Michael, > (I posted this reply a couple of hours ago, but it hasn't appeared > on the List yet. So, I am re-posting it. Sorry if you end up > reading it twice.) > > Sorry, I don't have any contact address for Bhikkhu Bodhi ..... he is > one of my favourite writers though. > > Thank you for your interesting post. I enjoyed reading about your > past Dhamma connections, and I'm so glad you are finding your way > back in touch again. I don't think we ever lose the true parts of > our life - sometimes we just wander away for a while, and get > distracted by other things. But eventually we come back to > our "hearts' home" and find the beauty is still the same and wonder > how we ever could have stopped noticing it........ Hope to see more > of your posts on this list, Michael.... > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "michael newton" > wrote: > > Hello!Christine; > > Could you send me Bhikkhu Bodhi's email address(if you've got it) > > I was a monk ordained by his teacher by Ven,Ananda Maitreya,his > > teacher,at Balangoda,but now I'm disrobed.I always admired Bhikkhu > > Bodhi,his depth of practice and knowledge.Thank's to this dhamma > study > > group,I'm reconnecting with my past that was so rich and rewarding > and > > now feel it's always there,but just hadn't seen it lately.Thank's > to the > > world wide web,I've met others i used to know.Khun Sujin,Nina,and > Sarah. > > I've recently connected with Ven.Sravista Dhammika,Australian > monk,now > > living in Singapore,but travels to India,Sri Lanka,and Euope most > > recently.Downloaded some of his online PDF FILES.He's most recent > work > > is"Good Questions,Good Answers".His email address is pitijoy@y... > > MAY ALL BEINGS BE HAPPY,YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL NEWTON > > > > 11396 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bangkok - another visit, a different taste 14/18-2-02. Dear Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Sweet Revenge ..... can this be regarded as an abuse of power by the > moderators? > I will be happy to expand on my previous post, but will need to take > a little while - the day I arrived back my brother was unexpectedly > admitted to hospital - hopefully home tomorrow. I sincerely hope he's OK....you've certainly been having a few tests lately.... I'm just reflecting on K.Sujin's reminders about thinking about/helping the others with kusala (no translation;-) instead of dwelling on one's own unpleasant feelings as can happen so easily..... Please don't you or anyone ever feel any hurry or need at all to reply to anything I say here... > I don't wonder why bad things happen, but why they are happening in > clusters........ I think it comes back to those complex conditions that kom explained so well..remember his weather analogy? Remember too, that the 'things' are just momentary vipaka (results of kamma) followed by kusala and akusala accumulations..... The only 'folk-wisdom' / 'superstition' explanation > people keep telling me is that 'You'll be O.K. now, bad things come > in threes' ...... Depends where they're counting from, I > suppose...... In any language, i hope you get a good rest and break this weekend and that your brother and other family members do too. metta, Sarah ======== 11397 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] other trip to India Dear Betty, Thanks for sharing with everyone here. I'm sure your husband was glad to have you on this trip and I fully sympathise - travelling in India is always exhausting, I find. As you point out so well, lobha and dosa really are uncontrollable....and you've just had some good tests;-) Thanks for portraying the details and your reactions so honestly and vividly. Really I can't help smiling.....such wit and great everyday detail these days from our female members (thinking of Christine and Lucy and now your post;-)) I know Nina and others will appreciate it very much too. Sounds like you need to catch up on some rest from the 'overload' too;-) Sarah ============= --- "Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: > "Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" > wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Missed you all while in India and hope that nothing > > will arise to keep me away next time you come to > > Bangkok. >>But the next best thing will be to be able > > to get copies of the tapes for the days you were > > there. Hope they will give them to me. While a > > feeling of deep regret for not having gone on the > > Foundation's trip there back in October arose, it > > quickly changed to acceptance for what circumstances > > did arise. And although going with the group would > > probably have helped me deal a lot better with what > > I faced in that country, I did "bring home" a deeper > > understanding of 3 points for which "I" needed > > additional reminding: the insidious way in which > > lobha and dhosa prevent panna from arising and how > > much more difficult it is to study/learn dhamma in a > > "woeful" lifetime. There also arose a keener > > appreciation for the depth of emotion Lord Buddha > > must have experienced upon facing the "real India" > > when he came out of the protective confines of his > > palace for the first time, before his enlightenment. > > For the many in India, their lives must be surely > > classified as a woeful existence, and yet it was > > there that Lord Buddha began, or put in motion, the > > "wheel" or path of the Dhamma. We each learn what is > > needed at the right time and place, so