15600 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 9:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concepts) Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:26 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana > > > Hi Kom, > > I've forgotten what our original question was but > I could comment on > these questions: > > "1) Is hardness paramatha dhamma or concept? > > 2) Is visible object paramatha dhamma or concept? > > 3) Is lobha paramatha dhamma or concept?" > > Hardness is just hardness, it would never be I think we agree on this one. Hardness is hardness. There is nothing beyond the hardness. Hardness is a paramatha dhamma with its own characteristics which is different from heat or cold, or tension, or visible object, or sound. > "table" unless one were > trying to identify by touch. So there is a > definite difference here > between sensation and concept. Whenever there is hardness that appears, there is a consciousness that cognizes this hardness. The hardness appears as the object to the consciousness. The hardness doesn't cognize, but the consciousness does. Both of these are paramatha dhamma. > However, there > *could* be a very subtle > concept involved in hardness sensation. I don't > know. I'd have to take a > closer look, somehow. Often, immediately after the hardness appears, the consciousness in the mind door often thinks of the object. When we see the visible object, we associate the object with shapes, with the different colors, with its being something (like a monitor, English letters), and finally we may associate it with a name. All these associations sometimes don't happen. We also experience visible objects through out the day without (much) thinking about the object. The visible object is paramatha dhamma: its characteristics are different from hardness, heat, or tangible object. The consciousness is paramatha dhamma: it sees the visible object. The associations are what we (in DSG) call thinking. The shape, the meaning of the visible object, the name all don't have their own characteristics and don't exist in the ultimate way (because they have no characteristics.) > Visual sensation usually (if not always) > identifies something but not > with name and meaning (concept). Concept is added > later but what is this > identity? Subtle concept? If so, how to separate > visual sensation and > concept? Even an unknown is identified as an > unknown. Let me know if what what is discussed above hasn't clarified this section. > Lobha is very interesting. Supposedly this is a > cetasika but it seems to > me it is more like rupa with concept. Vedana is > the same way. There are > bodily sensations involved with desire or > pleasant feeling, for example. > But they are more than body sensation; I can't > think what that 'more' > could be if not concept or "subtle concept". Lobha also has its own characteristics. Its characteristic is the attachment to its object. Do you feel the attachment toward something you like? That's the characteristics lobha. Lobha is nothing beyond its characteristics. It is not you: it is just a dhamma. Lobha toward a visible object is different from the visible object. It has the object as its aramana, where as the object has no cognition function, which is unlike lobha. Lobha is nama: its characteristic is the attachment toward its object. Lobha is not concept. Concept has no characteristics; the characteristic of lobha is the attachment. Do you have disagreement to what I said? Is there any part that is unclear? kom 15601 From: Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 5:07pm Subject: Re: Hi from Aus - Question? >Why is it that so, so many of the >members of this group are from Australia? A wildly disproportionate >percentage... any theories? Perhaps it is something in the drinking >water :-) ? Creosote. metta, stephen ---Hello Christine ;-) 15602 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 9:15pm Subject: [dsg] Vitakka and concepts Larry, I am separating this thread out to keep things more manageable. > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 8:26 PM > By the way, how do you separate concept from > vitakka and vicara or > ditthi? Vitakka is a paramatha dhamma. Its characteristics is to touch its object. When the consciousness through the mind door thinks of something, vitakka touches that something. Vitakka can have concept as its aramana, but concept cannot have anything as aramana. Concept is not real: it is neither nama nor rupa, it doesn't exist, and it doesn't cognize anything. Vicara is a paramatha dhamma. Its characteristics is to follow its object. When the consciousness through the mind door thinks of something, vicara follows that something. Vicara, except in jhana cittas, always is con-ascent with vitakka. Therefore, vicara has the same aramana as the vitakka that it is con-ascent with. Vitaka is different from vicara: they both have their distinct characteristics that are not the same as one another. They are paramatha dhamma. I think it would be fruiful for us to keep at discussing the differences between paramatha dhamma and concept until this is clear. Otherwise, studying further teachings would just bring more confusions and mis-understanding. kom 15603 From: Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 9:55pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concepts) Hi Kom, I'm afraid I still don't understand how concepts don't have characteristics. How do we tell them apart if they don't have characteristics? I believe concepts are defined as name and meaning. Aren't name and meaning characteristics? Also, I'm not real sure what is attachment. Larry 15604 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 9, 2002 10:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concepts) Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:56 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and > Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) > (realities/concepts) > > > Hi Kom, > > I'm afraid I still don't understand how concepts > don't have > characteristics. What's the difference between a hardness and a table? A visible object and a person? When you see a car on TV? What is truly there? What isn't? > How do we tell them apart if > they don't have > characteristics? The citta cognizes both realities and concepts. The function of the citta is to know the differences between what appears. > I believe concepts are defined > as name and meaning. > Aren't name and meaning characteristics? Name and meaning are concepts. Shape or form is also concept. Concept can be only cognized by the mind door. What are the characteristics of name and meaning? > > Also, I'm not real sure what is attachment. > Desire, lust, wanting, hope, wishful thinking, longing, greed, feeling toward a loved one. These are the different shades and degrees of attachment. kom 15605 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi from Aus Hi Deb, Thanks for sharing your intro and a few comments. I hope you find it useful reading and participating here. --- debanstis wrote: > > Hi, > My name is Deb, I am new to your group, I have always been interested > in Theravada Buddhism and travelled through Sri Lanka and Thailand. .... Interesting....perhaps we'll hear more in due course. ..... > I am a beginner to "terms", so I hope to gain a deeper understanding > of Theravada Buddhism from the interactive context of this group. > So, I may lurk for awhile before I post again. ..... Please don't be put off by the "terms" and ask for any clarification. We'd all prefer to have you participating in your 'own' language. There is a simple Pali glossary at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Pali_Glossary ..... > Thankyou in advance, > Deb from Australia ..... Whereabouts are you in Oz? I'm not sure there are more Australian members than Canadian ones, Rob M, but maybe the Aussies are a more vocal lot;-) Btw, Anthony, many thanks for sharing a little more about yourself. Perhaps we'll get together when we're next in Sydney. (...just thinking about when we arranged to meet Anthony B. there.....he was rather nervous about meeting beings from cyberspace -- no photos in those days -- and decided that the Town Hall steps would be a 'safe' and 'public' place. But unknown to him, on the assigned day the Town Hall was closed off to the public. Luckily he'd said he'd be wearing a red shirt and there weren't too many men in red shirts wandering around the area......). This reminds me, if you or Deb or Krishnan or anyone else cares to share a pic in the DSG photo album (click on photos on left side of home page), we'd all be very glad to 'see' you. Rob Ed, many thanks for sharing yours recently. This will help people not to get the 4 Robs mixed up. Sarah ====== 15606 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 7:33am Subject: Re: Hi from Aus: Greeting From Another Aussie Dhamma Bloke Dear Deb How are you? Welcome to the DSG assembly of dhamma friends. Greeting from another Aussie Dhamma Bloke from Canberra! With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "debanstis" wrote: Hi, My name is Deb, I am new to your group, I have always been interested in Theravada Buddhism and travelled through Sri Lanka and Thailand. I am a beginner to "terms", so I hope to gain a deeper understanding of Theravada Buddhism from the interactive context of this group. So, I may lurk for awhile before I post again. Thankyou in advance, Deb from Australia 15607 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: Live in Niagara Dear Dan, I enjoyed reading your report, also about Matt, written with such sense of humor, I had a good time with your posts. This is priceless the way you described it: lobha as teacher instead of panna. Yes, we all have mostly lobha leading us. I am glad you found it worth while, and I hope Jim also had a fruitful time. You had kusala viriya, to take the efforts in traveling rather far and back again. A. Sujin wrote about an elderly person who had viriya to travel far to the Foundation. I do appreciate your kusala citta, and I quote: With much appreciation, Nina. op 09-09-2002 00:03 schreef onco111 op dhd5@c...: > > The long trip for such a short discussion was well worth it, > > The first taste of dsg Live was precious, 15608 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mind-process Dear Rob M Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. But don't forget: whatever I learnt is due to A. Sujin. The end of your post is a good marana sati. Best wishes for success with your class and with appreciation, Nina. op 09-09-2002 00:51 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: (snip) This > legacy will continue long after the nama-rupa named "Nina" is gone. > > Saddhu, Saddhu, Saddhu. > 15609 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] subtle point Dear Sarah Thank you very much. I have an older edition, less Pali. But I have the Pali of Fruits of Recluseship, and this is the same sort of passage. What is difficult for me: what is the monk conveying to himself here by kayavinnatti? I go forward with mindfulness? Nina. op 09-09-2002 08:47 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > I’m not sure how relevant this is and I know you’ll have read these > details before. Nina, do you have the ‘revised’ PTS edition of > Sammohavinodani? We have the 1996 edition which includes a lot of Pali > terms and is very user friendly. I note it was revised by Lance Cousins, > Nyanaponika and C. Shaw. > ***** > “But ‘clear comprehension through non-delusion’ is not being deluded as > regards moving forward and so on. That should be understood thus: here a > bhikkhu, when moving forward or moving backward, unlike the blind ordinary > man who deludes himself as regards moving forward, etc (by imagining;) ‘A > self moves forward, the moving forward is produced by a self’ or : ‘I move > forward, the moving forward is produced by me,’ is one who is not so > deluded; when the consciousness ‘I (will) move forward’ arises, together > with that same consciousness there arises the consciousness originated air > element, which produces (bodily) intimation (vi~n~natti). thus this > framework of bones called the body moves forward by means of the diffusion > of the air element due to the action of consciousness.” > 15610 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 1:07pm Subject: Re: Fwd: Would learning Pali really help? Dear Herman, Comments inserted below: --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "egberdina" wrote: Dear Christine, Herman: You asked for it:-) ---------------------------------- Chris: I'm quivering in terror, but claiming the parliamentary Right of Reply... :-) -------------------------------- "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Recently on a number of lists, members have had differences about > the > > Buddha's teaching based on translations of the Tipitaka. It occurs > > to me that 21st century Buddhists are at the mercy of the vigilance, > > ethics, and competence of translators and of the translators > > interests and biases (unconscious or otherwise). --------------------------------- Herman: 21st century buddhists and non-buddhists alike are at the mercy of ignorance more than anything else. Not the type of ignorance that is mitigated by scholarship. More the ignorance that prevents the insight into what is happening right here, right now. --------------------------------- Chris: Why Herman! we agree completely (how can this have happened :-))..... You say: "insight into what is happening right here, right now" - like ... while I am sitting on a hard chair reading and typing a reply to your post, and inhaling the aroma while tasting some hot chamomile tea? And feeling my usual mixed emotions at your words :)? Not in a special place, on a special seat, in a special posture, doing a special activity.....? :-):-) --------------------------------- Herman: You are perhaps familiar with the Leunig cartoon of a man with his arm around his little son, sharing with him the delight of seeing the sunrise on TV, whilst the sun is seen to rise through a side window. --------------------------------- Chris: I'm a Leunig fan - at least of those cartoons a Buddhist lady will admit to appreciating :-) --------------------------------- Herman: The sun doesn't rise in books. If the book helps you to find the window, good and well. Perhaps the book may show you where the door is. But to go there, you need to leave the TV and the book behind. If you really want to find the truth, you have to be prepared to forsake everything, absolutely everything. The book says that too. ---------------------------------- Chris: Are you assuming that people who study the Tipitika have never lived life to the full and had other types of worldly and spiritual experiences and practices? That we sprang from our mother's wombs wrapped in cotton wool, wearing blinkers, reading glasses and ear muffs, and clutching a Pali dictionary :) I value the Tipitaka as something more than just old tomes, written by pious bushies who were somehow not quite as intelligent and perceptive as the average 'modern' person. I believe the Tipitaka to be the actual Teachings of the Buddha, meticulously preserved at great human cost. (Inexpressible thanks to those at Aluvihara, those before them and those since) I am not a naive bibliophile who hasn't had the experience of formal meditation (and if only I would 'try it', I would have the scales fall from my eyes....). ---------------------------------- Herman: Anatta for starters. ---------------------------------- Chris: Is that the one about there being no-self who can control consciousness, making mind-states happen at will? :-) ---------------------------------- A little, true story. I am greatly indebted to my father. At age 50, he discarded his entire theology/philosophy library. (He also was a minister of religion). Imagine the four walls of a roomy study, lined with shelves from the floor to the ceiling, not a vacant square centimetre, all the shelves jam-packed with hefty tomes on you-name- it, anything to do with spiritual quests. What happened? A small germ had taken root. God is not found in books. He quit the church, and his garden did better out of it, too. ------------------------------- Chris: Thanks for sharing about your father Herman - I too lived for many years with a devotion to God. I know what it is to be seduced by the rapture of mystical experience - better by far to know what is Real. I don't live in a 'nice' cocoon of how I imagine the world to be. There is no control, no safety, no protection for this bag of khandas.. I am immersed everyday in the depths of the misery humans are capable of inflicting on themselves and others - and deal constantly with beings blindly under the sway of their defilements - learning a little about the great breadth and depth of my own as well. Not through books or the TV news, but through the ever changing good and evil I witness in myself and in my daily work. The Dhamma-Vinaya is used as a tool, a roadmap, a way of heading for home out of the suffering and chaos of life. Not as a substitute for experience. ----------------------------- All the Best Herman ----------------------------- And also to you, Herman, Christine 15611 From: robmoult Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mind-process Hi Nina, Whereas money gets smaller when shared, appreciation is like merit (also like love); it grows bigger when shared. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M > Thank you for your kind words and encouragement. But don't forget: whatever > I learnt is due to A. Sujin. The end of your post is a good marana sati. > Best wishes for success with your class and with appreciation, > Nina. > > op 09-09-2002 00:51 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > (snip) > This > > legacy will continue long after the nama-rupa named "Nina" is gone. > > > > Saddhu, Saddhu, Saddhu. > > 15612 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:23pm Subject: RE: [dsg] ADL ch. 23 (2) Dear Larry, Here's my take: > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 5:35 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 23 (2) > > > Dear Nina, thanks very much for this (below). However, I'm still not > clear on what A. Sujin is teaching with regard to satipatthana > meditation. I get the feeling she thinks it is a waste of time or it > would be better to contemplate the dhamma unencumbered by formalities of > meditation technique or the concept of satipatthana meditation is ill > conceived. Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. > > I would like to see what Kom, Sarah, and Jon have to say on this as > well. Get sort of a consensus view. > > thanks, Larry > --------------- > Nina wrote: > > L: What is A. > Sujin's view on satipatthana meditation? Why doesn't she teach it? Does > she teach a similar discipline for developing detachment? > N: There should be development of satipatthana, that is, sati and panna, > development of direct awareness and understanding of the characteristics > of nama and rupa, very, very gradually. There may be a lot of thinking > involved, but there can also be a moment of noting a characteristic > without thinking. This may be seldom, but in this way the difference > between thinking and sati can be known. The development of satipatthana > will lead first to detachment from self, and later on from all namas and > rupas. But together with satipatthana all perfections should be > developed. They support panna. When the perfections are being developed > there is a degree of giving up of clinging: dana, sila, renunciation, > patience, metta, and the other perfections. > Best wishes > from Nina. > A. Sujin constantly teaches about Satipatthana and its "practice" (pati-pati). However, she does not encourage people to "practice" the way that many contemporary "meditation" teachers teach. She teaches that it is impossible to develop wisdom from ignorance, i.e., without first gaining understanding what the 4 noble truths really are. She doesn't encourage people to jump into "meditation" by following others, and making hasty conclusion about the benefits of such meditation based on their (or others') ignorance about realities, sati, and the objects of sati. This goes back to our previous discussion. Without understanding Paramatha dhamma and concepts, we may have the wrong idea that the Buddhas talk about concepts when he talks about Kandhas, Ayatnas, Dhatus, and objects of Satipatthana. Therefore, we must first understand the differences between paramatha dhamma and concepts; otherwise, we are bound to get confused. kom 15613 From: robmoult Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:45pm Subject: Driving to the 'Middle Way' Hi All, I use Office XP on my computer and it has a feature called "Smart Tags" that tries to help me when it can. I was typing in a quote from a Sutta that included the words 'Middle Way' (capitalized, but no quotes). A smart tag box appeared and asked me if I wanted to: - Add this to my address book - Add this to my list of contacts - Display a map - Display driving instructions Oh, I wish it were that easy :-) Thanks, Rob M :-) 15614 From: Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 3:18pm Subject: ADL ch. 24 (2) http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 24 (2) We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book XII, Kindred Sayings about the Truths, chapter V, §5, The keyhole) that, when the Buddha was staying at Vesålí in Great Grove, Ånanda went into Vesålí on his rounds for almsfood. In Vesålí he saw the Licchavi youths practising archery. He then went to see the Buddha and said: ``Here, lord, robing myself in the forenoon and taking bowl and outer robe I set out for Vesålí on my begging rounds. Then, lord, I saw a number of Licchavi youths in the gymnasium making practice at archery, shooting even from a distance through a very small keyhole, and splitting an arrow, shot after shot, with never a miss. And I said to myself, lord: `Practised shots are these Licchavi youths! Well practised shots indeed are these Licchavi youths, to be able even at a distance to splinter an arrow through a very small keyhole, shot after shot, with never a miss!´ ´´ ``Now what think you, Ånanda? Which is the harder, which is the harder task to compass: To shoot like that or to pierce one strand of hair, a hundred times divided, with another strand?´´ ``Why, lord, of course to split a hair in such a way is the harder, much the harder task.´´ ``Just so, Ånanda, they who penetrate the meaning of: This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, pierce through something much harder to pierce. Wherefore, Ånanda, you must make an effort to realize: This is dukkha. This is the arising of dukkha. This is the ceasing of dukkha. This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha.'' One might feel discouraged when reading this sutta; it would seem that it is impossible to attain enlightenment. However, if one develops the right Path, not the wrong Path, one will realize the four noble Truths; one will attain enlightenment. The way to realize the four noble Truths is to be mindful of the realities which appear now: seeing, visible object, lobha, dosa or any other reality. We should not be discouraged when we do not seem to make rapid progress. Most people cling to a result and they become impatient when they do not notice an immediate result; clinging to a result, however, is not helpful for the development of wisdom, it is akusala. Some people feel that the development of samatha can give a more immediate result. Samatha, when it has been developed in the right way, has tranquillity as its result. When jhåna is attained, lobha, dosa and moha are temporarily eliminated. However, the attainment of jhåna is extremely difficult and many conditions have to be cultivated. If one develops samatha, the five hindrances are bound to arise: there will be sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness, worry and doubt. until ``access-concentration´´ or jhåna have been attained. The aim of vipassanå is not tranquillity, but the eradication of wrong view and eventually of all defilements. This goal may seem far off, but each short moment of right awareness of nåma and rúpa is very fruitful; it will help to eliminate clinging to the concept of self. While one is mindful, there are no lobha, dosa or moha. Although tranquillity is not the aim of vipassanå, at the moment of right mindfulness there is kusala citta, and kusala citta is accompanied by calm. Vipassanå or insight is the development of right understanding of all nåmas and rúpas which present themselves in daily life. Insight is developed in different stages and in the course of its development the characteristics of nåma and rúpa will be understood more clearly, and their arising and falling away will be known through direct experience. When insight has been developed stage by stage, the nåma and rúpa which present themselves through the six doors can be clearly seen as impermanent, dukkha and non-self, anattå. When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, the unconditioned reality, nibbåna, is directly experienced. The direct experience of nibbåna is different from thinking about nibbåna. Nibbåna is directly experienced during a mind-door process of cittas. Nibbåna cannot be experienced through any of the five senses, it can be experienced only through the mind-door. In the process during which enlightenment is attained, the manodvåråvajjana-citta (the mind-door-adverting-consciousness) takes as its object one of the three characteristics of reality: impermanence, dukkha or anattå. This means that the reality presenting itself at that moment is seen either as impermanent, or as dukkha or as anattå. Anicca, dukkha and anattå are three aspects of the truth of conditioned realities. Thus, if one sees one aspect, one also sees the other aspects. However, the three characteristics cannot be experienced at the same time, since citta can experience only one object at a time. It depends on one's accumulations which of the three characteristics is realized in the process of cittas during which enlightenment is attained: one person views the reality appearing at that moment as impermanent, another as dukkha, and another again as non-self, anattå. The mano-dvåråvajjana-citta, mind-door-adverting-consciousness, of that process adverts to one of these three characteristics and is then succeeded by three or four cittas which are not yet lokuttara cittas, but mahå-kusala cittas (kusala cittas of the sense-sphere) accompanied by paññå. The first mahå-kusala citta, which is called parikamma or preparatory consciousness, still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta. Whichever of the three characteristics of conditioned realities the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta adverted to, the parikamma realizes that characteristic. The parikamma is succeeded by the upacåra or proximity consciousness which still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana citta. This citta, the second mahå-kusala citta in that process, is nearer to the moment the lokuttara cittas will arise. The upacåra is succeeded by the anuloma, which means conformity or adaptation. This citta still has the same object as the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta. Anuloma is succeeded by gotrabhú which is sometimes translated as change of lineage. This citta is the last kåmåvacara citta in that process. There is gotrabhú in samatha and in vipassanå. Gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta in a process before a citta of another plane of consciousness arises. The other plane of consciousness may be rúpåvacara, arúpåvacara or lokuttara. In samatha, gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta before the rúpa-jhånacitta or the arúpa-jhånacitta arises. In vipassanå, gotrabhú is the last kåmåvacara citta of the non-ariyan before the lokuttara citta arises and he becomes an ariyan. The object of the gotrabhú arising before the lokuttara cittas is different from the object of gotrabhú in samatha; the gotrabhú preceding the lokuttara cittas experiences nibbåna. It is the first citta in that process which experiences nibbåna, but it is not lokuttara citta. At the moment of gotrabhú the person who is about to attain enlightenment is still a non-ariyan. Gotrabhú does not eradicate defilements. Gotrabhú is succeeded by the magga-citta which eradicates the defilements that are to be eradicated at the stage of the sotåpanna. The magga-citta is the first lokuttara citta in that process of cittas. When it has fallen away it is succeeded by two (or three) phala-cittas (fruition-consciousness) which are the result of the magga-citta and which still have nibbåna as the object. As we have seen, the magga-citta is succeeded immediately by its result, in the same process of citta. The magga-citta cannot produce vipåka in the form of rebirth, such as the kusala citta of the other planes of consciousness. The phala-cittas are succeeded by bhavanga-cittas. Some people do not need the moment of parikamma (preparatory consciousness) and in that case three moments of phala-citta arise instead of two moments. 15615 From: Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 2:40pm Subject: illogical? Hello all, Rob has raised some questions that I can't fully answer without exploring Buddhist logic. Buddhism has some interesting ways of classifying things (e.g., by characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes) that are very useful, and novel, but I'm not sure its logic makes much sense. Isn't it just borrowed? Rob has referred, in particular, to the Cula-Malunkovada where it's said that 4 (every?) possibilities of a Tathagata after death are wrong: that he exists, doesn't exist, both exists and doesn't exist, neither exists nor doesn't exist. Now I think it's always used this way: as meaning 'every possibility'. And then they are all rejected. Ignoring, for the moment, the special problems about existence (in passing, one needs to be cautious about regarding 'existence' as a predicate: The bird is blue, fast, *exists*.) what does this mean, as a logical structure—in itself? If the above is correct, that it simply means 'every possibility," then: x, not-x, both, neither. As such there's no reason to see it as anything but a 2 valued or bivalent logic with four possibilities. As such nothing remarkable; acceptable to Aristotle. Looking closer things become murky. We seem to have: x, not-x, x & not-x, not(x or not-x). (Or: All S is P, no S is P, S is P & not-P, S is not P nor not-P.) X or not-x is no problem, but what of the other two? The last, not x or not-x, can be seen as saying the predicate doesn't apply; S is neither P nor not-P because P is not applicable to S. Still 2 valued, no problem. But x & not-x appears to be a straightforward contradiction; so nonsense? But perhaps this can be read as: 'Every S is P' and 'No S is P' which are contraries, i.e., they both can't be true, but they can both be false. But now it can't be read as an exhaustive enumeration of possibilities. Let's stop and ask: anyone care to sort this out? Anyone see anything—KEY POINT—that suggests a more than 2 valued (T or F) logic here? (Some non-Aristotelian position on existence that suggests we do or don't and something else?) The thought also occurs that this is a poor adumbration of the square of opposition, and the use of "some" could sort things out. But here's a simpler way to put it: P is (all) x, P is (all) not-x, P is partly x and partly not-x, P is neither x nor not-x. So, for an example, (given rebirth) does my self (P) continue to exist after death (x)? To say yes (P is x) is eternalism, to say no (P is not-x) is annihilationism. Easy ;-) Now the other two. 'Both' would mean partly continues to exist and partly ceases to exist; e.g., that consciousness continues but the body dies. Sounds good (logically that is, not an overt contraction), and is also to be rejected. And the fourth: neither continues to exist (since there's no self to begin with to be reborn) nor ceases to exist (as the self didn't exist in the first place). But this last is confusing. It could also mean continues in some attenuated state between existence and nonexistence (so we're now in a 3 valued logic?). Since individuality continues but not as a self there's continuity, without identity. So we also have the well known neither the same nor different. If this just means 'doesn't apply' it seems relatively straightforward and 2 valued: T or F. But if it means something else is it at odds with Aristotelian logic? Are we into a 3 or 4 valued logic concerning existence? I'm more or less arguing not. (I'm using Aristotle because he's approximately contemporaneous, but also because there are also paraconsistent logics of more than 2 truth values, which I know essentially nothing about, and wonder if they may apply here.) If anyone actually read this far give yourself a chocolate. If anyone can actually reply I may give you one! metta, stephen 15616 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 6:59pm Subject: Re: illogical? --- Dear Stephen, Did the Tathagatha exist before death? Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello all, > Rob has raised some questions that I can't fully answer without exploring > Buddhist logic. Buddhism has some interesting ways of classifying things > (e.g., by characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes) > that are very useful, and novel, but I'm not sure its logic makes much sense. > Isn't it just borrowed? > Rob has referred, in particular, to the Cula-Malunkovada where it's said that > 4 (every?) possibilities of a Tathagata after death are wrong: that he > exists, doesn't exist, both exists and doesn't exist, neither exists nor > doesn't exist. Now I think it's always used this way: as meaning 'every > possibility'. And then they are all rejected. Ignoring, for the moment, the > special problems about existence (in passing, one needs to be cautious about > regarding 'existence' as a predicate: The bird is blue, fast, *exists*.) what > does this mean, as a logical structureâ€"in itself? > > If the above is correct, that it simply means 'every possibility," then: x, > not-x, both, neither. As such there's no reason to see it as anything but a 2 > valued or bivalent logic with four possibilities. As such nothing remarkable; > acceptable to Aristotle. > > Looking closer things become murky. We seem to have: x, not-x, x & not-x, > not(x or not-x). (Or: All S is P, no S is P, S is P & not-P, S is not P nor > not-P.) X or not-x is no problem, but what of the other two? The last, not x > or not-x, can be seen as saying the predicate doesn't apply; S is neither P > nor not-P because P is not applicable to S. Still 2 valued, no problem. But x > & not-x appears to be a straightforward contradiction; so nonsense? But > perhaps this can be read as: 'Every S is P' and 'No S is P' which are > contraries, i.e., they both can't be true, but they can both be false. But > now it can't be read as an exhaustive enumeration of possibilities. > > Let's stop and ask: anyone care to sort this out? Anyone see anythingâ€"KEY > POINTâ€"that suggests a more than 2 valued (T or F) logic here? (Some > non-Aristotelian position on existence that suggests we do or don't and > something else?) > > The thought also occurs that this is a poor adumbration of the square of > opposition, and the use of "some" could sort things out. But here's a simpler > way to put it: P is (all) x, P is (all) not-x, P is partly x and partly > not-x, P is neither x nor not-x. So, for an example, (given rebirth) does my > self (P) continue to exist after death (x)? To say yes (P is x) is > eternalism, to say no (P is not-x) is annihilationism. Easy ;-) Now the other > two. 'Both' would mean partly continues to exist and partly ceases to exist; > e.g., that consciousness continues but the body dies. Sounds good (logically > that is, not an overt contraction), and is also to be rejected. And the > fourth: neither continues to exist (since there's no self to begin with to be > reborn) nor ceases to exist (as the self didn't exist in the first place). > But this last is confusing. It could also mean continues in some attenuated > state between existence and nonexistence (so we're now in a 3 valued logic?). > Since individuality continues but not as a self there's continuity, without > identity. > So we also have the well known neither the same nor different. If this just > means 'doesn't apply' it seems relatively straightforward and 2 valued: T or > F. But if it means something else is it at odds with Aristotelian logic? Are > we into a 3 or 4 valued logic concerning existence? I'm more or less arguing > not. (I'm using Aristotle because he's approximately contemporaneous, but > also because there are also paraconsistent logics of more than 2 truth > values, which I know essentially nothing about, and wonder if they may apply > here.) > > If anyone actually read this far give yourself a chocolate. If anyone can > actually reply I may give you one! > > metta, stephen 15617 From: Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: illogical? Hi, Robert (and Stephen) - In a message dated 9/10/02 10:01:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Stephen, > Did the Tathagatha exist before death? > Robert > ======================== Answer: No. (Except in a conventional sense.) Now that takes care of the 1st alternative. The third and fourth might be dismissed simply as logical contradictions. However, what is the basis for dismissing the 2nd altrnative: The Tathagata doesn't exist (after death(? At first reading one would take the denial of the 1st alternative to constitute the affirmation of the second. As I see it, the solution must lie in the meaning of the negation operator in combination with the meaning of existence. Perhaps 'to exist' means to exist intrinsically/essentially as a separate self-sufficient entity, and 'to not exist' is not the mere denial of the first, but, rather, means to not exist in any manner whatsoever. That is, the assertion is an extreme, and the denial is an opposite, antipodal extreme. 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) 15618 From: robmoult Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:08pm Subject: Re: illogical? Hi Stephen, Let me clarify my question a bit: I am intrigued that Malunkyaputta offered four options: - X - NOT X - X AND (NOT X) - NOT (X AND (NOT X)) I am asking if "traditional logic" usually limits itself to the first two options. This is of interest to me because logic in quantum theory makes use of the last two options. I am asking this question because I want to make the point that the Suttas had a wider perspective than "traditional logic". BTW, when asked this question, the Buddha did not say that all four options were wrong. He refused to answer. Thanks, Rob M :-) PS: So, do I get a chocolate? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello all, > Rob has raised some questions that I can't fully answer without exploring > Buddhist logic. Buddhism has some interesting ways of classifying things > (e.g., by characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes) > that are very useful, and novel, but I'm not sure its logic makes much sense. > Isn't it just borrowed? > Rob has referred, in particular, to the Cula-Malunkovada where it's said that > 4 (every?) possibilities of a Tathagata after death are wrong: that he > exists, doesn't exist, both exists and doesn't exist, neither exists nor > doesn't exist. Now I think it's always used this way: as meaning 'every > possibility'. And then they are all rejected. Ignoring, for the moment, the > special problems about existence (in passing, one needs to be cautious about > regarding 'existence' as a predicate: The bird is blue, fast, *exists*.) what > does this mean, as a logical structureâ€"in itself? > > If the above is correct, that it simply means 'every possibility," then: x, > not-x, both, neither. As such there's no reason to see it as anything but a 2 > valued or bivalent logic with four possibilities. As such nothing remarkable; > acceptable to Aristotle. > > Looking closer things become murky. We seem to have: x, not-x, x & not-x, > not(x or not-x). (Or: All S is P, no S is P, S is P & not-P, S is not P nor > not-P.) X or not-x is no problem, but what of the other two? The last, not x > or not-x, can be seen as saying the predicate doesn't apply; S is neither P > nor not-P because P is not applicable to S. Still 2 valued, no problem. But x > & not-x appears to be a straightforward contradiction; so nonsense? But > perhaps this can be read as: 'Every S is P' and 'No S is P' which are > contraries, i.e., they both can't be true, but they can both be false. But > now it can't be read as an exhaustive enumeration of possibilities. > > Let's stop and ask: anyone care to sort this out? Anyone see anythingâ€"KEY > POINTâ€"that suggests a more than 2 valued (T or F) logic here? (Some > non-Aristotelian position on existence that suggests we do or don't and > something else?) > > The thought also occurs that this is a poor adumbration of the square of > opposition, and the use of "some" could sort things out. But here's a simpler > way to put it: P is (all) x, P is (all) not-x, P is partly x and partly > not-x, P is neither x nor not-x. So, for an example, (given rebirth) does my > self (P) continue to exist after death (x)? To say yes (P is x) is > eternalism, to say no (P is not-x) is annihilationism. Easy ;-) Now the other > two. 'Both' would mean partly continues to exist and partly ceases to exist; > e.g., that consciousness continues but the body dies. Sounds good (logically > that is, not an overt contraction), and is also to be rejected. And the > fourth: neither continues to exist (since there's no self to begin with to be > reborn) nor ceases to exist (as the self didn't exist in the first place). > But this last is confusing. It could also mean continues in some attenuated > state between existence and nonexistence (so we're now in a 3 valued logic?). > Since individuality continues but not as a self there's continuity, without > identity. > So we also have the well known neither the same nor different. If this just > means 'doesn't apply' it seems relatively straightforward and 2 valued: T or > F. But if it means something else is it at odds with Aristotelian logic? Are > we into a 3 or 4 valued logic concerning existence? I'm more or less arguing > not. (I'm using Aristotle because he's approximately contemporaneous, but > also because there are also paraconsistent logics of more than 2 truth > values, which I know essentially nothing about, and wonder if they may apply > here.) > > If anyone actually read this far give yourself a chocolate. If anyone can > actually reply I may give you one! > > metta, stephen 15619 From: robmoult Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: illogical? Hi Howard, In fact, the logic of quantum theory includes the last two options (both exists and not exists, neither exists nor not-exists). Let's not get caught up in the logic of quantum theory at the moment. My paper will explain this in more detail. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Stephen) - > > In a message dated 9/10/02 10:01:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Stephen, > > Did the Tathagatha exist before death? > > Robert > > > ======================== > Answer: No. (Except in a conventional sense.) > Now that takes care of the 1st alternative. The third and fourth might > be dismissed simply as logical contradictions. However, what is the basis for > dismissing the 2nd altrnative: The Tathagata doesn't exist (after death(? At > first reading one would take the denial of the 1st alternative to constitute > the affirmation of the second. As I see it, the solution must lie in the > meaning of the negation operator in combination with the meaning of > existence. Perhaps 'to exist' means to exist intrinsically/essentially as a > separate self-sufficient entity, and 'to not exist' is not the mere denial of > the first, but, rather, means to not exist in any manner whatsoever. That is, > the assertion is an extreme, and the denial is an opposite, antipodal > extreme. > > With metta, > Howard 15620 From: Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 4:51pm Subject: Re: illogical? Hello Robert and Rob and Howard, The question, to me, wasn't about the Tathagata existing before death or after, but the logic of the 4 positions in themselves and what they mean; in abstraction from any content. With validity but not with truth. (I have no problems with Howard's reply; perhaps they can only be explicated as existential operations, and then not simply on the basis of for 'every' or 'some' x...) As Rob wrote, >Let me clarify my question a bit: >I am intrigued that Malunkyaputta offered four options: >- X >- NOT X >- X AND (NOT X) >- NOT (X AND (NOT X)) >I am asking if "traditional logic" usually limits itself to the >first two options. >This is of interest to me because logic in quantum theory makes use >of the last two options. Yes, I understand that. But is that true, and what is one to make of those last two options, especially the second which appears to be an outright contradiction. (Care to construct a truth table for the last two Howard? Somehow that seems to be missing the point?) Thus my convoluted post (which was partly to try and sort some of this out myself). >PS: So, do I get a chocolate? No, because you're the one who got me into this messy question ;-) But I'll give you this: Despite my earlier statement on existence having no graduations however quantum phenomena exist it ain't like *anything* in the world we live in. metta, stephen 15621 From: robmoult Date: Tue Sep 10, 2002 10:02pm Subject: Re: illogical? Hi Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > >PS: So, do I get a chocolate? > No, because you're the one who got me into this messy question ;-) > But I'll give you this: Despite my earlier statement on existence having no > graduations however quantum phenomena exist it ain't like *anything* in the > world we live in. Sorry, Stephen. Experiments have shown that quantum theory is a more accurate model of the world that we live in as compared to the model that 99.99% of the population perceive :-) If it makes you feel any better, Einstein objected to the probability elements of quantum theory as well; he said, "God does not play dice!" After reading the messages from Howard and yourself, I have come to the conclusion that the last two options have no place in "conventional" logic. This is what I suspected. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15622 From: abbott_hk Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 1:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Dear Christine, I've certainly given others plenty of time to add comments and I said I'd be slow on this;-) I appreciated the info you supplied (although I had thought you'd be supplying links for BOTH sides of the discussion - probably why I've delayed....hmmm;-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Sarah, and All, > > I am still reading around the first point of whether it is possible > to decide what are 'lesser and minor rules' ..... seems to me that if > the Arahats were not prepared to make a decision regarding this, that > the modern Sangha will not be prepared to either. (though "not > acting" IS a decision.) ..... I agree that "not acting" IS a decision and I think we've discussed the reasons for this. ..... > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha184.htm > The second point of Prof. G. P. M. Malalasekara, for consideration > when assessing the possibility of restoring the order of Buddhist > nuns is: > > "Second, it is possible to make use of an injunction issued by the > Buddha that stipulates, "I permit you monks, to confer full > ordination on nuns."[25] There are references in the texts that show > that some regulations were amended, altered, or abrogated by the > Buddha himself on various occasions under special circumstances. The > absence of Bhikkhuniis in Theravaada clearly being a special > circumstance, these textual references should be sufficient cause for > granting monks the authority to ordain nuns with a clear conscience > that no transgression of the Vinaya rules has been committed. Those > who oppose the restoration of the Bhikkhunii Sa"ngha on the grounds > of Vinaya technicalities seem to ignore this relevant injunction." > > > It seems from my reading that, in the past, in the time of the > Buddha, there were eight methods of conferring higher ordination. In > the course of time, the eighth came to be regarded as the one and > only procedure for admitting a novice to Higher Ordination. What > would stand in the way of re-visiting each of these methods(apart > from the first)? And, in particular, the one quoted above? ...... I've put the 8 methods at the end of the post. Interesting, thank you. I'm having some trouble following the logic here, Chris. It's true that the rules were continually amended, altered and added to by the Buddha himself and we read the contexts and reasons for this. Infringements would lead to new rules and so on. Of course in the Buddha's case, this was always done with his omniscience and knowledge about what was necessary for the preservation and harmony of the Sangha and the endurance of the Teachings. I referred in the `courage' post to the previous 24 Buddha eras which the present Buddha could recall.He knew directly about the bhikkhuni orders and the impact on the preservation of the Dhamma in a way that even wise followers like Ananda could not comprehend. If the great arahats at the Ist Council did not feel qualified to make amendments, how would `we' be qualified to do so? As I remember, the 2nd Council (about 100yrs after the Buddha's parinibbana) was held because of a dispute over 10 minor rules which became a serious controversy. A very large number of monks, the Vajjians, refused to accept the Council's decisions and the schism almost `finished' the tradition of the Vinaya as left by the Buddha. We know that in other traditions there have been many changes to all parts of the Tipitaka and the strict adherence by the monks at all the Councils to the vinaya may seem extreme to us, but I think it is largely thanks to the Elder Yasa and the 700 monks who stood firm at this 2nd Council in not accepting amendments, that the entire Tipitaka, including the Vinaya has been preserved so very intact as it is `til today. I also question whether we really are only talking about "Vinaya technicalities" as Prof Malalasekera suggests. I'm sure the monks who raised the `ten points' would have also considered these as mere `technicalities' and in our ignorance, rules about not eating after midday and not using money may seem so, but I believe they were all made for very good reasons. Probably, if one cares to study the history, one will find that the Vajjians also thought there were `special circumstances' to make amendments with `clear conscience'. What do you think? Perhaps Betty or Azita or Deb may have comments too. Sarah ====== > http://www.thanhsiang.org/paper2/dip2-9.html > > "As recorded in the Bhikkhuni Khandhaka of the Cullavagga Pali, > Mahapajapati Gotami was conferred both Ordination and the Higher > Ordination by her mere acceptance of eight strict conditions (Attha > Garudhamma). Again with reference to Addhakasi, a former courtesan, > the Buddha even empowered the monks to confer Higher Ordination > through an emissary. Before the decentralisation of powers pertaining > to disciplinary matters there was an intermediate phase in the > monastic order of nuns where nuns were admitted to Higher Ordination > following the formal act of procedure by nuns as well as by monks. As > the motion and the announcement are pronounced eight times before > both communities, this particular method is called Atthavacika. > > ................. there were eight methods of conferring Higher > Ordination during the time of the Buddha: > > 1 . Ehi bhikkhu (Come, 0 Monk) > > 2 . Saranagamana (Taking refuge in the triple gem) > > 3 . Ovadapatiggahana (Acceptance of advice) > > 4. Panhabyakarana (Answering questions) > > 5. Atthagarudhamma (Acceptance of eight strict rules) > > 6 . Duta (Through an emissary) > > 7. Atthavacika (By the pronouncement of eight times) > > 8. Natticatuttha kamma (By three announcements)" 15623 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana Hi Larry, I think your discussion with Kom about concepts and realities is very helpful for everyone and really touches on the essentail aspects of satipatthana and meditation. If there isn’t an appreciation of what exactly paramattha dhammas are and the distinction between these and sammuti sacca (wordly truth), then there cannot be any development of satipatthana. You said: “I believe our question is why are concepts not realities. I thought about this for about two hours and could neither answer it nor disprove it. I found faults with reasons on both sides of the question. Ultimately I think my problem is in not understanding either. So.... I give up.” Don’t give up! I think you’re beginning to raise important questions for everyone to consider. I have little to add to Kom’s clear comments. Concepts can only be experienced by thinking (not necessarily in words as discussed). As they don’t *exist*, they don’t have characteristics to be known by sati and panna. Hardness can be known, but not a table. We can think about scientific theories and proofs or philosophies, we can think about the good deeds we’ll do tomorrow, we can think about hardness even. It may be conventionally wise or even wise-in-a-kusala sense of wise thinking, but it’s still only thinking about concepts. A moment of awareness of thinking at these times as just a nama experiencing its object, is far more precious. Only moments of direct awareness of paramatha dhammas (realities) takes us closer to the end of samsara. I hope you continue the discussion with Kom and remember that ideas about ‘giving up’ are just more moments of thinking about concepts too. I also recommend this small booklet by A.Sujin “Realities and Concepts” http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Sarah ====== 15624 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode III: Samma this, samma that; miccha this, miccha that Hi Dan, Great to read these ‘episodes’...look forward to any more. --- onco111 wrote: > Episode III: Samma this, samma that; miccha this, miccha that > > Dan [full version of the Dhs. quote not given in the conversation]: > In Dhammasangani, I read that "right effort" is "...mental endeavor, > riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher > and higher, having sustained desire to strive, not relinquishing the > task, discharging the task well, endeavor as the faculty of endeavor, > power of endeavor, right effort." By contrast, I read that "wrong > effort" is "...mental endeavor, riddance olathargy, exerting harder > and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, having sustained desire to > strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, > endeavor as the faculty of endeavor, power of endeavor, wrong > effort." > > KS [without even hearing the question first]: Effort is effort. > Whether it is wrong effort or right effort depends on the other > cetasikas. > > [And Dan delighted in the words.] ..... Great quote and comment. Reminds me also of similar ones for chanda (zeal), samadhi (concentration) and other factors which can be wholesome or unwholesome. I also like your story and reminders at the end of the post (and KS's response;-)). I particularly liked this quote from it: >“Even the miccha-est of miccha > samadhi can feel very calm and clean and pure. The fruits of > concentration are alluring, and attachment to miccha samadhi grows > and grows.” .... I think you will appreciate some of the quotes I put in this post on similar themes if you didn’t read it before: Right and Wrong Path and Jhana factors http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11231.html Thanks so much for reporting back to us and I hope Lisa found it rewarding or at least ‘food for some wise thought’ as well. Sarah ===== > [I brought up an interview I heard on the radio. A man was given a > shotgun as a gift after never having owned any gun before. He'd > always thought it strange that people hunted and enjoyed killing > animals. But then, he practiced with his gun and learned. He talked > of how calm and focussed the mind had to be and how sharp the > concentration, in order to properly aim the gun at an animal, pull > the trigger, and hit the target. Even the miccha-est of miccha > samadhi can feel very calm and clean and pure. The fruits of > concentration are alluring, and attachment to miccha samadhi grows > and grows. KS seemed to have little comment on my stories. I'm glad -- > a reminder to me that I came to hear her, not to talk her ear off. > Better to turn on her voice again with questions about Dhamma.] 15625 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Dear Sarah, Your willingness to continue with this topic when you support the current Theravada position that restoration of a Bhikkhuni Sangha is impossible, is really appreciated. Thank you for persevering with this, but I feel the subject has been in abeyance too long to pick up again (672 posts ago) - I think the lack of response is probably a sign that the members aren't particularly interested in discussing the topic, or feel it is too contentious. As for myself, I don't know enough to maintain a worthwhile discussion and would rather reflect on other areas; I am not looking to debate the issue. As one of my original posts said "I have no particular barrow to push on this issue other than that I have never seen it explained comprehensively in such a way as to give understanding to those, like me, genuinely wondering" .....