these > > "points" are probably what "I" needed to learn at > > the time, given the vipaka arising at those times. > > > > India and all its color, sounds, smells, tastes and > > other sensations were paccaya to cause what best can > > be described in modern terms as sensory overload. > > This lead to almost constant dhosa arising > > throughout the trip. Hands flung into the face with > > "How much will you pay for this?" and insistence on > > an immediate answer, begging children, cow dung, > > lepers (yes, there were a number of them also with > > their wrapped hands and faces), crowds of moving > > humanity, with never a moment of quiet to think or > > contemplate, all came together in a "panic attack" > > of sorts along the twisted lanes leading down to, > > and back from, the ghats in Varanasi. Even thinking > > the whole while that these constant sensations were > > vipaka was not enough to alleviate the constant > > dhosa arising, that dominated my thoughts. And > > trying to "ignore" all of it, as a way of trying to > > get those hawkers and beggars to leave me alone, was > > also a form of dhosa too. It was also frustrating > > (dhosa) never to have enough small change to give to > > the beggars who were too pitiful for words. Perhaps > > that is what the upper class Hindus do: they try to > > ignore what goes on around them, find justification > > for it in the caste system, and don't realize that > > constant dhosa towards that which arises around them > > leads them to run a government which does next to > > nothing to try and alleviate somewhat the terrible > > conditions because dhosa prevents it from finding a > > way to best run its country. It is government > > without dhamma (as are most world governments, to a > > large extent). It puts forth the usual execuses: > > overpopulation, etc., yet with Dhamma, understanding > > could arise to how best to deal with the poverty. > > > > But, who am I to judge the Indian gov't? I had > > constant dhosa all the time, so of course, I could > > not see the reality either. But just when I would > > think of all the sights being just color, the sounds > > being just sound, etc., a hand or something to buy > > was thrust in my face, breaking all thought. I never > > could look "at the moment" either and be aware of > > what reality was arising at the time; satipattana > > never arose in India (for "me".) But an increasing > > realization of just how difficult it would be to > > study and understand dhamma under such circumstances > > did arise, along with a greater appreciation and > > understanding why an enlightened being, the Buddha, > > would be born into such an environment and to later > > teach the Dhamma there. What better place than India > > to begin? 11398 From: srnsk Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] sharing food Dear Nina, Jon and Sarah, <<>> Ahha, it makes more sense to me now, when you put in the mundane and supramundane levels. Like in Sotapatimagga-citta moment, the panna at that level completely eradicates (discards) micchaditthi and viccikicca, so at that moment all four aspects of samma-viriya are in there. Those two will not arise again (1), completely discard (2), moral that has never arisen has arisen (3), and there can be only samma-ditthi arises again and again (4), (my own version of interpretation). This will be an ongoing thing until the moment of the last magga-citta. I also think that I can apply this to lokiya kusala. To me, even in lokiya kusala moment, the viriya cetasika performs these four functions but in a weaker intensity and degree. At kusala moment, akusla at least momentary discards and somewhat temporary not arises. Kusala is developed and it will be a condition for the future kusala. I mean not in same intensity as in magga-citta. This also reminded me of 3 rounds explanation by A.Sujin, that even in lokiya level, the 3 rounds of 12 could be applied to. Thanks for the quote from VSM and also the definition of the 3 rounds, Jon. And this also for Sarah, you mentioned about my peculiar attention to details. Well, the teaching of the Buddha is deep and hard to really understand (definitely for me). When I read sutta or abhidhamma, I prefer to understand it at least literally (byanjana!!) and semantically (attha), also if conditions permit, intuitively as well. That's why I come up with a lot of questions, mainly because I do not understand what I have read or listened. Appreciate, Num 11399 From: yuzhonghao Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 9:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) Hello Ken, I will put your question aside as I see it leads to self-view, which in turn leads to dukkha, does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > Then what are you? If these five aggregates are not what you are, would > you like to tell me what are you compose of. In the same way, that is how > Buddhaghosa said that there is no being, bc that is not what they are. Is > it the same as what you have said below. > > Be it conventional or ultimate definition, as you always also said "this > is not I" is the basis for Buddhaghosa argument for no existence of > beings. He is not here to defend for himself now, I believe he is not an > extremist, to me, he is just stating a fact. > > > > Kind regards > Ken O > > > > > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 17:22:19 -0500 > From: "Victor Yu" > Subject: Re: Fwd: Paticcasamuppada 3(victor) > > Hello Ken, > > These five aggregates are not what I am. > > Regards, > Victor