[how the present position came to be]. Hearing why the six points raised by Prof. G. P. Malalasekara are invalid and when, and whether, the eight methods of ordination previously used were specifically changed by the Buddha or just fell into disuse would have been valuable - but I don't have the contacts, time or the capacity to research the area. For anyone interested, the six points are at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha184.htm and the eight methods are at: http://www.thanhsiang.org/paper2/dip2-9.html Previous discussion can be traced from message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14735 Thanks again, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abbott_hk" wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I've certainly given others plenty of time to add comments and I > said I'd be slow on this;-) 15626 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode III: Samma this, samma that; miccha this, miccha that Dear Dan , I liked your example about the shooter. I used to go hunting and it certainly took real concentration and calm (in the akusala way)to be proficient at it. I was also an amateur boxer (briefly) and the week or so before the fight was a very focused time - I think something that many boxers find compelling and even slightly addictive. Robert Dan:I brought up an interview I heard on the radio. A man was given a > > shotgun as a gift after never having owned any gun before. He'd > > always thought it strange that people hunted and enjoyed killing > > animals. But then, he practiced with his gun and learned. He talked > > of how calm and focussed the mind had to be and how sharp the > > concentration, in order to properly aim the gun at an animal, pull > > the trigger, and hit the target. Even the miccha-est of miccha > > samadhi can feel very calm and clean and pure. The fruits of > > concentration are alluring, and attachment to miccha samadhi grows > > and grows. KS seemed to have little comment on my stories. I'm glad -- > > a reminder to me that I came to hear her, not to talk her ear off. > > Better to turn on her voice again with questions about Dhamma.] > > > 15627 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:07am Subject: Re: Fwd: Would learning Pali really help? Hi there, Christine, I did a lot of cutting to arrive here. Some comments follow below what is left. > A little, true story. I am greatly indebted to my father. At age 50, > he discarded his entire theology/philosophy library. (He also was a > minister of religion). Imagine the four walls of a roomy study, lined > with shelves from the floor to the ceiling, not a vacant square > centimetre, all the shelves jam-packed with hefty tomes on you-name- > it, anything to do with spiritual quests. > > What happened? > > A small germ had taken root. God is not found in books. > > He quit the church, and his garden did better out of it, too. > ------------------------------- > Chris: Thanks for sharing about your father Herman - I too lived for > many years with a devotion to God. I know what it is to be seduced > by the rapture of mystical experience - better by far to know what > is Real. > I don't live in a 'nice' cocoon of how I imagine the world to be. > There is no control, no safety, no protection for this bag of > khandas.. I am immersed everyday in the depths of the misery humans > are capable of inflicting on themselves and others - and deal > constantly with beings blindly under the sway of their defilements - > learning a little about the great breadth and depth of my own as > well. Not through books or the TV news, but through the ever > changing good and evil I witness in myself and in my daily work. > The Dhamma-Vinaya is used as a tool, a roadmap, a way of heading for > home out of the suffering and chaos of life. Not as a substitute for > experience. I cannot make a judgement as to whether or not learning Pali would help you on your way out of suffering. I know one thing, which is what my initial reply was intended to convey. Whatever tools, roadmaps, practises, we employ, if they become things in themselves, for themselves, objects of clinging, then they will not help us, but hinder us. If we are not prepared to dispense with our various rafts when they are not serving a liberating purpose anymore, they have become millstones around our neck. All the Best Herman 15628 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:37am Subject: Re: illogical? Hi all, I would really like a chocolate. So I wish to add the following. The formulation - NOT (X AND (NOT X)) includes the negation of a negation (double negation). This is meaningless in some systems of logic. "Is the negation of the negation of A equivalent to A? That depends on what denial is, and hence what negative particles mean. In logic the classical answer is 'yes', and accordingly operations of eliminating and introducing double negatives are permitted. Intuitionist logic disallows the elimination." http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552921 I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Let me clarify my question a bit: > > I am intrigued that Malunkyaputta offered four options: > - X > - NOT X > - X AND (NOT X) > - NOT (X AND (NOT X)) > > I am asking if "traditional logic" usually limits itself to the > first two options. > > This is of interest to me because logic in quantum theory makes use > of the last two options. > > I am asking this question because I want to make the point that the > Suttas had a wider perspective than "traditional logic". > > BTW, when asked this question, the Buddha did not say that all four > options were wrong. He refused to answer. > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > PS: So, do I get a chocolate? > > 15629 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:51am Subject: Negation in Pali /Abhidhamma Hi all, I would be interested to learn from those in the know how negation is obtained in Pali. In English we might prefix a word with a- or just use the word not. Is negation used at all in the Abhidhamma? What sort of mind object is a negated object? How is it classified, if at all? Would the construct "not nibbana" have any meaning at all? All the best Herman 15630 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/10/02 12:57:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Kom, > > I'm afraid I still don't understand how concepts don't have > characteristics. How do we tell them apart if they don't have > characteristics? I believe concepts are defined as name and meaning. > Aren't name and meaning characteristics? > > Also, I'm not real sure what is attachment. > > Larry > > ============================ I'm not sure about Kom on this issue, but some folks here seem to use the word 'concept' not as a kind of thought, but rather as the (alleged) referent of a such a thought. I understand a concept to be a thought that is constructed from a number of (interrelated!) fundamental, direct elements of experience. There is nothing "behind" a concept except those elements from which it was constructed and the relations among them. The thought has characteristics (as a thought), but there is no single thing "behind" it to have characteristics. Now, a concept (for example, the concept of the boat 'Anicca' I had discussed, but you haven't commented on! ;-) is used as a template to overlay certain experiences which are then grasped as constituting a single, actually existing "thing" such as "the keyboard I'm typing on". Now, "the keyboard I'm typing on" does, in my estimation, have conventional existence - the "conventional" part being due to its dependence (as an apparent self-existing object) on the overlaying concept of 'keyboard' (whether named or not). The reality is that a multitude of direct experiences are currently compounded by the mind into a multlayered construct which sufficiently matches our general 'keyboard' template for us to "experience a keyboard". Now, that seemingly real object which is "the keyboard I'm typing on" cannot truly be found anywhere, and so does not truly have any characteristics. Conventionally, however, it has: (groups of) the direct experiences which the mind compounds into this percept are viewed as its characteristics. Now, I think it is correct to say that both the general concept of 'keyboard' and the instance of that which is the mind-constructed percept of the keyboard I'm typing on right now both fall under the range of the Pali term pa~n~natti, though I would call the former "concept" and the latter "percept". The thing is, several folks on DSG seem to *also* call the (only conventionally existing) intended *referents* of these by the name "pa~n~natti" or "concepts", and I think that creates confusion for those of us who do not use language that way. 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) 15631 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: illogical? Hi, Stephen (and all) - In a message dated 9/10/02 11:52:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > >- X > > >- NOT X > > >- X AND (NOT X) > > >- NOT (X AND (NOT X)) > ========================= Shouldn't the last of these be NOT (X OR (NOT X))? [In fact, the propositional formula NOT (X AND (NOT X)) is *true* - it is a tautology!! 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) 15632 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:31am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Dear Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > I'm not sure about Kom on this issue, but > some folks here seem to use > the word 'concept' not as a kind of thought, but > rather as the (alleged) > referent of a such a thought. I understand a > concept to be a thought that is > constructed from a number of (interrelated!) > fundamental, direct elements of > experience. There is nothing "behind" a concept > except those elements from > which it was constructed and the relations among > them. The thought has > characteristics (as a thought), but there is no > single thing "behind" it to > have characteristics. Now, a concept (for > example, the concept of the boat > 'Anicca' I had discussed, but you haven't > commented on! ;-) is used as a > template to overlay certain experiences which are > then grasped as > constituting a single, actually existing "thing" > such as "the keyboard I'm > typing on". Now, "the keyboard I'm typing on" > does, in my estimation, have > conventional existence - the "conventional" part > being due to its dependence > (as an apparent self-existing object) on the > overlaying concept of 'keyboard' > (whether named or not). The reality is that a > multitude of direct experiences > are currently compounded by the mind into a > multlayered construct which > sufficiently matches our general 'keyboard' > template for us to "experience a > keyboard". Now, that seemingly real object which > is "the keyboard I'm typing > on" cannot truly be found anywhere, and so does > not truly have any > characteristics. Conventionally, however, it has: > (groups of) the direct > experiences which the mind compounds into this > percept are viewed as its > characteristics. Now, I think it is correct to > say that both the general > concept of 'keyboard' and the instance of that > which is the mind-constructed > percept of the keyboard I'm typing on right now > both fall under the range of > the Pali term pa~n~natti, though I would call the > former "concept" and the > latter "percept". The thing is, several folks on > DSG seem to *also* call the > (only conventionally existing) intended > *referents* of these by the name > "pa~n~natti" or "concepts", and I think that > creates confusion for those of > us who do not use language that way. > > With metta, > Howard > Thanks for your clear explanation of realities and concepts. I have a few comments: 1) I believe the pali differentiates all what the mind cognizes into paramatha dhamma and pannatti (also sometimes called dhamma). Whatever is not paramatha is pannatti. The usage of pannatti or concept to describe concept, percept, its referrent, naming, etc. is just a one-to-one mapping from Pali usage. Although you may be right that it's confusing to some to use the word concept to describe all that is not paramatha, I think it is better for people who are not familiar with Pali. Also, we refer quite a bit to existing literature that uses the word concept in this manner. 2) All pannatti, when cognized by the mind---regardless of whether or not it is concept, percept, referent, naming---has no characteristics. The elements that we combine into (some) pannatti do, but pannatti doesn't. When the seeing consciousness sees a visible object, the visible object has the characteristics of impacting the eye, or appearance of visible object, or brightness, etc. The mind immediately afterward cognizes pannatti (based on repeated cognition of the visible object which has characteristics) which are shapes, forms, distinction of colors, meaning, names, and maybe stories: these don't have characteristics. 3) When we talk about all the vipassana nana (the clear comprehension of realities as they are), we see that they are all clear comprehension of things that exist in the paramatha sense, and not the pannatti sense. The Buddha encourages us to see the rising and falling away, the impermanence of all things: this happens (directly, instead of thinking about it) only with objects with paramatha characteristics. The pannatti, due to its absence of characteristics, cannot be a direct object of the ti-lakkhana: what rises and falls away if it doesn't have characteristics at the first place? kom 15633 From: robmoult Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 8:11am Subject: Re: Negation in Pali /Abhidhamma Hi Herman, As far as I know, in Pali one negates a word by adding an 'a': - Opposite of lobha is alobha - Opposite of dosa is adosa - Opposite of moha is amoha There are some gramatically rules to handle words starting with vowels, but I am not sure how they work. Nibanna is usually described using negatives (not conditioned, etc.) so negating one of these descriptive terms would be a double negative (which I think is a no-no). Does this answer your question? There are many other DSGrs with much better knowledge of Pali than I, so if you need more detail, I will probably not be able to help. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi all, > > I would be interested to learn from those in the know how negation is > obtained in Pali. In English we might prefix a word with a- or just > use the word not. > > Is negation used at all in the Abhidhamma? What sort of mind object > is a negated object? How is it classified, if at all? > > Would the construct "not nibbana" have any meaning at all? > > All the best > > Herman 15634 From: robmoult Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 8:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: illogical? Hi Howard, Yes you are correct - unfortunately Herman wins the chocolate as he identified the same mistake three posts earlier :-) To stop this discussion from degenerating into a debate on logic (perhaps not appropriate for a Dhamma Study Group), let me quote the relevant Sutta: In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha to clarify if: 'After death a Tathagata exists', 'After death a Tathagata does not exist', 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'. (This is the famous poison arrow sutta). Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Stephen (and all) - > > In a message dated 9/10/02 11:52:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > oreznoone@a... writes: > > > > > > >- X > > > > >- NOT X > > > > >- X AND (NOT X) > > > > >- NOT (X AND (NOT X)) > > > ========================= > Shouldn't the last of these be NOT (X OR (NOT X))? [In fact, the > propositional formula NOT (X AND (NOT X)) is *true* - it is a tautology!! > > With metta, > Howard 15635 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] philosophy Hello Stephen, thank you for your nice post. You are most welcome to discuss Abhidhamma, and if you have disagreements as you say, it is good to hear different points. Best wishes from Nina. op 10-09-2002 06:02 schreef oreznoone@a... op oreznoone@a...: > Thanks for the post. Perhaps your sister can come over and explain quantum > physics to me! > I have numerous disagreements with the abhidhammic approach, some of which > are over rather basic premises. I hope you will be game to discuss some of > them with me as they crop up. I read your book ADL (among others) a few > summers back and found it a model of clarity. Despite our differences I > certainly have no hostility to the abhidhamma, finding in it a helpful > spiritual psychology. 15636 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 10:01am Subject: Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no 7 Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no 7. As we read in the Commentary, paññå knows the characeristics of the dhammas that are low or exalted, dark or pure. We read further on: Again, the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths is walking a very long way, namely traversing the cycle of birth and death. If paññå arises we can understand that the cycle of birth and death we have traversed thus far is extremely long. So long as paññå has not become accomplished, the path leading to the end of the cycle is still extremely long. Thus, as we read, for the development of paññå we have an extremely long way to go. We have to go to the further shore, into the direction of nibbåna, where, according to the Commentary, ³we never went yet, not even in our dreams². We need all ten perfections, because we have such an amount of defilements. It is not sufficient to only develop the perfection of paññå. If we do not understand what the perfections are and in what way we should develop them in our daily life, we cannot realize the four noble Truths, but we have merely vain expectations of achieving this. We do not know ourselves as we truly are and we do not understand that we need the perfections which are a supporting condition for the development of kusala and for the elimination of akusala dhammas. When we have understood that satipatthåna should be developed together with the perfections, there are conditions for the perfection of generosity, the giving away of things for the benefit of someone else, for the perfection of síla, the abstention from akusala kamma and the perfection of renunciation: detachment from visible object, sound and the other sense objects. This is a very gradual process, but at times someone may notice that he is inclined to become more detached from sense objects, that he has had already enough of them, and that he should not indulge in them too much. With regard to the perfection of paññå, most people are longing for paññå, but the perfection of paññå, that is, paññå that understands the characteristics of realities, cannot arise if one does not develop it. Generally people wish to know the truth of realities, but they should carefully investigate whether, at the moment of seeing, of the experience of the other sense objects or of thinking, they have the sincere desire (chanda) to know and to understand the characteristics of the realities that are appearing at those very moments. When someone really sees the benefit of paññå he needs to have energy and endurance, because the development of paññå is a difficult task which takes an endlessly long time. Understanding of the level of listening is only a foundation, it is not the perfection of paññå that is the condition for the realization of the four noble Truths. The perfection of paññå evolves with the development of the understanding of the characteristics of realities that are appearing. This includes the development of understanding of the level of listening, of considering realities, and also of the level of awareness of realities at this moment. 15637 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:49pm Subject: ADL ch. 24 (3) http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 24 (3) Summarizing the cittas in the process during which enlightenment is attained, they are the following: mano-dvåråvajjana-citta parikamma (preparatory consciousness; for some people not necessary) upacåra (proximity consciousness) anuloma (conformity or adaptation) gotrabhú (change of lineage) magga-citta phala-citta (two or three moments, depending on the individual) Nibbåna can be the object of kåmåvacara cittas which arise after the lokuttara cittas have fallen away. Before someone becomes an ariyan there can only be speculation about nibbåna. For the ariyan, however, it is different. Since he has directly experienced nibbåna, he can review his experience afterwards. We read in the Visuddhimagga (XXII, 19) that the person who attained enlightenment reviews, after the lokuttara cittas have fallen away, the path, the fruition, the defilements which have been abandoned, the defilements which are still remaining and nibbåna. He reviews these things in different mind-door processes of citta. Some people think that enlightenment could not occur in daily life, they believe that it is necessary to be in a solitary place in order to attain nibbåna. The development of vipassanå is the development of right understanding of all realities occurring in daily life. When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, enlightenment can occur in the middle of one's daily activities. As we have seen, the attainment of enlightenment is only a few moments of citta which arise and fall away within split seconds. We read in the Discourse to Díghanakha (Middle Length Sayings II, no. 74) that the Buddha taught Dhamma to the wanderer Díghanaka on Vulture's Peak near Råjagaha. He taught him about the getting rid of wrong views and about the impermanence of conditioned realities. Såriputta, who was an ariyan but had not yet attained arahatship, was also present at the time of that discourse. We read: Now at that time the venerable Såriputta was standing behind the Lord, fanning the Lord. Then it occurred to the venerable Såriputta: ``The Lord speaks to us of getting rid of these things and those by means of super-knowledge, the Well-farer speaks to us of casting out these things and those by means of superknowledge´´. While the venerable Såriputta was reflecting on this, his mind was freed from the cankers without clinging. But to the wanderer Díghanakha there arose the stainless, spotless vision of dhamma, that whatever is of the nature to arise all that is of the nature to stop... Såriputta attained arahatship, but he did not go into solitude in order to attain it; he was fanning the Buddha. Díghanakha listened to the Buddha and then became a sotåpanna. We read in the Kindred Sayings (III, Khandhå-vagga, Middle Fifty, chapter 4, §89, Khema) that Khemaka, who was an anågåmí, attained arahatship while he was preaching and monks who were listening attained arahatship as well. We read: Now when this teaching was thus expounded the hearts of as many as sixty monks were utterly set free from the åsavas, and so was it also with the heart of the venerable Khemaka... If one is on the right Path, paññå can be developed, no matter what the circumstances are, even to the degree of enlightenment. People may wonder whether it would be possible to notice it when a person attains nibbåna. But can one see whether someone else is mindful or not mindful? Who knows the cittas of other people? We cannot know when someone else is mindful of nåma and rúpa or when he attains nibbåna. The question may arise whether all four stages of enlightenment (the stages of the sotåpanna, the sakadågåmí, the anågåmí and the arahat) can be attained in the course of one life. We read in the suttas about disciples of the Buddha who attained the ariyan state but not yet arahatship and realized arahatship later on in life. Ånanda, for example, did not attain arahatship during the Buddha's life, but he became an arahat after the Buddha had passed away, the evening before the first great council was to start (the ``Illustrator of Ultimate meaning´´, commentary to the ``Mangala-sutta´´ or ``Good Omen Discourse´´, Minor Readings, Khuddaka Nikåya). 15638 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi, Kom - I understand what you write below, and I agree with much of it. However, as I see it, thoughts, whether simple or mentally constructed from simpler ones, are mind-objects, and they have characteristics. A memory, for example, of a picture has visual characteristics; some thoughts are clear, some are fuzzy; a tune that "keeps going through ones head" is an auditory thought; the concept of a musical note is elementary; a concept of a symphony is compound; the concept of 'hardness' is "paramatthic" (to coin an adjective! ;-)) In any case, thoughts - and concepts are thoughts - have characteristics. Thoughts are just as much experienced as hardness is and as itches are. Thoughts are not imagined. What they represent very often are, but *they* are not. However, what is not imagined does not, perforce, have inherent existence. All dhammas are without core, being dependent on many conditions for their existence. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/11/02 10:32:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > I'm not sure about Kom on this issue, but > > some folks here seem to use > > the word 'concept' not as a kind of thought, but > > rather as the (alleged) > > referent of a such a thought. I understand a > > concept to be a thought that is > > constructed from a number of (interrelated!) > > fundamental, direct elements of > > experience. There is nothing "behind" a concept > > except those elements from > > which it was constructed and the relations among > > them. The thought has > > characteristics (as a thought), but there is no > > single thing "behind" it to > > have characteristics. Now, a concept (for > > example, the concept of the boat > > 'Anicca' I had discussed, but you haven't > > commented on! ;-) is used as a > > template to overlay certain experiences which are > > then grasped as > > constituting a single, actually existing "thing" > > such as "the keyboard I'm > > typing on". Now, "the keyboard I'm typing on" > > does, in my estimation, have > > conventional existence - the "conventional" part > > being due to its dependence > > (as an apparent self-existing object) on the > > overlaying concept of 'keyboard' > > (whether named or not). The reality is that a > > multitude of direct experiences > > are currently compounded by the mind into a > > multlayered construct which > > sufficiently matches our general 'keyboard' > > template for us to "experience a > > keyboard". Now, that seemingly real object which > > is "the keyboard I'm typing > > on" cannot truly be found anywhere, and so does > > not truly have any > > characteristics. Conventionally, however, it has: > > (groups of) the direct > > experiences which the mind compounds into this > > percept are viewed as its > > characteristics. Now, I think it is correct to > > say that both the general > > concept of 'keyboard' and the instance of that > > which is the mind-constructed > > percept of the keyboard I'm typing on right now > > both fall under the range of > > the Pali term pa~n~natti, though I would call the > > former "concept" and the > > latter "percept". The thing is, several folks on > > DSG seem to *also* call the > > (only conventionally existing) intended > > *referents* of these by the name > > "pa~n~natti" or "concepts", and I think that > > creates confusion for those of > > us who do not use language that way. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > Thanks for your clear explanation of realities and concepts. > I have a few comments: > > 1) I believe the pali differentiates all what the mind > cognizes into paramatha dhamma and pannatti (also sometimes > called dhamma). Whatever is not paramatha is pannatti. The > usage of pannatti or concept to describe concept, percept, > its referrent, naming, etc. is just a one-to-one mapping > from Pali usage. Although you may be right that it's > confusing to some to use the word concept to describe all > that is not paramatha, I think it is better for people who > are not familiar with Pali. Also, we refer quite a bit to > existing literature that uses the word concept in this > manner. > > 2) All pannatti, when cognized by the mind---regardless of > whether or not it is concept, percept, referent, > naming---has no characteristics. The elements that we > combine into (some) pannatti do, but pannatti doesn't. When > the seeing consciousness sees a visible object, the visible > object has the characteristics of impacting the eye, or > appearance of visible object, or brightness, etc. The mind > immediately afterward cognizes pannatti (based on repeated > cognition of the visible object which has characteristics) > which are shapes, forms, distinction of colors, meaning, > names, and maybe stories: these don't have characteristics. > > 3) When we talk about all the vipassana nana (the clear > comprehension of realities as they are), we see that they > are all clear comprehension of things that exist in the > paramatha sense, and not the pannatti sense. The Buddha > encourages us to see the rising and falling away, the > impermanence of all things: this happens (directly, instead > of thinking about it) only with objects with paramatha > characteristics. The pannatti, due to its absence of > characteristics, cannot be a direct object of the > ti-lakkhana: what rises and falls away if it doesn't have > characteristics at the first place? > > kom > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 15639 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: illogical? Hi, Rob - In a message dated 9/11/02 11:21:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Yes you are correct - unfortunately Herman wins the chocolate as he > identified the same mistake three posts earlier :-) > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I missed that. Good! I'm getting too fat anyway!! --------------------------------------------------- > > To stop this discussion from degenerating into a debate on logic > (perhaps not appropriate for a Dhamma Study Group), let me quote the > relevant Sutta: > > In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha to > clarify if: 'After death a Tathagata exists', 'After death a > Tathagata does not exist', 'After death a Tathagata both exists & > does not exist' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does > not exist'. (This is the famous poison arrow sutta). > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > ================================== 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) 15640 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:26pm Subject: Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob Howard: >Shouldn't the last of these be NOT (X OR (NOT X))? [In fact, the >propositional formula NOT (X AND (NOT X)) is *true* - it is a tautology!! Oops. That's what I had in the original post. Now as this is the Law of Excluded Middle it can almost be said to define "tautology." As you know it's possible to prove anything (literally) from a contradiction. So the Buddha's use of "Both exists and not exists" (x & not-x) is, on face value, nonsense. Consequently my musings on what it might mean (partly x and partly not-x is the best I can come up with). The form given just can't be the accurate formulation of the tetralemma. Herman, Ahhh, intuitionist logic. Brings back my student days; unfortunately not enough to actually recall what it means :-) (Problems with material implication as I dubiously recall.) Now as you can make this reference throw your hat in the ring: what are the last two statements if not the above and a virtual definition of "contradiction"? Can these two statements be subsumed under syllogistic logic or are they something new which the Buddha foresaw? >I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) I'd send one for sure but the moderators don't allow attachments ;-) metta, stephen Rob, just in passing: "Physics takes its start from everyday experience, which it continues by more subtle means. It remains akin to it, does not transcendent it generically; it cannot enter into another realm. Discoveries in physics cannot in themselves—so I believe—have the authority of forcing us to put an end to the habit of picturing the physical world as a reality." Edwin Schrodinger 15641 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 4:29pm Subject: An early Halloween treat Where is Ted Williams? Ted Williams is dead. Immediately upon dying his consciousness was reborn. His patisandhi / rebirth consciousness determined the character of some new being. But, possibly many such beings from today... Ted Williams is frozen. In a few hundred years he may be thawed out, repaired, brought back to life. But where's his consciousness then? Perhaps it waited around after all — but how did it know this would happen and revival wasn't a pipe dream? Does he get a clean bill of karmic health? Is he the zombie Ted Williams, apparently just the same but without some vital inner component? metta, stephen 15642 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Sarah, Kom and Howard, Here are a couple of quotes. What is the meaning? Larry: from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Chapter VIII #29. Therein, the material phenomena are just the aggregate of matter. Consciousness and mental factors, which comprise the four immaterial aggregates, and Nibbana, are the five kinds that are immaterial. They are also called "name" [nama]. What remains are concepts, which are twofold: concept as that which is made known [atthapannatti], and concept as that which makes known [namapannatti]. #30. Concept as What is Made Known: How? There are such terms as "land," "mountain," and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as "house," "chariot," "cart," and the like, so named on account of the mode of formation of materials; such terms as "person," "individual," and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates; such terms as "direction," "time," and the like, named according to the revolution of the moon and so forth; such terms as "well," "cave," and the like, so named on account of the mode of non-imppact and so forth; such terms as kasina signs and the like, so named on account of respective elements and distinguished mental development. All such diffrerent things, though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. They are called concepts because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this and that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known. #31. Concept as What Makes Known Then, as it makes known, it is called concept. It is described as name, nomenclature, etc. It is sixfold: (1) a (direct) concept of the real; (2) a (direct) concept of the unreal; (3) a concept of the unreal by means of the real; (4) a concept of the real by means of the unreal; (5) a concept of the real by means of the real; (6) a concept of the unreal by means of the unreal. [real and unreal are translations of vijja and avijja] As, for instance, when it makes known what really exists in the ultimate sense by a term such as "matter," "feeling," and so forth, it is called a (direct) concept of the real. When it makes known what does not really exist in the ultimate sense by a term such as "land," "mountain," an so forth, it is called a (direct) concept of the unreal. The rest should be respectively understood by combining both as, for instance, "possessor of sixfold direct knowledge," "woman's voice," "eye-consciousness," and "king's son." #32 Summary By following the sound of speech through the process of ear-consciousness, and then by means of the concept conceived by (the process in the) mind-door that subsequently arises, meanings are understood. These concepts should be understood as fashioned by worldly convention. from"Paramattha-manjusa" Visuddhimagga Atthakatha (825) These modes, [that is, the three characteristics,] are not included in the aggregates because they are states without individual essence (asabhava-dhamma); and they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates. But they should be understood as appropriate conceptual differences (pannatti-visesa) that are reason for differentiation in the explaining of the dangers in the five aggregates, which are allowable by common usage in respect of the five aggregates 15643 From: Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 5:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi, Larry (and Sarah and Kom) - In a message dated 9/12/02 12:10:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Sarah, Kom and Howard, > > Here are a couple of quotes. What is the meaning? > > Larry ============================= The best that I can say is that the text talks of two main kinds of concepts, the first being the intended referents of what I would actually call concepts [and I think these alleged referents should *not* be called concepts], and the second being the concepts proper. The latter category is further split into two subcategories: the concepts of paramattha dhammas, and the "compound concepts" whose alleged referents seem to be experienced only by virtue of superimposing the concepts on what is directly experienced. 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) 15644 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Larry, As Howard has just commented, there are various categories of pannatti (concepts) and as Kom has explained, whatever category they come under -- whether a concept of the real or the unreal or a combination of the two --, they do not exist in the ultimate sense. In addition to the excellent quotes you have provided from CMA c.8 and Vism, you may find these notes Jon posted (also from CMA) helpful. If not, let us know where the ‘sticking’ points are in them. Further useful posts from the archives can be found under Useful Posts -‘Concepts’ and ‘Concepts and Realities’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Sarah ===== ***** 1. Message 2918 Subject: Realities, concepts and dhammas The following are from the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi and published by the BPS. (Numbers preceded by # are the numbers of sections in the original text. ‘Guide’ refers to the commentarial writings on the original text. The short headings are mine.) Ultimate realities are what the Abhidhamma is all about- #2: The things contained in the Abhidhamma are fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality (paramatthato): consciousness (citta), mental factors (cetasika), matter (rupa), and Nibbana. Ultimate realities are distinguished from so-called ‘conventional’ realities- #2 Guide: According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are 2 kinds of realities—the conventional (sammuti) and the ultimate (paramattha). What are ‘conventional realities’? #2 Guide: Conventional realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pannatti) and conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as living beings, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. How are conventional realities different from ultimate realities?- #2 Guide: The Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate validity, for the objects which they signify [ie. the living beings, men, women, animals etc] do not exist in their own right as irreducible realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by reason of their own nature. What are ultimate realities?- #2 Guide: Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their own extrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence, the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Hence the word ‘paramattha’ is applied to them, which is derived from ‘parama’ = ultimate, highest, final, and ‘attha’ = reality, thing. ***** 2. Message 2932 Subject: Realities, concepts and dhammas - 2 Dear Friends Continuing a quick look at Ch I, section 2 from the Abhidhammata Sangaha on realities and concepts: ‘Ultimate’ has a second meaning – the ultimate objects of right knowledge- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are not only the ultimate existents, they are also the ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma. Ultimate realities are knowable only to wisdom- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. Thus ‘paramattha’ is described as that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge. So to summarise this post and the previous one- There are 2 kinds of realities – conventional (sammuti) and ultimate (paramattha). It is the ultimate realities that the Abhidhamma is concerned with. Ordinary people like us see the world in terms of conventional realities (eg people and things). However, these are just concepts (pannatti) and expressions (voharaa), products of mental construction (parikappana). Ultimate realities have their own intrinsic nature (sahaava), they are the dhammas. They are ultimate in 2 senses. First, they cannot be reduced any further, and second, they are things that can be known only by the highest knowledge. As to whether concepts are 'dhammas', the word dhamma has many meanings. When classifying by way of objects of the 6 doorways, the objects of the mind-door are called 'dhammaarammana' (translated as 'mental objects'), and these include concepts. Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Ch III #16 Mental object (dhammarammana) is sixfold: Sensitive matter (pasaadarupa), subtle matter (sukhumarupa), consciousness (citta), mental factors (cetasika), Nibbana, and concepts. Guide to #16 Concepts - the class of convential realities, things which do not exist in the ulitmate sense - also fall into the category of mental object. I hope this helps to clarify some of the references to realities and concepts in the posts on this list. Jonothan ********** 15645 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Time for a change (a long post) Hi Rob M. Well, you asked me for more quotes and this prompted me to pull out the texts to try and check a few of your comments from an earlier post of yours: --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > I am reading a book, "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. > Sarachchandra, ..... > There is a chapter of the book titled, "Developments in the Twelfth > Century", where the theory of moments was introduced into the > Abhidhamma, to merge/adapt/refute positions of the Yogacara and > Sautrantika schools which also had developed similar theories at > that time. ..... I don’t understand any ‘theory’ to have been introduced into the Abhidhamma in the 12th century. Sorry, this doesn’t make any sense to me or maybe I’m misunderstanding the statement. ..... > As I delve into the details of the thought process in preparation > for my class, I come to the conclusion that if I want anything more > than a very simple overview, I am wandering into the realm > of "speculative theories" put forth by philosophers. ..... When I read the Abhidhamma and commentaries, I don’t come across any ‘speculative theory’ by any ‘philosopher’. hmmm...I’ll leave this for now. ..... >The > philosophers can't agree; there is a different view of the > importance of the registration citta as explained in the Visuddhi > Magga (early concept; registration is an exceptional case, rarely > occurring), the Abhidhammatthasangaha (late concept; registration > occurs in most thoughts) and the Atthasalini (wavers between early > and late concepts). I even find that some of the "simple overview" > was added later into the Abhidhamma and is not clearly supported in > the Suttas. For example, it appears as though the registration citta > was introduced by Buddhaghosa. In brief, I am starting to lose faith > in the accuracy and authenticity of the Abhidhamma. ..... Yesterday Hong Kong closed down for a typhoon, so I took the chance to check most the many references and footnotes (often lengthy in Vism) to all these texts you mentioned with regard to tadarammana (registration) consciousness, as well as the very detailed notes in Sammohavinodani. It’s not that I have any great interest in the registration or determining cittas, but I wanted to try and understand your comments and the suggestions of these differences which are a condition for you to ‘lose faith...’. Frankly, I couldn’t find these differences and you’ll have to add more detail of where you found these comments in these texts. Furthermore, I didn’t come across any comments about ‘concepts’, ‘early or late’ or of ‘registration is an exceptional case’. Let me give a few brief references: 1.CMA (B.Bodhi’s Abid. Sangaha), 111 (8): “The word tadaaramma.na means literally “having that object”, and denotes the function of taking as object the object that had been apprehended by the javanas. This function is exercised for two mind-moments immediately after the javana phase in a sense-sphere cognitive process when the object is either very prominent to the senses or clear to the mind. When the object lacks special prominence or clarity, as well as in other types of cognitive process apart from the sense-sphere process, this function is not exercised at all. Following registration (or the javana phase when registration does not occur) the stream of consciousness again lapses back into the bhavanga” . Later it also refers to the 11 kinds of this vipaka citta. *** 2.Sammohavinodani, PTS, 699: It gives long details about when the same 11 kinds ‘do not take that object ‘(tadaramma.na.m na ga.nhanti)....It also gives more details about processes and so on. 3. Atthasalini, PTS, 264: “And it becomes a result as the registration (or retention) with respect to a vivid object at the six doors. How?..When a boat goes across a fierce current, the water is cleft and follows the boat a little distance, and then goes along with the current. So when at the six doors the vivid object, being deceitful, presents itself, apperception takes place; after this happens, there comes the turn for the subconscious life-continuum. But this consciousness, not allowing this turn, seizes the object which was seized by apperception, arises in the first or second conscious interval, and descends even into the life-continuum.Or similarly, when a herd of cattle cross a stream - so the simile might be expanded. Thus this element of mind-cognition, from seizing that object seized by apperception, results in an act of registration..” Later it also gives descriptive examples of where and when the object is ‘weak’ and ‘this is another occasion without effect’. 4.Visuddhimagga: at 1V, n13, there is a helpful long footnote for you: “An already-formed nucleus of the cognitive series, based on the Sutta Pitaka material, appears in the Abhidhamma Pitaka.” Quotations which follow show “how the commentary expands the Abhidhamma Pitaka treatment.” X1V, 122 - “if the object is a very vivid one in the five doors, or is clear in the mind door....” Again the 11 kinds of registration XV11,129 -2 names for registration (explained in detail in Sammohavinodani). “It is variable as to door and object, it is invariable as to physical basis, and it is variable as to position and function.” ***** > Here is another quote from the book, "... the Abhidhamma does not > make any attempt to explain the phenomenon of memory, for, having > postulated process without substance, they were without any known > equipment for explaining it, and were obliged to merely recognize it > as a fact." Why is it that the Abhidhamma does not give a clear > description on the function of memory? I think that memory is a very > important topic that deserves a detailed explanation. ..... The Abhidhamma is a detailed explanation of realities as expounded by the Buddha (at least some of us believe;-)). While we continue to think of a memory as a story and concept, it’s impossible to understand the underlying realities. There is no lack of 'equipment' or explanation, but there is considerable ignorance when we read the details about the various processes and about the namas and rupas which make up the experience. Like Herman mentioned with regard to Pali translations, the problem does not lie in the texts or translations so much as the accumulated ignorance. If we are interested to know about the reality and function of sanna or vitakka or vicara or other mental factors, it is quite different from wishing to understand the function of memory as explained by scientists and psychologists, for example. We can know all the mechanisms of the brain (or I dare I say of quantam theory) and not be a jot closer in absolute terms to understanding anything about paramattha dhammas being experienced now.(Of course the same can be said about the abhidhamma if it is merely studied as a thoretical subject or explanation;-)) Just a few thoughts. If you don’t have any of the texts and wish me to type out a particular reference (I don’t have access to a scanner). I’ll be happy to do so when I can. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, Rob and looking f/w to seeing you ‘live’ again next week. Hope you didn’t get caught in the typhoon here and in Southern China. Sarah ===== 15646 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:39pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Ms Sara, As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in Australia, I contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a female as a monk. I will always oppose it. And to ordain a female monk you nedd a minimum of FIVE ORDAINED FEMALES MONKS, at the moment there is no even one. With all my respect you should close this debate because it will go no where. Metta. Venerable Yanatharo, Buddhist Chaplain University of Canberra -----Mensaje original----- De: abbott_hk [mailto:abbott_hk@y...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Septiembre 11, 2002 06:26 p.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Dear Christine, I've certainly given others plenty of time to add comments and I said I'd be slow on this;-) I appreciated the info you supplied (although I had thought you'd be supplying links for BOTH sides of the discussion - probably why I've delayed....hmmm;-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Sarah, and All, > > I am still reading around the first point of whether it is possible > to decide what are 'lesser and minor rules' ..... seems to me that if > the Arahats were not prepared to make a decision regarding this, that > the modern Sangha will not be prepared to either. (though "not > acting" IS a decision.) ..... I agree that "not acting" IS a decision and I think we've discussed the reasons for this. ..... > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha184.htm > The second point of Prof. G. P. M. Malalasekara, for consideration > when assessing the possibility of restoring the order of Buddhist > nuns is: > > "Second, it is possible to make use of an injunction issued by the > Buddha that stipulates, "I permit you monks, to confer full > ordination on nuns."[25] There are references in the texts that show > that some regulations were amended, altered, or abrogated by the > Buddha himself on various occasions under special circumstances. The > absence of Bhikkhuniis in Theravaada clearly being a special > circumstance, these textual references should be sufficient cause for > granting monks the authority to ordain nuns with a clear conscience > that no transgression of the Vinaya rules has been committed. Those > who oppose the restoration of the Bhikkhunii Sa"ngha on the grounds > of Vinaya technicalities seem to ignore this relevant injunction." > > > It seems from my reading that, in the past, in the time of the > Buddha, there were eight methods of conferring higher ordination. In > the course of time, the eighth came to be regarded as the one and > only procedure for admitting a novice to Higher Ordination. What > would stand in the way of re-visiting each of these methods(apart > from the first)? And, in particular, the one quoted above? ...... I've put the 8 methods at the end of the post. Interesting, thank you. I'm having some trouble following the logic here, Chris. It's true that the rules were continually amended, altered and added to by the Buddha himself and we read the contexts and reasons for this. Infringements would lead to new rules and so on. Of course in the Buddha's case, this was always done with his omniscience and knowledge about what was necessary for the preservation and harmony of the Sangha and the endurance of the Teachings. I referred in the `courage' post to the previous 24 Buddha eras which the present Buddha could recall.He knew directly about the bhikkhuni orders and the impact on the preservation of the Dhamma in a way that even wise followers like Ananda could not comprehend. If the great arahats at the Ist Council did not feel qualified to make amendments, how would `we' be qualified to do so? As I remember, the 2nd Council (about 100yrs after the Buddha's parinibbana) was held because of a dispute over 10 minor rules which became a serious controversy. A very large number of monks, the Vajjians, refused to accept the Council's decisions and the schism almost `finished' the tradition of the Vinaya as left by the Buddha. We know that in other traditions there have been many changes to all parts of the Tipitaka and the strict adherence by the monks at all the Councils to the vinaya may seem extreme to us, but I think it is largely thanks to the Elder Yasa and the 700 monks who stood firm at this 2nd Council in not accepting amendments, that the entire Tipitaka, including the Vinaya has been preserved so very intact as it is `til today. I also question whether we really are only talking about "Vinaya technicalities" as Prof Malalasekera suggests. I'm sure the monks who raised the `ten points' would have also considered these as mere `technicalities' and in our ignorance, rules about not eating after midday and not using money may seem so, but I believe they were all made for very good reasons. Probably, if one cares to study the history, one will find that the Vajjians also thought there were `special circumstances' to make amendments with `clear conscience'. What do you think? Perhaps Betty or Azita or Deb may have comments too. Sarah ====== > http://www.thanhsiang.org/paper2/dip2-9.html > > "As recorded in the Bhikkhuni Khandhaka of the Cullavagga Pali, > Mahapajapati Gotami was conferred both Ordination and the Higher > Ordination by her mere acceptance of eight strict conditions (Attha > Garudhamma). Again with reference to Addhakasi, a former courtesan, > the Buddha even empowered the monks to confer Higher Ordination > through an emissary. Before the decentralisation of powers pertaining > to disciplinary matters there was an intermediate phase in the > monastic order of nuns where nuns were admitted to Higher Ordination > following the formal act of procedure by nuns as well as by monks. As > the motion and the announcement are pronounced eight times before > both communities, this particular method is called Atthavacika. > > ................. there were eight methods of conferring Higher > Ordination during the time of the Buddha: > > 1 . Ehi bhikkhu (Come, 0 Monk) > > 2 . Saranagamana (Taking refuge in the triple gem) > > 3 . Ovadapatiggahana (Acceptance of advice) > > 4. Panhabyakarana (Answering questions) > > 5. Atthagarudhamma (Acceptance of eight strict rules) > > 6 . Duta (Through an emissary) > > 7. Atthavacika (By the pronouncement of eight times) > > 8. Natticatuttha kamma (By three announcements)" 15647 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Dear Ven Yanatharo, Firstly, welcome to DSG. I hope you are finding some of the other discussions more useful and we’ll be glad to hear more from you on them. I note that you are also based in Australia, in Canberra, like Suan. Thank you also for you concern about this topic. I understand it is an issue which people tend to feel very emotional about and agree with you and Christine that if it cannot be discussed rationally and calmly it’s better for it to be left aside. Thank you for your kind consideration. In any case, I only know a tad more about it than I do about quantum physics (about which I know nilch) and will happily leave both aside. Best wishes, Sarah ===== --- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Ms Sara, As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in > Australia, I > contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a > female > as a monk. 15648 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:38am Subject: [dsg] Thoughts / Realities / Concepts / Mind Objects Dear Howard, I have broken off this piece from the main paramatha/concepts discussions as this is becoming quite a bit more detailed. I don't think this discussion will come to a conclusion, but I want to relate some information that I received on K. Sujin's trip to you. > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > I understand what you write below, and I > agree with much of it. Aren't your breaking your disagreement streak? ;-) > However, as I see it, thoughts, whether simple or > mentally constructed from > simpler ones, are mind-objects, and they have > characteristics. I am not sure if you differentiate the "thinking" and what is thought of or not. Thinking, the thinking conciousness, vitaka, vicara, and all the associated dhammas are paramatha (with characteristics). I think this we agree on. What is thought of we might not agree. I understand that when the mind combines repeated cognition of paramatha objects, even if it hasn't become an "entity" per se yet, what is cognized (but not the cognition itself) is already pannatti, as it has no characteristics as appearing to the consciousness at the moment. For example, when we see shape. Shapes and forms are pannatti, although cognition of such shapes and forms is possible only because of paramatha characteristics (visible object, brightness, what appears to the eyes, etc.) that appeared, but shapes and forms don't have paramatha characteristics themselves. > A memory, for > example, of a picture has visual characteristics; > some thoughts are clear, > some are fuzzy; a tune that "keeps going through > ones head" is an auditory > thought; the concept of a musical note is > elementary; a concept of a symphony > is compound; the concept of 'hardness' is > "paramatthic" (to coin an > adjective! ;-)) I discussed this specific point and some related points on the trip. An example that was given is that when we dream about something, we don't see in our dream the way that we see in our daily life while we are awake. When we actually see, something bright (characterisitis of visible object) appears through both the eye door and the mind door. When we dream (or think of what we see, even when we are awake), at that moment there is no such brightness: how we see in a dream (and when we think) is quite different from when we actually see when we are awake. This I readily agree because my dream is quite dark without any light, but somehow I perceive shapes (like people). The sound makes a tougher argument. I can understand your point more readily. I have had the experience of hearing (with the sound not actually there) Vivaldi's for 3 days, during which I wasn't able to get much sleep. But on the other hand, there was no loudness (characteristic of sound) that appeared. Only the mental image of high/low pitch sound appeared. I think this is concept. I experience no image of smell, taste, or tangible object in my dream. So I can count this out completely. The points that were related to me relating to this topic includes: 1) For the kandha that has fallen away, it has fallen away completely. The Buddha enumerates the 11 characteristics of the 5 kandhas, 3 of which are past, present, and future. The past is further explained (Kandha-vibhanga, in Vibhangha, Abhidhamma tipitaka) "to have gone over, extinguished, disappeared, completely changed, completely fallen away, that has become and then disappeared, to be past." [this is likely to be a rough translation]. What appeared in the past can never appear again as it was again, this is a fundamental characteristics of the kandhas. A sound that appears in the past cannot appear just because we think of it, because that sound has completely fallen away. What we can truly hear must be the sound that appears now. 2) This is an inferral on the non-appearance of paramatha dhamma just because we think about it. It is said that a non-ariyan arupa brahma cannot attain, even if they know the theory of the buddha's teaching correctly and thoroughly. The reason given is that it is because even the first vipassana nana, the distinction of nama rupa, cannot appear in that person, as there is no rupa within the arupa plane of existence. But if thinking about rupas causes the paramatha charactertics to appear, then it should be possible that the arupa brahma can attain the first vipassana nana. 3) The Buddha encourage us not to hold on to the past, not to worry about what hasn't come to be, and to let go [of self, of attachment, of mana, of dithi] of the present. If past objects (via thinking) can be objects of sati, why treat it any differently than the present? > However, what is not imagined does not, > perforce, have inherent > existence. All dhammas are without core, being > dependent on many conditions > for their existence. With appreciation, kom 15649 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 6:39am Subject: Will the real concept please stand up (Re: Meditation and Satipatthana) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: Now, that seemingly real object which is "the keyboard I'm typing > on" cannot truly be found anywhere, and so does not truly have any > characteristics. Conventionally, however, it has: (groups of) the direct > experiences which the mind compounds into this percept are viewed as its > characteristics. Now, I think it is correct to say that both the general > concept of 'keyboard' and the instance of that which is the mind-constructed > percept of the keyboard I'm typing on right now both fall under the range of > the Pali term pa~n~natti, though I would call the former "concept" and the > latter "percept". The thing is, several folks on DSG seem to *also* call the > (only conventionally existing) intended *referents* of these by the name > "pa~n~natti" or "concepts", and I think that creates confusion for those of > us who do not use language that way. Hi Howard. The above is great and I love the details. Not quite sure why you would call something that is constructed of mentally reconstituted individual experiences into an image of a self- existing object a 'percept'. [take a breath, phew]. It seems like that would be the definition of a 'concept', a conceptually reconstituted object of mind that really does not refer back to the individual experiences it conceptually meshes into a whole. Since this 'object' only exists in the mind, and is given as though it existed in the world, it seems like a concept, not a percept, to me. It would seem more appropriate to me to call the actual rupa a percept. In other words, the momentary contact with a quality that is actually ascertainable through perception, such as hardness, smoothness, etc., is the 'real' percept. Anything beyond that is a concept. The thought *about* a concept like 'the chair is hard' seems to me that it could be called a 'concept' in the sense that it is a manufactured statement about something that is not really actual, but is conventionally useful, but it would make more sense to me to distinguish this as a 'thought'. In other words, a 'chair' is an idea or concept, and 'the chair is hard' is a thought or definition or statement about that 'concept' or 'conceptual object'. Furthermore, if we really look at the concept 'chair' I think we will find that even that is in trouble, because there is no one concept 'chair'. There really exist only a series of thoughts and images which contain different versions of the so-called concept 'chair'. At one moment I have a particular picture in my mind, like a drawing of a particular chair, and this orients my actions towards referring to a 'chair' in the 'real world' or towards 'sitting', etc., 'in the world'. Another moment I may have a sentential thought-conception of the chair, saying 'a chair is...' such and such...., and that will be my concept at that moment. In truth, these concepts and the thoughts about them are also only momentarily arising experiences within the mind-door, coordinating with experiences in the sense-door at any given moment, and thus also do not have a lasting reality of any kind, although they do have a variable reoccuring reality. This also leads me to something which I am less sure about. Because of the above, I have trouble with the abhidhammic notion as I understand or misunderstand it that concepts do not exist in the moment and are not the objects of cittas. It seems to me that the image of chair or the definition of chair or whatever reified version of the object is being invoked in the moment is an actual experience in the mind-door, although the object is just a mental object and does not occur as a rupa. The object of that thought may not have an actual characteristic, such as hardness or smoothness, but neither does any nama. I would prefer to see the experience of these kinds of objects as a momentary experience like any other, and maybe this can be reclarified, why a thought of a concept or the experience of the concept itself when it arises, is not a conditioned nama. Best, Robert Ep. 15650 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 9/12/02 2:44:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sanz@n... writes: > > Ms Sara, As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in Australia, I > contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a > female > as a monk. I will always oppose it. And to ordain a female monk you nedd a > minimum of FIVE ORDAINED FEMALES MONKS, at the moment there is no even one. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: With all due respect to you, and, certainly such respect *is* due, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made that are different. As I understand it, though I could be way wrong in this, and I stand to be corrected, the divergence between the rules of the Chinese Bhikkshuni Sangha and the original rules for the Theravadin Bikkhuni Sangha has not been great at all. Given that nothing remains exactly as it was, so, for example, you and I are not the same people we were as young men or in previous lives, but are "continuations" of them and are inheritors of the previous kamma, it might be quite reasonable to treat the Chinese Bhikkshuni Sangha as a lamp that was indirectly lit from the original. In that case, the Theravadin Bhikkhuni Sangha could be reconstituted by drawing upon willing Chinese nuns of highest standing and adherence to the Sangha rules, and engaging in ordination of new Theravadin bhikkhunis carefully following the Theravadin ordination procedures. --------------------------------------------------------------- > With all my respect you should close this debate because it will go no > where. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If by this you mean that none of our discussions here are likely to lead to action, that is so, but that applies to much of what is discussed here. However I do not see such discussion as inappropriate to the purposes of the list, and I don't think that posts on this topic should be rejected out of hand. Of course, that decision rests entirely with the list owners. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Metta. Venerable Yanatharo, Buddhist Chaplain University of Canberra.> > > ================================= With metta and respect, 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) 15651 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thoughts / Realities / Concepts / Mind Objects Hi, Kom - In a message dated 9/12/02 4:42:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > I have broken off this piece from the main > paramatha/concepts discussions as this is becoming quite a > bit more detailed. I don't think this discussion will come > to a conclusion, but I want to relate some information that > I received on K. Sujin's trip to you. > > =============================== Thank you for this detailed reply, of which I have snipped the main portion. I have no time right now to give a detailed response, but I do have a response in mind which I promise to get to *quite soon*. :-) 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) 15652 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Will the real concept please stand up (Re: Meditation and Satipatth... Hi, Rob - In a message dated 9/12/02 9:39:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Now, that seemingly real object which is "the keyboard I'm typing > > on" cannot truly be found anywhere, and so does not truly have any > > characteristics. Conventionally, however, it has: (groups of) the direct > > experiences which the mind compounds into this percept are viewed as its > > characteristics. Now, I think it is correct to say that both the general > > concept of 'keyboard' and the instance of that which is the > mind-constructed > > percept of the keyboard I'm typing on right now both fall under the range > of > > the Pali term pa~n~natti, though I would call the former "concept" and > the > > latter "percept". The thing is, several folks on DSG seem to *also* call > the > > (only conventionally existing) intended *referents* of these by the name > > "pa~n~natti" or "concepts", and I think that creates confusion for those > of > > us who do not use language that way. > > Hi Howard. > The above is great and I love the details. > > Not quite sure why you would call something that is constructed of > mentally reconstituted individual experiences into an image of a self- > existing object a 'percept'. [take a breath, phew]. It seems like > that would be the definition of a 'concept', a conceptually > reconstituted object of mind that really does not refer back to the > individual experiences it conceptually meshes into a whole. Since this > 'object' only exists in the mind, and is given as though it existed in > the world, it seems like a concept, not a percept, to me. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me explain by means of an example. I have the general concept of 'tree', to which I can direct the mind from time to time. At the very moment, I look out the window and see the tree outside in the garden (to use conventional terminology). That tree I "see" is a percept. Do I really *see* that tree? No, only in a manner of speaking. What is actually *seen* is not a tree, but is an image, or, better, a sequence of images. The tree I "see" right now is not tje concept of 'tree', but is a percept, one which is quite different from the the percept of "that same tree" I saw when I was walking out in the garden. These are different percepts that are conditioned by the same concept. Each arises due to sa~n~na, with the general concept of 'tree' being applied as a template - serving as a needed condition for creating the perception of the tree I'm looking at. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > It would seem more appropriate to me to call the actual rupa a percept. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then the only percepts are paramattha dhammas. I think that is too strong of a restriction. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > In other words, the momentary contact with a quality that is actually > ascertainable through perception, such as hardness, smoothness, etc., > is the 'real' percept. Anything beyond that is a concept. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I prefer to reserve the word 'concept' for general thoughts, and percepts for specific instances of concepts involving the application of a concept as an overlay to currently experienced individual paramattha dhammas or to groups of paramattha dhammas. When we observe hardness *as hardness*, that is a simple percept. When we observe a table, that is a compound percept. The concept of 'hardness' is applied by the function of sa~n~na in the first case, and the concept of 'table' in the second case. Recall that 'sa~n~na' is sometimes translated as 'perception' (as well as 'recognition'). -------------------------------------------------------- > > The thought *about* a concept like 'the chair is hard' seems to me that > it could be called a 'concept' in the sense that it is a manufactured > statement about something that is not really actual, but is > conventionally useful, but it would make more sense to me to > distinguish this as a 'thought'. In other words, a 'chair' is an idea > or concept, and 'the chair is hard' is a thought or definition or > statement about that 'concept' or 'conceptual object'. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I distinguish between the concept of 'chair' and the perceived chair on which I'm currently sitting. I see these as related, but different in kind. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Furthermore, if we really look at the concept 'chair' I think we will > find that even that is in trouble, because there is no one concept > 'chair'. There really exist only a series of thoughts and images which > contain different versions of the so-called concept 'chair'. At one > moment I have a particular picture in my mind, like a drawing of a > particular chair, and this orients my actions towards referring to a > 'chair' in the 'real world' or towards 'sitting', etc., 'in the world'. > Another moment I may have a sentential thought-conception of the chair, > saying 'a chair is...' such and such...., and that will be my concept > at that moment. In truth, these concepts and the thoughts about them > are also only momentarily arising experiences within the mind-door, > coordinating with experiences in the sense-door at any given moment, > and thus also do not have a lasting reality of any kind, although they > do have a variable reoccuring reality. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, here I must grudgingly admit ;-)) that you make an excellent point! This argument here is quite suggestive of concepts, themselves, being imaginary! I think what you have said in this section is *very* important and calls for considerable study and contemplation! --------------------------------------------------------- > > This also leads me to something which I am less sure about. Because of > the above, I have trouble with the abhidhammic notion as I understand > or misunderstand it that concepts do not exist in the moment and are > not the objects of cittas. It seems to me that the image of chair or > the definition of chair or whatever reified version of the object is > being invoked in the moment is an actual experience in the mind-door, > although the object is just a mental object and does not occur as a > rupa. The object of that thought may not have an actual > characteristic, such as hardness or smoothness, but neither does any > nama. I would prefer to see the experience of these kinds of objects > as a momentary experience like any other, and maybe this can be > reclarified, why a thought of a concept or the experience of the > concept itself when it arises, is not a conditioned nama. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think Abhidhamma denies concepts being objects of cittas, but only their being objects of pa~n~na (which is yet another ball of wax! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > ============================= 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) 15653 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Therevada Nun in Thailand: To Howard Dear Howard, Sarah, Christine, and Sayadaw Yanatharo How are you? This message is directed to Howard, our dear dhamma friend. The case of the likelihood of the Bhikkhuni sangha's revival after its unfortunate discontinuation has been closed since the time of the Pathama Sangiiti (The First Congress Recital). The 500 highest ranking Arahants with superhuman powers and analytical accomplishments headed by Maha Kassapa at this First Congress Recital unanimously decided to keep all the rules of Vinaya great and small as left by the Buddha. This decision was not out of mindless rigidity, but out of respect and love for ANY instruction of the Tathaagata as well as out of forethought and desire for prevention of any divisive arguments over which are to be regarded as major rules and which are to be regarded as minor rules. Maha Kassapa, the Convenor of the First Congress Recital, had duly censured Ananda for his forgetfulness and failure to ask the Buddha which were changeable minor rules, and for forcing the Buddha to reluctantly ordain Gotami as Bhikkhunii in the first place, who was Ananda's Mum and the Buddha's step Mum. If there were Mahayana nuns, then the so-called Thai Theravada nun could have herself ordained as a Mahayana nun by all means. I have no idea why this Thai lady had thought that she could reverse the decisions of the Highest Ranking Arahants from Pathama Sangiiti by calling herself a Theravada Bhikkhuni. There had been non-Theravadin sects coming and going throughout the history of Buddhism, which failed to live up to the principles of Pali Vinaya and Pali Tipitaka as a whole, and which, therefore, failed to survive or survived as deviants in disrepute. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 9/12/02 2:44:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sanz@n... writes: > > Ms Sara, As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in Australia, I > contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a > female > as a monk. I will always oppose it. And to ordain a female monk you nedd a > minimum of FIVE ORDAINED FEMALES MONKS, at the moment there is no even one. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: With all due respect to you, and, certainly such respect *is* due, I think there are reasonable arguments to be made that are different. As I understand it, though I could be way wrong in this, and I stand to be corrected, the divergence between the rules of the Chinese Bhikkshuni Sangha and the original rules for the Theravadin Bikkhuni Sangha has not been great at all. Given that nothing remains exactly as it was, so, for example, you and I are not the same people we were as young men or in previous lives, but are "continuations" of them and are inheritors of the previous kamma, it might be quite reasonable to treat the Chinese Bhikkshuni Sangha as a lamp that was indirectly lit from the original. In that case, the Theravadin Bhikkhuni Sangha could be reconstituted by drawing upon willing Chinese nuns of highest standing and adherence to the Sangha rules, and engaging in ordination of new Theravadin bhikkhunis carefully following the Theravadin ordination procedures. --------------------------------------------------------------- > With all my respect you should close this debate because it will go no > where. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If by this you mean that none of our discussions here are likely to lead to action, that is so, but that applies to much of what is discussed here. However I do not see such discussion as inappropriate to the purposes of the list, and I don't think that posts on this topic should be rejected out of hand. Of course, that decision rests entirely with the list owners. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Metta. Venerable Yanatharo, Buddhist Chaplain University of Canberra.> > > ================================= With metta and respect, 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) 15654 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:16am Subject: To Rob/ A Drop More on Concepts Per Se Hi, Rob - In a message dated 9/12/02 10:21:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... quotes you: > > > > > > Furthermore, if we really look at the concept 'chair' I think we will > > find that even that is in trouble, because there is no one concept > > 'chair'. There really exist only a series of thoughts and images which > > contain different versions of the so-called concept 'chair'. At one > > moment I have a particular picture in my mind, like a drawing of a > > particular chair, and this orients my actions towards referring to a > > 'chair' in the 'real world' or towards 'sitting', etc., 'in the world'. > > Another moment I may have a sentential thought-conception of the chair, > > saying 'a chair is...' such and such...., and that will be my concept > > at that moment. In truth, these concepts and the thoughts about them > > are also only momentarily arising experiences within the mind-door, > > coordinating with experiences in the sense-door at any given moment, > > and thus also do not have a lasting reality of any kind, although they > > do have a variable reoccuring reality. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > and then replies: > Howard: > Well, here I must grudgingly admit ;-)) that you make an excellent > point! This argument here is quite suggestive of concepts, themselves, > being > imaginary! I think what you have said in this section is *very* important > and > calls for considerable study and contemplation! > --------------------------------------------------------- > =================================== I am mightily impressed by the point you made. The more I think about it, the more I see that 'general concept' is close to being an empty term. It seems that it comes to be not much more than a mental "mark", sometimes a name, associated with a fuzzy collection of experiences (or percepts). This conversation has pushed me further in the direction of seeing the unreality of concepts. 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) 15655 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:55am Subject: Re: illogical? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi all, > > I would really like a chocolate. So I wish to add the following. > > The formulation - NOT (X AND (NOT X)) includes the negation of a > negation (double negation). This is meaningless in some systems of > logic. > > "Is the negation of the negation of A equivalent to A? That depends > on what denial is, and hence what negative particles mean. In logic > the classical answer is 'yes', and accordingly operations of > eliminating and introducing double negatives are permitted. > Intuitionist logic disallows the elimination." > http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552921 > > I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) And yet, Herman, much to my regret, you will not get a chocolate at this time. That is because, although we have eliminated the possibility that you do not deserve your chocolate, we have not established positively that you *do* deserve it. This is not a matter of logic, but of politics. All the best, Robert Ep. P.S. I take it that the intuitionist logic disallows the double negation because it does not yield the required result in 'real life', but only in mathematics? Interested in your and Howard's view on this, if any. : ) 15656 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Negation in Pali /Abhidhamma Hi Herman, In Pali na: there is not: natthi.(atthi: there is) Also a number of prefixes: a (anasava: no asava, the n is inserted ), vi (vippayutta, not associated), or ni (r), niramisa, not associated with the senses, or not of the flesh. Nibbana: in the dict there are many etymologys: extinguishing of fire. The ni seems to be negative. viraaga, nirodha nibbaana, can be taken as synonyms, all negations: dispassionateness, cessation. Nibbana is mostly described by negative terms. So difficult to imagine what it is, as I discussed with Howard. Best wishes, Nina. op 11-09-2002 13:51 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > I would be interested to learn from those in the know how negation is > obtained in Pali. In English we might prefix a word with a- or just > use the word not. > > Is negation used at all in the Abhidhamma? What sort of mind object > is a negated object? How is it classified, if at all? > > Would the construct "not nibbana" have any meaning at all? 15657 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] illogical? Dear Stephen, We should look at the whole context of the Brahmajala sutta and study such ways of reasoning people had at that time (and even now). Ven. Bodhi has a good intro, it is on line. Now, under Doctrines of Endless Equivocation, amaraavikkhepavaada, or eelwriggling, under the fourth case, D: Does the Tathagata exist after death, not exist, both exist and not exist, neither exist nor not exist.. In the Cula Malunkyasutta, the Buddha does not answer such questions, it is endless equivocation. There is birth, ageing, dying... He points to the goal. We should not forget the essence of his teaching: he taught the four noble Truths. And how can we learn what dukkha is? It is the arising and falling away of nama and rupa, each moment. How can this be realized? By first knowing precisely what nama is, what rupa is: a reality to be experienced one at a time through one of the six doors, at this very moment. Kom and Larry's dialogue is most important and essential, as Sarah said. What is a concept, what is a reality. A concept is that which makes known, thus, a name, or the idea that is made known. We should not confuse concepts with thinking. Thinking itself is real and it can think of what is real or what is not real but what is a concept. I hope this clarifies, best wishes from Nina. P.S. I do not like the taste of chocolate. op 11-09-2002 03:40 schreef oreznoone@a... op oreznoone@a...: > Rob has raised some questions that I can't fully answer without exploring > Buddhist logic. > Rob has referred, in particular, to the Cula-Malunkovada where it's said that > 4 (every?) possibilities of a Tathagata after death are wrong: that he > exists, doesn't exist, both exists and doesn't exist, neither exists nor > doesn't exist. > If the above is correct, that it simply means 'every possibility," then: x, > not-x, both, neither. As such there's no reason to see it as anything but a 2 > valued or bivalent logic with four possibilities. As such nothing remarkable; > acceptable to Aristotle. > If anyone actually read this far give yourself a chocolate. If anyone can > actually reply I may give you one! > > metta, stephen 15658 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:52pm Subject: Confused ... and getting worse Dear All, I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my confusion, which is getting worse. I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, as I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to not read most of the posts.) metta, Christine 15659 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confused ... and getting worse Hi, Christine - In a message dated 9/12/02 5:20:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear All, > > I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, > but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to > me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a > question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood > much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is > vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my confusion, > which is getting worse. > I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else > understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. > With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) > do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, > explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, as > I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to not > read most of the posts.) > > metta, > Christine > =========================== I don't think you should concern yourself about not understanding. Not understanding hasn't prevented us posters on this topic from posting! We don't really know what we're talking about , you know! ;-)) What I think is really important in all of this is that *all* dhammas are empty! All conditioned dhammas, whether "concepts" or "realities" or "percepts" or "pa~n~natti", are empty. They are all empty because they depend for there very existence on other similarly empty dhammas, including mental fabrication and prior (or simultaneous) namic and rupic conditions. It's all one big house of cards, one masterful magic show of smoke and mirrors. If we look and see how all (conditioned) dhammas depend on parts, on discernment, on concept and on prior and concurrent conditions, we see that there is *nothing* which exists on its own, in an essential, intrinsic manner. Add to that the unsatisfactoriness and impermanence of all dhammas, and that's "all" we need to see. We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we look, and all our atta-making will evaporate. 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) 15660 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:03pm Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse --- Dear Christine, This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. let us consider a couple of thinking. 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real. 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, > but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to > me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a > question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood > much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is > vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my confusion, > which is getting worse. > I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else > understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. > With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) > do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, > explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, as > I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to not > read most of the posts.) > > metta, > Christine 15661 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:26pm Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse --- Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the thoughts. For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and concept as concept the delusion is ended. Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > > Dear Christine, > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > let us consider a couple of thinking. > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > real. > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > concepts for objects. > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > Robert > > > 15662 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:42pm Subject: ADL ch. 24 (4) http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Abhidhamma In Daily Life Chapter 24 (4) The arahat has eradicated all defilements and thus he has reached the end of the cycle of birth, old age, sickness and death; he has realized the end of dukkha. The arahat will not be reborn, but he still has to die and therefore one may ask whether he really has attained the end of dukkha at the moment he realizes arahatship. Even the arahat is subject to death, since he was born. He can also experience unpleasant results of akusala kamma committed before he became an arahat. However, he has no more defilements and cannot accumulate any more kamma which might produce vipåka, he is really free from dukkha. In As it was said (Itivuttaka, The Twos, chapter II, §7, Khuddaka Nikåya) two ``conditions of nibbåna´´ are explained. In this sutta Sa-upådi-sesa-nibbåna, one ``condition´´ of nibbåna, pertains to the arahat who has eradicated all defilements but for whom the five khandhas are still remaining. For the arahat who has not finally passed away yet, there are still citta, cetasika and rúpa arising and falling away. An-upådi-sesa-nibbåna, the other ``condition´´ of nibbåna, pertains to the arahat who has finally passed away; for him there are no khandhas remaining, there are no longer citta, cetasika and rúpa arising and falling away. We read in the verse of this sutta, after the explanation: These two nibbåna-states are shown by him Who sees, who is such and unattached. One state is that in this same life possessed With base remaining, though becoming's stream Be cut off. While the state without a base Belongs to the future, wherein all Becomings utterly do come to cease. They who, by knowing this state uncompounded Have heart's release, by cutting off the stream, They who have reached the core of dhamma, glad To end, such have abandoned all becomings. When someone has become an arahat there will be no more rebirth for him. When someone has attained enlightenment to the stage of the sotåpanna, he has become an ariyan, but he has not reached the end of rebirth. The sotåpanna will be reborn, but not more than seven times; thus, eventually there will be an end to rebirth for him. If we do not develop vipassanå, the number of rebirths will be endless. It was out of compassion that the Buddha spoke about the dangers of rebirth; he wanted to encourage people to develop right understanding. We read in the Kindred Sayings (V, Mahå-vagga, Book XII, Kindred Sayings about the Truths, chapter V, §6, Gross darkness) that the Buddha said to the monks: ``Monks, there is a darkness of interstellar space, impenetrable gloom, such a murk of darkness as cannot enjoy the splendour of this moon and sun, though they be of such mighty magic power and majesty.´´ At these words a certain monk said to the Exalted One: ``Lord, that must be a mighty darkness, a mighty darkness indeed! Pray, lord, is there any other darkness greater and more fearsome than that?´´ ``There is indeed, monk, another darkness, greater and more fearsome. And what is that other darkness? Monk, whatsoever recluses or brahmins understand not, as it really is, the meaning of: This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, such take delight in the activities which conduce to rebirth. Thus taking delight they compose a compound of activities which conduce to rebirth. Thus composing a compound of activities they fall down into the darkness of rebirth, into the darkness of old age and death, of sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. They are not released from birth, old age and death, from sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. They are not released from dukkha, I declare. But, monk, those recluses or brahmins who do understand as it really is, the meaning of: This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, such take not delight in the activities which conduce to rebirth... They are released from dukkha, I declare. Wherefore, monk, an effort must be made to realize: This is dukkha. This is the arising of dukkha. This is the ceasing of dukkha. This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha.'' 15663 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 3:46pm Subject: ADL Nina Dear Nina, This book is truely the work of a master of abhidhamma and a genuine source of learning. Well done! and thank you very much for this gift of Dhamma. Larry 15664 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Howard, what I took from that quote is that pannatti are linguistic. So to discriminate between concept and reality is to find the language in one's experience. I also found it very interesting that the truth of dukkha is conceptual. This bolsters my inclination to think there is a element of pannatti in insight. Larry 15665 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Sarah, just a couple of comments from the quotations you gave from CMA: "What are ultimate realities?- #2 Guide: Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their own extrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existence..." L: I would add irreducible [by direct observation/ or something similar]. All khandhas are compounded and so theoretically infinitly reducible. "'Ultimate' has a second meaning – the ultimate objects of right knowledge- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are not only the ultimate existents, they are also the ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma." L: As the quotation from Pm observed, the tilakkhana is conceptual so there is some kind of relationship between concept and reality in a magga citta and certainly in the daily life of an arahat. Apart from these quibbles, I'm fine with everything else. So if no one rocks the boat too much it will be smooth sailing from here on out. Larry 15666 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Confused ... and getting worse Hi, Robert (and Christine) - The following pst of yours is very good and very helpful, Robert. I would like to pursue it a bit more with you. As I understand it, a concept is a kind of thought. A thought is always described as a thought "of something". A thought of a unicorn is a thought of a nonexistent something. What about a thought of the tree in my garden? For me, that tree is more of an existent than a unicorn is (though I recognize that its existence is dependent in part on that very thinking). Am I right according to Abhidhamma? If yes, why? If no, why? There is also the matter of exactly what a thought is. The example you give below of the thought of a flying purple elephant makes it clear to me that a so-called (individual) thought is actually a whole process, a sequence of cittas whose objects are various paramattha mind-objects (such as mental images). Is it always so that a thought is such a sequence? What is the Pali for 'thought'? Now, a question about your third example: ****************************************** 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. ******************************************* Here you say "If ... you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real." Now, what if Christine does not *think* of them, but "merely" looks at them. That so-called mere looking at them is really a lot more than just looking. There is a big mental process transpiring that recognizes (perhaps wordlessly) two "entities" who are "people", and they are "people who she knows", and they are, in fact, "her parents". All that happens in a flash as Christine "looks" at them. Now, the most real elements of this include the visual image plus many more cittas, cetasikas, and their objects. But exactly what is all that processing, and what is it *for*? Is there not some at least derivative reality to Christine's parents whom she is looking at? It seems to me that there *is* some degree of reality there. Not only is this so because of the fact that the elements combined to create the perception of here parents are directly experienced and are interrelated, but also, because, unless solipsism is valid, corresponding to these pa~n~natti, these "unrealities" are, it seems, two streams of cittas and cetasikas of the same sort as the one we refer to as "Christine"! The bottom line on what I'm talking about here is that there is more than just real vs unreal. There seem to be degrees and kinds of reality (and unreality). If something is observable to any extent and in any way it seems to me to have *some* degree and kind of reality/existence. All this is empty, of course, and that is most important. But there are other things to say besides that. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/12/02 6:05:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Christine, > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > let us consider a couple of thinking. > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > real. > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > concepts for objects. > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > Robert > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, > > but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to > > me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a > > question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood > > much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is > > vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my > confusion, > > which is getting worse. > > I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else > > understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. > > With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) > > do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, > simple, > > explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, > as > > I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to > not > > read most of the posts.) > > > > metta, > > Christine > > /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) 15667 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Confused ... and getting worse Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/12/02 6:28:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in > satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as > this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of > nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen > as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as > much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the > thoughts. > For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and > touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the > pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove > on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing > aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the > aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes > the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood > as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language > the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. > > This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh > language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't > have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because > there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and > concept as concept the delusion is ended. > > Robert > ============================ Yes, indeed. All true. The question remains, however: "Who turned the stove on?" Is there any reality to the subject-matter of that question? I believe that there is. But it seems very difficult for *anyone* to adequately explain what that is. 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) 15668 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/12/02 7:01:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, what I took from that quote is that pannatti are linguistic. > So to discriminate between concept and reality is to find the language > in one's experience. I also found it very interesting that the truth of > dukkha is conceptual. This bolsters my inclination to think there is a > element of pannatti in insight. > > Larry ========================= I understand you, and I think you make an interesting point! 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) 15669 From: Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 2:32pm Subject: Realities Hi, all - Do trees exist? Sure. I see them all the time, and I climbed them as a kid. I never climbed a nonexistent tree. Do trees exist in the same way as hardness? No, their existence as unitary objects depends on the mind as condition. So what? They still exist. Does a self exist? No, not in any way. I've never seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or cognized my "self" (no comments about the smelling, please! ;-), and I never will. There is no self, just as there is no unicorn. It is imagined - that's all. So there is no self to be unreal. What is it that a self is supposed to be? It is an essence, a core, to be found in, among, or underlying the khandhas. Now that we know what it is supposed to be we can look to see if it's there. It isn't. So some ideas have no referents. We then use language in an odd way and say that the referents of those ideas are unreal or nonexistent, as if being unreal or being nonexistent are characteristics of things. But that is nonsense, for only existing things have characteristics, because there *are* no other things! Some imagined "things" like selves and unicorns, do not exist at all. Among those things that do exist, there are degrees and kinds of existence/reality. However, and here is what is critically important as I see it, all dhammas are coreless (anatta). Dependent arising teaches us the corelessness of all sankhata dhammas. If we can absorb that teaching deep down into the marrow of our bones, and directly see the relativity and dependent status of all conditioned dhammas, we will have seen the Buddha in front of us, behind us, on each side of us, and deep inside of us, and then we will know nibbana, the ultimate emptiness. 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) 15670 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:43pm Subject: Realities: Emptiness & Dependent Origination --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: Hi Howard & all, > However, and here is what is critically important as I see it, all > dhammas are coreless (anatta). Dependent arising teaches us the corelessness > of all sankhata dhammas. If we can absorb that teaching deep down into the > marrow of our bones, and directly see the relativity and dependent status of > all conditioned dhammas, we will have seen the Buddha in front of us, behind > us, on each side of us, and deep inside of us, and then we will know nibbana, > the ultimate emptiness. What you've said here is the heartwood of the Dhamma. Your presentations sounds so Tibetan (Geluk-pa) it's scary, Howard, even though I know you're squarely in the Theravada tradition! In the hopes of addding a different perspective on coming to Right View, one that works exceedingly well for many, I like the quotes below from Je Tsongkhapa (Guru to the First Dalai Lama)--his last set of verses from "The Fourteen Root Verses on The Three Principal Aspects of the Path": "In a limitless round they're born, and in their births Are tortured by three sufferings without a break; Think how your mothers feel, think of what's happening To them: try to develop [Bodhicitta]. "You may master renunciation and [Bodhicitta], But unless you have the wisdom perceiving reality You cannot cut the root of cyclic life. Make efforts in ways then to perceive interdependence. "A person's entered the path that pleases the Buddhas When for all objects, in the cycle or beyond, He sees that cause and effect can never fail, And when for him they lose all solid appearance. "You've yet to realize the thought of the Able As long as two ideas seem to you disparate: The appearance of things-infallible interdependence; And emptiness-beyond taking any position. "At some point, they no longer alternate, come together; Just seeing that interdependence never fails Brings realization that destroys how you hold to objects, And then your analysis with view is complete. "In addition the appearance prevents the existence extreme; Emptiness that of non-existence, and if You see how emptiness shows in cause and effect You'll never be stolen off by extreme views. "When you've grasped as well as I the essential points Of each of the three principal paths explained, Then go into isolation, my son, make mighty Efforts, and quickly win your ultimate wish." For those seeking the heartwood of the Dhamma, this is it. The last line is an injunction for those who've carefully analyzed and come to see, intellectually, how interdependence (paticcca samuppada) and emptiness (anatta) are complementary aspects of the same reality, and are ultimately inseparable. This conceptual understanding is the basis for meditation on the emptiness of all things--the personal "self" as well as all phenomena--that all are empty (sabbe sankhara anatta) of independent existence, character, or essence (sabhava); that due to dependence there is nothing that is truly singular nor is there anything truly separate, and that that very fact of dependent arising directly implies the emptiness of the 10,000 things, because there is nothing that arises without conditions; therefore, when any object is analyzed for independent existence, or "core", there is no "core" that can be found. This is the entire thrust of Nagarjuna's analyses in the "Mulamadhyamakakarika" (Root Stanzas from the Middle Way). Provided sila is well-established and the mind is capable of being trained (meaning one's not "incorrigible" with regard to the attachment to views, teachers, lineages, or afflictied with the disease of intellectual mana of "knowing it all"), when this understanding of paticca samuppada and anatta is applied in meditation consisting of the "swift pair of messengers" of samatha & vipassana, for one who does not neglect jhana, it provides the best possible set of conditions for insight-wisdom to develop to the degree of power needed to instantly cut through all conceptualization and mental elaboration. Then one has seen the Buddha directly, as you note Howard. To elaborate (hah!) a bit more to this (this was put together for a student a couple of years ago in the hopes of clarifying this a bit more, and is simply a rehash of what my Lamas have taught me), and in the hopes that some reading this far may find it helpful: Dependent Origination is the fact that all things arise in dependence on other factors. There is nothing that does not arise in dependence on other factors of some kind. The alternative view—which is a wrong view—entails the absurd consequence that somehow things arise independent of other factors, through their own power. But this is impossible, because that would mean things would happen at random, without any sort of rhyme or reason. A classic Tibetan example refuting the wrong view that things can arise independent of causes and conditions is that of the "sky flower," or the "lotus that grows in midair." It is impossible—an absurdity—that such a lotus could randomly appear in midair without the proper causes and conditions. For a lotus to exist at all it requires the proper causes and conditions, such as a lotus seed, soil, nutrients, air, water, sunlight, and favorable climate. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that something—any object of experience—can possibly come from nothing. It must come from something else! How Things Exist: Three Aspects of Dependent Origination It is not enough to merely know how things don't exist—that things lack independent existence; it is also vital to understand how they do exist. In other words, understanding the emptiness of intrinsic existence alone is not enough; one must also, at the same time, understand Dependent Origination—how things appear to exist as they do. How things exist can be broken down into three aspects: 1. All thing exist in dependence upon their causes This means that everything comes from causes—all things come from other factors. In the case of a lotus, that would include the lotus seed, the presence of soil, sunlight, water, time, etc. This is the causal aspect of Dependent Origination. 2. All things exist in dependence upon their parts, and possess valid basis This means that every object of experience depends on its parts. A classic example is that of the "person." The "person" is merely a collection of specific parts; it must possess a head, a torso, arms, and legs. This is the physical aspect of Dependent Origination. For example, all these parts must come together in a specific way to form the basis of designation for the label "person." 3. All things exist in dependence upon the mind that labels them This means that without a mind labeling a collection containing a head, torso, arms, and legs, the idea of a "person" will have no reason to arise. Furthermore, one cannot reasonably apply the label "person" to a collection of wheels, tires, etc. Any label we apply to a collection of parts must depend upon a valid basis—in other words, these parts must conform to a "valid basis of designation." In the case of a person, that means a collection of parts including a head, torso, arms, legs, etc. This is the mental or conceptual aspect of Dependent Origination. How Emptiness and Dependent Origination Relate to Each Other Right View is the wisdom that understands how emptiness of independent existence and the dependently originated nature of all things relate to each other. Both Emptiness and Dependent Origination are complementary aspects of the same reality. They are not identical conventionally; rather, one supports and complements the other. For example, because all things are dependently originated, they must lack a fixed or independent nature. In other words, the fact that things exist dependent on causes directly implies and supports the fact they lack a fixed or solid identity. Likewise, because things are empty and lack a fixed nature, it implies that they must arise in dependence on other factors. In this way emptiness and dependent origination can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Without one, the other is impossible. Because one is true, the other is implied. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka): The Middle Way Between Extremes The Middle Way school is so named because it threads the Scylla and Charybdis of the two extreme views, Eternalism and Nihilism. These wrong views can be stopped by this one logical statement: "it cannot exist truly, because it is interdependent." As Arya Nâgârjuna says in the Fundamentals of the Middle Way: "`Inherent existence' is holding to permanence. `No conventional existence' is a view of nihilism. Therefore the wise do not abide in either `inherent existence' or `no conventional existence.'" May all being directly realize the heartwood of the Dhamma! Cheers, Erik 15671 From: Antony Woods Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 0:37am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse Dear Christine, You wrote: "what exactly (as a minimum) do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, explanations anywhere?" The late Mahasi Sayadaw said (English translation) in "Paticcasamuppada": "(the meditator) can follow the teacher's instructions if he knows only that life is a mental and physical process characterized by impermanence, suffering and insubstantiality. The adequacy of this simple knowledge to meet the intellectual need of the yogi who is bent on Arahatship is borne out by the Buddha in Culatanha-sankhaya sutta." ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/therabud/mahasipt.zip His brief instructions are available at: ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasipv.zip Thanks for letting people know when you don't understand (I didn't even attempt to read this thread). metta, Antony. 15672 From: Antony Woods Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 0:58am Subject: observe concepts combine with realities Dear all, Ven Mahasi Sayadaw said (I posted three sentences previously): "Those unpractised in insight meditation often say, "if you note 'bending, stretching', only concepts like arms will appear to you. If you note 'left, right' only concepts like legs will appear to you. If you note 'rising, falling', only concepts like the abdomen will appear to you." This may be true to some of the beginners, but it is not true to think that the concepts will keep coming up. Both concepts and realities appear to the beginner. Some people instruct the beginners to meditate on realities only. This is impossible. To forget concepts is quite impracticable at the beginning. What is practicable is to observe concepts combine with realities. The Buddha himself used the language of concepts and told us to be aware 'I am walking' etc. when we walk, bend or stretch. He did not use the language of realities and tell us to be aware 'It is supporting, moving' etc. Although you meditate using the language of concepts like 'walking, bending, stretching', as your mindfulness and concentration grow stronger, all the concepts disappear and only the realities like support and moving appear to you. When you reach the stage of the knowledge of dissolution, although you meditate 'walking, walking', neither the legs nor the body appear to you. Only the successive movements are there. Although you meditate 'bending, bending', there will not be any arms or legs. Only the movement. Although you meditate 'rising, falling', there will be no image of the abdomen or the body. Only the movement out and in. These as well as swaying are the functions of the air-element." ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasifv.zip with metta / Antony. 15673 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:58am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: Dear All, I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my confusion, which is getting worse. I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, as I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to not read most of the posts.) metta, Christine KKT: Maybe a << summary >> could be useful for a clear understanding. Ultimate Realities (Paramattha Dhamma) are Rupa, Citta, Cetasika. Whatever is not Rupa, Citta, Cetasika is not Paramattha Dhamma (PD). I'm going to use the classification in 18 elements (dhatus) which embrace the << whole world >> 6 senses + 6 objects + 6 consciousnesses The first 5 senses are Rupa ---> PD The 6th sense (Mind) is Citta ---> PD The first 5 objects are Rupa ---> PD The 6 consciousnesses are Citta ---> PD It remains the 6th object which is the object of the Mind and is called Dhammayatana (Mental Object) Among the Mental Objects are 52 Cetasika ---> PD Now, whatever remain as Mental Object << ARE NOT >> Paramattha Dhamma. They are all << CONCEPTS >> and not realities. Hope this helps. Metta, KKT 15674 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:54am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: I don't think you should concern yourself about not understanding. Not understanding hasn't prevented us posters on this topic from posting! We don't really know what we're talking about , you know! ;-)) What I think is really important in all of this is that *all* dhammas are empty! All conditioned dhammas, whether "concepts" or "realities" or "percepts" or "pa~n~natti", are empty. They are all empty because they depend for there very existence on other similarly empty dhammas, including mental fabrication and prior (or simultaneous) namic and rupic conditions. It's all one big house of cards, one masterful magic show of smoke and mirrors. If we look and see how all (conditioned) dhammas depend on parts, on discernment, on concept and on prior and concurrent conditions, we see that there is *nothing* which exists on its own, in an essential, intrinsic manner. Add to that the unsatisfactoriness and impermanence of all dhammas, and that's "all" we need to see. We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we look, and all our atta-making will evaporate. With metta, Howard KKT: I must agree with Erik (rikpa21) that what you said here is << pure >> Madhyamika :-)) I don't think that Theravada holds such a view about emptiness (at least like your presentation :-)) But this gives a glimpse of how Nagarjuna arrived at Madhyamika: trying to inquire deeper into the reality of the dharmas than the presentation of the Sarvastivada school. Peace, KKT 15675 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Confused ... and getting worse Dear Howard, Thanks for the questions. Howard: ""For me, that tree is more of an existent than a unicorn is (though I > recognize that its existence is dependent in part on that very thinking). Am > I right according to Abhidhamma? If yes, why? If no, why?" Pannati, concepts can be clssified in many ways (see the p.s to this post). In fact, things like a unicorn and God and rabbits horns can be considered as different types of pannati from trees. Trees, computers,humans, Robert, Howard, Christine are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, insignificant dhammas that can barely be said to exist because they pass away instantly. These concepts are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality). Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannati) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as neccessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end. *Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic lables. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include metally naming it. Becuase of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified. The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (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). ------ Howard: The example you > give below of the thought of a flying purple elephant makes it clear to me > that a so-called (individual) thought is actually a whole process, a sequence > of cittas whose objects are various paramattha mind-objects (such as mental > images). Is it always so that a thought is such a sequence? ________ Yes, that is right. What we call a thought in conventional language is a long and complex series of different processes. This is explained in detail in the commentaries. _____ Howard: Here you say "If ... you think of them, again the object is concept, > not real; but the thinking process is real." Now, what if Christine does not > *think* of them, but "merely" looks at them. That so-called mere looking at > them is really a lot more than just looking. There is a big mental process > transpiring that recognizes (perhaps wordlessly) two "entities" who are > "people", and they are "people who she knows", ------ Yes, this is right. As I said above the conceptualising happens long before any naming has time to occur. Even babies and animals who have no linguistic abilities are fully involved in processes of conceptualising. However, animals and babies cannot yet expand concepts into the religions, sciences, and general craziness and wonder that is the fruit of civilisation. I think it can only be known by direct insight whether this is true or not and that is why the Buddha's teaching is ehipassiko - come and see. Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not. All these processes, the realities and the concepts are happening every moment of the day. They do not have to be searched for - they only need to be seen. Robert p.s. Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: i) formal concept (santhana pannatti corresponding to the form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements. ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot. iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West. v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha. vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. See http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Realities and Concepts Sujin Boriharnwanaket - In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Christine) - > > The following pst of yours is very good and very helpful, Robert. I > would like to pursue it a bit more with you. > As I understand it, a concept is a kind of thought. A thought is > always described as a thought "of something". A thought of a unicorn is a > thought of a nonexistent something. What about a thought of the tree in my > garden? > There is also the matter of exactly what a thought is. > Now, a question about your third example: > ****************************************** > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > ******************************************* > > parents". All that happens in a flash as Christine "looks" at them. Now, the > most real elements of this include the visual image plus many more cittas, > cetasikas, and their objects. But exactly what is all that processing, and > what is it *for*? Is there not some at least derivative reality to > Christine's parents whom she is looking at? It seems to me that there *is* > some degree of reality there. Not only is this so because of the fact that > the elements combined to create the perception of here parents are directly > experienced and are interrelated, but also, because, unless solipsism is > valid, corresponding to these pa~n~natti, these "unrealities" are, it seems, > two streams of cittas and cetasikas of the same sort as the one we refer to > as "Christine"! The bottom line on what I'm talking about here is that there > is more than just real vs unreal. There seem to be degrees and kinds of > reality (and unreality). If something is observable to any extent and in any > way it seems to me to have *some* degree and kind of reality/existence. All > this is empty, of course, and that is most important. But there are other > things to say besides that. > > With metta, > Howard > > > In a message dated 9/12/02 6:05:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Dear Christine, > > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > > let us consider a couple of thinking. > > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > > real. > > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > > concepts for objects. > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > > Robert > > 15676 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Confused2 .. --- Dear Howard, If I talk a little off the point it might be helpful. In my example below it would be taking it wrong if one decided that by knowing what is real and what is concept one takes no action. In fact the way I believe it works is that there is an abundance of energy to be directed in a wise way. So one might still reprimand the one who carelessly left the stove on - but without the unnecessary baggage of a long story about a "me" who was hurt by "she". And so the speaking can be given in a way that will reach the other party in a form so that they can better respond to. And if they don't respond well it doesn't upset one much either because our real work is to understand the moment. There is action but less attachment to it. Robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/12/02 6:28:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in > > satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as > > this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of > > nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen > > as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as > > much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the > > thoughts. > > For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and > > touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the > > pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove > > on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing > > aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the > > aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes > > the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood > > as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language > > the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. > > > > This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh > > language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't > > have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because > > there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and > > concept as concept the delusion is ended. > > > > Robert > > > ============================ > Yes, indeed. All true. The question remains, however: "Who turned the > stove on?" Is there any reality to the subject-matter of that question? I > believe that there is. But it seems very difficult for *anyone* to adequately > explain what that is. > > With metta, > Howard 15677 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Searching for 'Courage' in the Teachings Dear NIna, Thank you for your post. I can understand better now why viriya is referred to sometimes as 'courage' and sometimes as 'energy'. What I most often need reminding about is the necessity to not be disheartened, to maintain persistence and endurance, to 'keep on, keeping on' when progress is not noticeable. This is so easy to forget and perseverance sometimes seems too hard - particularly when one of the defilements that had seemed to be losing its power takes control again as if none of the past few years of effort and practice had happened. (Reading your 'Perfections' and 'Cetasikas' is very useful.) Defilements certainly have strength, endurance, and resilience. And defilements, showing themselves through speech and actions, do so much harm. It is difficult to do courageous acts - but the hard daily grind of mindfully living the Teachings is much more difficult. As you say - "any moment is a moment fit for awareness. We have to become heroes." :) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > You found the word viriya, and this is courage. Further see below, you got > the meaning, courage to eradicate defilements. 15678 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:59am Subject: Re: Searching for 'Courage' /Robert Dear Robert, I appreciated the story of the walled-up King. From having been the most powerful person in the country to becoming the most powerless would have been shattering by itself. Imagining the scene - to be sealed in a wall by workmen whom he probably knew, and guarded by others who would once have obeyed his slightest command, would add to the awfulness (for them too). No doubt a larger and equally well- known audience would have been compelled to witness his interment, adding an element of humiliation as well. He managed to show such courage and equanimity while facing sadistic cruelty. Helps me to re- consider the way I react to things in my day-to-day experiences - and they're pretty trivial by comparison .... ------------------------- Thanks for sharing this: RobK : "One of the greatest things I have learnt in Dhamma is that nothing and no one can ever make us have akusala because it is conditioned within this stream of nama and rupa. Akusala -such as fear- can't be stopped by 'us' (because no 'us');but knowing that in any situation kusala can still arise is a powerful condition for viriya (energy) and saddha (faith) that supports kusala." and "understanding of anatta is a very strong condition for courage" -------------------------- Chris: I think I am still far from understanding this. I can read it and intellectually agree with it, but I don't "know" it. I still haven't integrated 'kamma' into an understanding of 'anatta' and 'no- control'. ----------------------- metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Dear Christine, > In the cullavamsa - smaller chronicle on the history of sri lanka- > there was a king who was overthrown by an evil minister (or someoone - > I forget some details). This usurper wanted the King to suffer > greatly and so had him put into a new wall while still alive and had > the his men slowly seal up the wall so that he would suffocate. 15679 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:17am Subject: Re: Searching for 'Courage' /Sarah Dear Sarah, Reminders about really knowing oneself and having insight into ones own defilements thread through your letter - you say: " have the courage to really understnd realities as they are, not as we'd like them to be. I particularly reflect on the aspect of knowing our kilesa when it comes to courage." This 'knowing our kilesa' is a difficult thing to do - - much easier to 'know' everyone else's and decide that the other person is blinded to their own.... or to be selective and only know our own gross defilements, when the more subtle ones could be doing the most harm. I'm not sure I see why 'confession' should happen ... what the benefit is of: "when he commits a transgression he acknowledges it as such and confesses it to his co-religionists." Acknowledging and making restitution to the person harmed is one thing, but is there really the expectation of Confession (but not Absolution?) within Buddhism for lay followers? It hasn't been a huge success (IMO) within Christianity - has resulted in some people feeling that one was 'off the hook', had a clean slate and could start again with the same old behaviour patterns, until next time. I'm still thinking over hiri and ottapa, as well as renunciation and guarding the sense doors as they relate to courage. Long term courage takes a lot more energy, effort, endurance than whatever it was that I took for courage before - which was more 'explosive' and impulsive ... perhaps an expression of defilements? I appreciate the reminders about having patience to study and consider our different cittas arising because of conditions, instead of having aversion. Thanks for your post which encouraged me to consider the Teachings in a number of areas that I hadn't previously thought of as relating to courage at all. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Chris, > > I've been reflecting quite a bit on `courage in the scriptures' and > perhaps some of these personal reflections and notes will be useful for > you or others. 15680 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] observe concepts combine with realities Hi, Antony - Thanks for this excellent piece. What the Sayadaw says here reminds me of what I was *trying* to say in my post on the Satipatthana Sutta, where I said that I understood it as instructing one to begin with conventional objects and end up seeing through them directly to paramattha dhammas and their empty nature. Naturally, the Sayadaw says it far more clearly more directly than I did. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/13/02 3:59:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, antony2 72b@h... writes: > > Dear all, > > Ven Mahasi Sayadaw said (I posted three sentences previously): > > "Those unpractised in > insight meditation often say, "if you note 'bending, stretching', > only concepts like arms will appear to you. If you note 'left, > right' only concepts like legs will appear to you. If you note > 'rising, falling', only concepts like the abdomen will appear to > you." This may be true to some of the beginners, but it is not > true to think that the concepts will keep coming up. Both concepts > and realities appear to the beginner. Some people instruct the > beginners to meditate on realities only. This is impossible. To > forget concepts is quite impracticable at the beginning. What is > practicable is to observe concepts combine with realities. The > Buddha himself used the language of concepts and told us to be > aware 'I am walking' etc. when we walk, bend or stretch. He did > not use the language of realities and tell us to be aware 'It is > supporting, moving' etc. Although you meditate using the language > of concepts like 'walking, bending, stretching', as your > mindfulness and concentration grow stronger, all the concepts > disappear and only the realities like support and moving appear to > you. When you reach the stage of the knowledge of dissolution, > although you meditate 'walking, walking', neither the legs nor the > body appear to you. Only the successive movements are there. > Although you meditate 'bending, bending', there will not be any > arms or legs. Only the movement. Although you meditate 'rising, > falling', there will be no image of the abdomen or the body. Only > the movement out and in. These as well as swaying are the > functions of the air-element." > ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasifv.zip > > with metta / Antony. > > /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) 15681 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Confused ... and getting worse Hi, Robert - SadhuX3! Thank you for the following excellent exposition! With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/13/02 6:02:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard, > Thanks for the questions. > Howard: ""For me, that tree is more of an existent than a unicorn is > (though I > > recognize that its existence is dependent in part on that very > thinking). Am > > I right according to Abhidhamma? If yes, why? If no, why?" > > Pannati, concepts can be clssified in many ways (see the p.s to this > post). In fact, things like a unicorn and God and rabbits horns can > be considered as different types of pannati from trees. Trees, > computers,humans, Robert, Howard, Christine are the shadows of what > is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, > mentality and matter, insignificant dhammas that can barely be said > to exist because they pass away instantly. These concepts are more > deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality). > Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts > (pannati) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as > neccessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is > where all problems begin and end. *Note that these designations > happen long, long before they are linguistic lables. What is called a > thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of > momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may > include metally naming it. Becuase of this repetition - and the lack > of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is > solidified. > > The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield > from PTS) (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). > ------ > Howard: The example you > > give below of the thought of a flying purple elephant makes it > clear to me > > that a so-called (individual) thought is actually a whole process, > a sequence > > of cittas whose objects are various paramattha mind-objects (such > as mental > > images). Is it always so that a thought is such a sequence? > ________ > Yes, that is right. What we call a thought in conventional language > is a long and complex series of different processes. This is > explained in detail in the commentaries. > _____ > Howard: Here you say "If ... you think of them, again the object is > concept, > > not real; but the thinking process is real." Now, what if Christine > does not > > *think* of them, but "merely" looks at them. That so-called mere > looking at > > them is really a lot more than just looking. There is a big mental > process > > transpiring that recognizes (perhaps wordlessly) two "entities" who > are > > "people", and they are "people who she knows", > ------ > Yes, this is right. As I said above the conceptualising happens long > before any naming has time to occur. Even babies and animals who > have no linguistic abilities are fully involved in processes of > conceptualising. However, animals and babies cannot yet expand > concepts into the religions, sciences, and general craziness and > wonder that is the fruit of civilisation. > I think it can only be known by direct insight whether this is true > or not and that is why the Buddha's teaching is ehipassiko - come and > see. Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing > something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of > insight into what is real and what is not. All these processes, the > realities and the concepts are happening every moment of the day. > They do not have to be searched for - they only need to be seen. > Robert > > p.s. Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: > i) formal concept (santhana pannatti corresponding to the form of > things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on > account of the mode of transition of the elements. > ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of > construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a > vehicle or a chariot. > iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or > individual, which is derived from the five khandhas. > iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the > revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West. > v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening. > vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to > seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as > Vesakha. > vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is > derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. > viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through > the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina. > See http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Realities and Concepts Sujin > Boriharnwanaket > > /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) 15682 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:38am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Robert You wrote: "But if there is understanding of realities then the aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment." What you wrote can be regarded as the essence of the Buddha's teachings, and as how we could turn abhidhamma into an applied discipline. In fact, what you wrote is also a mockery of the views of some misguided academics in the Religious Departments or Asian Studies Departments at the universities in the West who wrote off abhidhamma as an unnecessary part of Buddhist learning. By the way, last night (12 September 2002), I watched Bill Connolly's World Tour comedy show. Near the end of the program, he talked about Buddhist philosophy, and guess what? He said he wanted his children to learn to accept things as they are. And, he closed the program riding his tri-motor bike away in nude! And you also wrote in the above paragraph: "Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment." What a coincidence! But, I am sure that you wrote those lines while fully dressed! SMILE With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: --- Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the thoughts. For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and concept as concept the delusion is ended. Robert > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > --- > > > > Dear Christine, > > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > > let us consider a couple of thinking. > > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > > real. > > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > > concepts for objects. > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > > Robert > > > > > > 15683 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:37am Subject: Elements of Thinking/Contemplation in Vipassana Bhavana Hi, all - I list below portions of the Satipatthana Sutta which seem to me to rather unambiguously describe thinking/contemplation as part of the practice. (I will set off what I wish to draw particular attention to by using double vertical bars, ||, before and after the material): ********************************** 1) Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying down. Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. [Upasaka note: Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all pa~n~natti] 2) Furthermore...just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain -- wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice -- and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' ||in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.'|| 3) Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground -- one day, two days, three days dead -- bloated, livid, & festering, ||he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'... || "Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, & hawks, by dogs, hyenas, & various other creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh & blood, connected with tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons... a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions -- here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a chest bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened, somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old... decomposed into a powder: ||He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.' || 4) In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. ||Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.|| And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. 5) In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in & of themselves, or externally on feelings in & of themselves, or both internally & externally on feelings in & of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to feelings. ||Or his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.|| And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on feelings in & of themselves. 6) In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. ||Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.|| And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself. [Upasaka note: There are others like 4), 5), and 6), but these will be omitted.] ************************************ Of the examples given above, I personally find the first three most persuasive of the point that I am attempting to make. 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) 15684 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Confused ... and getting worse Hi, KKT - In a message dated 9/13/02 5:54:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > > I don't think you should concern yourself about not understanding. > Not understanding hasn't prevented us posters on this topic from > posting! We don't really know what we're talking about , you know! > ;-)) > What I think is really important in all of this is that *all* dhammas > are empty! All conditioned dhammas, whether "concepts" or "realities" > or "percepts" or "pa~n~natti", are empty. They are all empty because > they depend for there very existence on other similarly empty > dhammas, including mental fabrication and prior (or simultaneous) > namic and rupic conditions. It's all one big house of cards, one > masterful magic show of smoke and mirrors. If we look and see how all > (conditioned) dhammas depend on parts, on discernment, on concept and > on prior and concurrent conditions, we see that there is *nothing* > which exists on its own, in an essential, intrinsic manner. Add to > that the unsatisfactoriness and impermanence of all dhammas, and > that's "all" we need to see. We only need to see the tilakkhana > everywhere we look, and all our atta-making will evaporate. > > With metta, > Howard > > > > > > KKT: I must agree with Erik (rikpa21) > that what you said here is << pure >> > Madhyamika :-)) > > I don't think that Theravada holds > such a view about emptiness > (at least like your presentation :-)) > > But this gives a glimpse of how > Nagarjuna arrived at Madhyamika: > trying to inquire deeper into the reality > of the dharmas than the presentation > of the Sarvastivada school. > > > Peace, > > > KKT > ======================== Thanks for your comments. To me, what I have said, if not exactly as I expresed it, is all to be found in the Pali Sutta Pitaka. Be that as it may, if I am charged with being influenced by Nagarjuna, then I admit my guilt with pleasure. Even worse, Vasubandhu is an influence as well. So I am a two-time loser. One more strike and I'll be out - lock me up and throw away the key! ;-)) With much 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) 15685 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:05am Subject: concepts and thoughts Dear Kom and all, Kom, I was delighted with your report of the discussions on concepts and dreams. I liked your explanation about dreams, what we see in a dream is not like seeing now. And the Vivaldi example fascinated me, since I like Vivaldi very much. Was the concept of sound in your imagination so loud that you hardly slept? Had you been to a concert? Just curious. We see here that feeling and sanna are strong conditions for a story to go on and on. I think one of the reasons of confusion with regard to concept, as you mentioned, is the word . In some translations thought stands for thinking. Thinking is the act of thinking, the experience, the nama of thinking. Even the word thinking can stand for the cetasikas vitakka, applied thinking and vicara, sustained thinking. They accompany cittas of the sense-door process, except the sense-cognitions of seeing etc., and cittas of the mind-door process, and also cittas not arising in processes (rebirth consciousness, bhavanga and dying-consciousness). Thus we see that they do not accompany only cittas of the mind-door process, that they are not the same as what we mean by thinking in conventional sense. Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the object. The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and vicara in order to experience visible object. We can use thinking in a wider sense: citta experiencing an object through the mind-door, but we have to be careful. Citta can experience through the mind-door paramattha dhammas as well as concepts. We can use the word thinking for citta experiencing concepts. The word *thought*: this is what citta thinks about, the object citta thinks of, and I am inclined to use this for concept, just as you, Kom, explained. You explained about shape and form: this is the concept of a whole. Citta can think of a story, a situation, this is a concept. We can call it also a thought. Thus for me thought is the object of the citta which thinks. For me it is not the act of thinking, the experience which is thinking. Also the long quote about the kinds of concepts given by Larry is very important to consider. When citta does not experience a reality it experiences a concept. As I remarked before, when we reflect on reality and concept the difference cannot be so clear. We may keep on trying to find definitions of reality and concept, of thinking and thought. Only when we learn to be directly aware of at least some realities appearing through different doorways the difference between reality and concept will become clearer. Like the hardness and the table, visible object and (Howard's) tree. I have a mental picture of Howard looking at his tree in the garden. A concept. I appreciated, Kom, what you said about the sound which has completely fallen away. What we hear now (Lodewijk is playing Bach now) must be the sound that appears. With appreciation, Nina. 15686 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Confused / Howard Hi Howard, and all, Thanks Howard for your comforting words - I always get a lot out of your posts (especially when you write in plain english, as opposed to plain maths, plain logic or plain philosophy :-)) - but I get the most out of them when your great heart peeks around the edge of your logical mind. I was reading somewhere in the last few days (something like) only one of the tilakkhana is actually understood at a time, and that having understood either dukkha, anatta or anicca, one understands all three - but haven't been able to trace the original reference again .... Would this mean that accumulations had some bearing as to which of these was easier for the person to understand? (I seem to notice suffering everywhere - whereas, anatta ...) You say: "We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we look, and all our atta-making will evaporate." That all?? So-o-o - I just need to see anatta, dukkha, and anicca everywhere I look, and she'll be right, mate? Bewdy! No worries! Too easy! :-) :) much metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - > I don't think you should concern yourself about not understanding. Not > understanding hasn't prevented us posters on this topic from posting! We > don't really know what we're talking about , you know! ;-)) > What I think is really important in all of this is that *all* dhammas > are empty! All conditioned dhammas, whether "concepts" or "realities" or > "percepts" or "pa~n~natti", are empty. They are all empty because they depend > for there very existence on other similarly empty dhammas, including mental > fabrication and prior (or simultaneous) namic and rupic conditions. It's all > one big house of cards, one masterful magic show of smoke and mirrors. If we > look and see how all (conditioned) dhammas depend on parts, on discernment, > on concept and on prior and concurrent conditions, we see that there is > *nothing* which exists on its own, in an essential, intrinsic manner. Add to > that the unsatisfactoriness and impermanence of all dhammas, and that's "all" > we need to see. We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we look, and > all our atta-making will evaporate. > > With metta, > Howard 15687 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Re: Confused /RobertK Dear Robert, Thanks for your posts - clarifying and calming as hoped. The example of the 'flying purple elephant' (mine has pink toes and ears a la Sri Lanka) and the two examples of 'mother and father' are helpful as was the reminder that: "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise and fall away; they are objects of thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." Given my feeling of being controlled at times by emotional reactions, I found that the example of the burned finger really 'spoke' to me describing the difference in reactions between one who understands realities and one who doesn't. I felt so encouraged that I got out the copy of K. Sujin's 'Realities and Concepts' that you sent down when I was a newbie on DL (seems a lifetime ago). Interesting to see my pencilled notations, question marks, underlining and different coloured highlighting (it's a bit like reading a rainbow now :)) from the first times through .... Opening this mistreated book once more has been very heartening - not only because I've started seriously studying it again, but also because I now realise from some of my notations that understanding IS growing, even though I was so sure it wasn't. :) Thank you. Today was delightful - learning so much from Dhamma friends. As well, I found a quotation from the Sayadaws that touched on my feelings about vipassana: "For sweet taste - honey, For Truth - Abhidhamma!" metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: > --- > Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in > satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as > this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of > nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen > as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as > much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the > thoughts. > For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and > touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the > pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove > on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing > aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the > aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes > the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood > as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language > the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. > > This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh > language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't > have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because > there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and > concept as concept the delusion is ended. > > Robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > --- > > > > Dear Christine, > > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > > let us consider a couple of thinking. > > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > > real. > > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > > concepts for objects. > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > > Robert 15688 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:56pm Subject: Re: Confused /KKT Dear KKT, Thanks, this really helps - your post is now printed and stuck to the shelf in my line of vision beside the computer monitor. I think remembering the summary saves the mind from floundering around in too many details. I can remember the Four Noble Truths - but not their entire explanations, the whole Pali canon. "Now, whatever remain as Mental Object << ARE NOT >> Paramattha Dhamma. They are all << CONCEPTS >> and not realities." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > Dear Christine, > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > KKT: Maybe a << summary >> > could be useful for a clear understanding. > 15689 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:03pm Subject: Re: Confused /Antony Dear Antony, and all, (Apologies if this appears twice, the first one vanished into yahooland). Thanks for these links. I've not had time to download yet - hopefully later today, but I do have Nyanaponika Thera's translation of Mahasi Sayadaw's 'The Progress of Insight'. Could you tell me which Nikaya the Culatanha-sankhaya sutta is in? or is it one of those not yet available in english translation? Can't find a link on the Net .... Maybe an alternative spelling? I am an admirer of many of the Sayadaws from a couple of years ago with Patrick Kearney in Brisbane (when he was lecturing at UQ). He used to give weekly Dhamma Talks at the SWARA sitting group we were in. Patrick had been a student of Ven Mahasi Sayadaw and Ven U Pandita in Myanmar. Do you ever run across him now that he is down at the Blue Mountains IMC at Medlow Bath? Some of his writings are on Buddhanet ... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Antony Woods" wrote: > > The late Mahasi Sayadaw said (English translation) in > "Paticcasamuppada": > ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/therabud/mahasipt.zip > > His brief instructions are available at: > ftp://ftp.buddhanet.net/medbud/mahasipv.zip > metta, > Antony. 15690 From: robmoult Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:10pm Subject: DSG as an analogy of the mind Hi Christine, We haven't chatted in a bit, but I have been watching your posts (I always read all of yours). Let me share with you an experience. In July, I posted the following message on the DSG: =================================================================== Hi all, I was eating a burger with a Christian friend and he said, "I thought that Buddhists were supposed to be vegetarian." I said that all Buddhists should follow the first precept, to abstain from killing. Many Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarian because they interpret the eating of meat as indirect killing of animals. My understanding of the Theravada perspective is that if the animal was not killed explicitly for me, then eating meat is okay. In other words, I cannot go to one of those seafood restaurants where you pick the fish that you want to eat, but I can order fish from the menu or buy it in the supermarket. My friend said, "I am an accountant. I don't like ambiguity. So, who is right? Something as fundamental as a precept should not be left open for wide interpretation." I pondered. My friend continued, "Is it true that after enlightenment, the Buddha upheld all of the precepts." I said that it was true. He then asked, "Did the Buddha eat meat?" I said that I thought that there were instances when the Buddha ate meat when it was given to him. My friend said, "So then eating meat is not breaking a precept." So here is my question to the DSG. I agree with my friend that something as fundamental as a precept should not be left open for wide interpretation. However, I don't want to say that the Mahayanists are wrong. What is your view? Thanks, Rob M :-) =================================================================== Now my intention on making this post in July (and my question to the DSG) was summarized in the last paragraph; I feel an affinity with my Mahayana brothers, but how can we differ on something as fundamental as a precept? This posting of mine caused a number of responses on vegetarianism. Theravada view of vegetarianism, personal experiences of vegetarianism, etc. Vegetarianism was not the subject that I wanted to discuss and I posted a couple of messages to try and get the DSG focused on what I wanted. It did not work. I decided to simply note the posts on vegetarianism (a subject that I am not very interested in discussing at the moment) and wait until they went away. And so the postings on vegetarianism eventually died off and DSG postings returned to subjects that I was more interested in. Here is the analogy of the DSG working as a mind: - The DSG received a stimulus (my posting) - The first person who responded was not practicing mindfulness and responded on the subject of vegetarianism (this is papanca) - With this trigger, there were a flurry of additional responses (papanca proliferates) - I tried to control / focus the DSG but it did not work - I decided to simply note the DSG changes (all is impermenant, DSG subjects change all the time) - I made a mental note to myself that there is an accumulation of the DSG to latch onto the subject of vegetarianism, so I should avoid mentioning it in future posts. In your posting, you expressed dosa that the DSG was moving in a direction that you did not like (too much theory of concepts / realities). Like pain during meditation; my advice is to simply note it, don't fight it, and wait until things change (DSG is anicca). As you know, if you stop your meditation as soon as there is a bit of pain, you won't progress. As for myself, at the moment, I am thinking about the parallels between ancient Buddhism and modern science. I have not been reading the concepts / reality postings. In a few weeks, I need to do a lecture on concepts and reality and at that time, I will return to the recent string of messages as part of my research. Perhaps when the conditions are right, you will be motivated to dive into this important subject and you can then review the dialogue between our learned friends. But for now, I suggest that you simply note (and save on your hard disk). Thanks, Rob M :-) 15691 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:12pm Subject: RE: [dsg] concepts and thoughts Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: Nina van Gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > > > Dear Kom and all, > Kom, I was delighted with your report of the discussions on concepts and > dreams. I liked your explanation about dreams, what we see in a > dream is not > like seeing now. And the Vivaldi example fascinated me, since I > like Vivaldi > very much. Was the concept of sound in your imagination so loud that you > hardly slept? Had you been to a concert? Just curious. We see here that > feeling and sanna are strong conditions for a story to go on and on. Yes, the concept of sound in my imagination was strong enough that it repeated tiredlessly (even when I was tired!) for a few days; it is such that I couldn't go to sleep. I have been to a few concerts here and there, the most varying experience being in Boston (with Boston Symphony, BU recitals, MIT recitals, The Academy of Ancient Music, etc.). I think I could learn a few things from the experience: 1) Whenever we hear the sound, we immediately think about the sound. With ignorance, we do not differentiate the paramatha characteristics and the concepts: for a consciousness with moha, concept is as real as paramatha characteristics. Since there are more moments of concept cognitions and the strong lobha that go along with the process, we associate the concept, even when it has no characteristic, with the sound. When we think in the same way again (about the sound), we have a strong association with sound, and the experience of thinking is similar to the original experience (when the sound was actually there), minus the sound and the cognition of the sound (which is few, compared to thinking). 2) This again shows anatta, the uncontrollability / the conditionality of all realities. Even when we are awake, it is exactly like when we are sleeping and dreaming, except with the alternation of the objects in the 5 door ways which don't appear when we are asleep. We can't control our dream, and so too, we cannot control what we think. My persistent thinking of Vivaldi was strongly conditioned by very pleasant objects, and my strong lobha toward the objects, even though I didn't *intend*, *will*, nor *put forth the effort* to do the thinking. All realities, including sati, panna, are like this too: when its conditioned culminates, the reality arises and is sustained briefly, but then it too, falls away and another reality arises by its own conditions. With apprecition, kom 15692 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:14pm Subject: Re: Negation in Pali /Abhidhamma Dear Nina and Rob M, Thanks very much for both your replies. I very much appreciate it. I am very interested in the use of negation. Some years ago I started a web-forum on another site, where you could discuss anything at all, as long as negation was not used. There were only three contributors besides myself, but it was fun. We all agreed that it was very, very difficult indeed to express oneself without reverting to "not", "a- " , that sort of thing. Because negation is only in the realm of the mind, it showed in a small way how little we derive our understanding of what goes on in daily life from what we experience through the senses, much more from what we think it all means (or not means as the case may be) Thanks again Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Herman, > In Pali na: there is not: natthi.(atthi: there is) > Also a number of prefixes: a (anasava: no asava, the n is inserted ), vi > (vippayutta, not associated), or ni (r), niramisa, not associated with the > senses, or not of the flesh. Nibbana: in the dict there are many etymologys: > extinguishing of fire. The ni seems to be negative. viraaga, nirodha > nibbaana, can be taken as synonyms, all negations: dispassionateness, > cessation. Nibbana is mostly described by negative terms. So difficult to > imagine what it is, as I discussed with Howard. > Best wishes, > Nina. > 15693 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Confused / Howard Hi, Christine - In a message dated 9/13/02 4:43:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hi Howard, and all, > > Thanks Howard for your comforting words - I always get a lot out of > your posts (especially when you write in plain english, as opposed to > plain maths, plain logic or plain philosophy :-)) - but I get the > most out of them when your great heart peeks around the edge of your > logical mind. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thank you, Chris. Very sweet of you to say! ------------------------------------------------------ > I was reading somewhere in the last few days (something like) only > one of the tilakkhana is actually understood at a time, and that > having understood either dukkha, anatta or anicca, one understands > all three - but haven't been able to trace the original reference > again .... Would this mean that accumulations had some bearing as to > which of these was easier for the person to understand? (I seem to > notice suffering everywhere - whereas, anatta ...) > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I think it would have to be one's "accumulations". BTW, being trained as a "reasoner" and manipulator of ideas, and having a clear inclination in that direction from the beginning (of this life), I've always seemed to grasp anicca and anatta more easily than dukkha. But while meditating yesterday, I had a "baby insight" into dukkha: It suddenly became very clear to me that everthing that was arising, whether unpleasant, neutral, or even pleasant, was imperfect, lacking, and unworthy in the sense that its absence would be better, far better. There was no sadness or depression associated with this. There *was* a subtle aversion associated, however. But mainly it was just what I "saw" to be so. It was an odd experience and interesting in its novelty (for me). --------------------------------------------------------- > > You say: "We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we look, and > all our atta-making will evaporate." That all?? > So-o-o - I just need to see anatta, dukkha, and anicca everywhere I > look, and she'll be right, mate? Bewdy! No worries! Too easy! :-) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep, that's all! ;-) A piece of cake!!! ;-))) -------------------------------------------------- > > :) much metta, > Christine > =============================== With much metta for you as well, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Christine - > > > I don't think you should concern yourself about not > understanding. Not > > understanding hasn't prevented us posters on this topic from > posting! We > > don't really know what we're talking about , you know! ;-)) > > What I think is really important in all of this is that > *all* dhammas > > are empty! All conditioned dhammas, whether "concepts" > or "realities" or > > "percepts" or "pa~n~natti", are empty. They are all empty because > they depend > > for there very existence on other similarly empty dhammas, > including mental > > fabrication and prior (or simultaneous) namic and rupic conditions. > It's all > > one big house of cards, one masterful magic show of smoke and > mirrors. If we > > look and see how all (conditioned) dhammas depend on parts, on > discernment, > > on concept and on prior and concurrent conditions, we see that > there is > > *nothing* which exists on its own, in an essential, intrinsic > manner. Add to > > that the unsatisfactoriness and impermanence of all dhammas, and > that's "all" > > we need to see. We only need to see the tilakkhana everywhere we > look, and > > all our atta-making will evaporate. > > > > 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) 15694 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Negation in Pali /Abhidhamma Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/13/02 6:16:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Dear Nina and Rob M, > > Thanks very much for both your replies. I very much appreciate it. I > am very interested in the use of negation. Some years ago I started a > web-forum on another site, where you could discuss anything at all, > as long as negation was not used. There were only three contributors > besides myself, but it was fun. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What about hidden uses of negation, such as the use of 'only' in the last sentence of yours? ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ We all agreed that it was very, very > > difficult indeed to express oneself without reverting to "not", "a- > " , that sort of thing. Because negation is only in the realm of the > mind, it showed in a small way how little we derive our understanding > of what goes on in daily life from what we experience through the > senses, much more from what we think it all means (or not means as > the case may be) ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep, negation is only in the realm of the mind. And where is assertion?! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Thanks again > > Herman > ================================ 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) 15695 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:31pm Subject: Re: illogical? Rob E Dear Robert Epstein, Your actions will not be without consequences. I was fully determined to share my virtual chocolate with everyone, but your behind-the- scenes politicking has deprived me of the opportunity to make merit. Do you even begin to realise the enormity of what you have done? I am not very clued up on intuitionist logic, so I will refrain from delving any deeper there, apart from saying that I personally hold that in language a double negation cannot yield a meaningful result. I don't like chocolate anyway (Yes, I do) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Robert Epstein" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Egberdina" wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I would really like a chocolate. So I wish to add the following. > > > > The formulation - NOT (X AND (NOT X)) includes the negation of a > > negation (double negation). This is meaningless in some systems of > > logic. > > > > "Is the negation of the negation of A equivalent to A? That depends > > on what denial is, and hence what negative particles mean. In logic > > the classical answer is 'yes', and accordingly operations of > > eliminating and introducing double negatives are permitted. > > Intuitionist logic disallows the elimination." > > http://www.xrefer.com/entry/552921 > > > > I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) > > And yet, Herman, much to my regret, you will not get a chocolate at > this time. That is because, although we have eliminated the > possibility that you do not deserve your chocolate, we have not > established positively that you *do* deserve it. This is not a > matter of logic, but of politics. > > All the best, > Robert Ep. > > P.S. I take it that the intuitionist logic disallows the double > negation because it does not yield the required result in 'real life', > but only in mathematics? Interested in your and Howard's view on this, > if any. : ) 15696 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 3:57pm Subject: Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hi Stephen, I think there are valid logical systems that have more than just the two possible outcomes of the George Bush paradigm of us & them, good & evil, true & false. But if the outcomes of say, an undefined N state system, are defined in terms of a defined two state system, then we are just tying our cortexes in an unnecessary knot. I would have been happier if the 4 terms as you initially raised them were explained in the Tipitaka in a way that I could understand them :-) My hat is in the ring of a three state system. X, not X, X does not apply. All the best Herman > Herman, > Ahhh, intuitionist logic. Brings back my student days; unfortunately not > enough to actually recall what it means :-) (Problems with material > implication as I dubiously recall.) Now as you can make this reference throw > your hat in the ring: what are the last two statements if not the above and a > virtual definition of "contradiction"? Can these two statements be subsumed > under syllogistic logic or are they something new which the Buddha foresaw? > >I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) > I'd send one for sure but the moderators don't allow attachments ;-) > metta, stephen 15697 From: robmoult Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:04pm Subject: Papanca is akusala Hi all, Five years ago, I hired a guy (Mr. A) and we worked together for a couple of years. He was a good performer. Recently, I became aware of a regional position where I thought Mr. A could contribute. Mr. A has a new boss, so I approached the new boss and put in a good word for Mr. A, suggesting that he be considered for promotion to this new position. Mr. A's boss asked me about Mr. A's skills in strategic planning. I explained that when I hired Mr. A, I did the strategic planning; it was not part of his scope. A couple of days later, I got a very long email from Mr. A. The subject was "Harrasment of Mr. A by Rob Moult". It was copied to my boss and many other bosses. Mr. A claimed that I told his new boss that he was not capable of strategic planning and Mr. A had concluded that this remark of mine had caused his boss to conclude that Mr. A is incompetent and not worthy of his current salary. Mr. A said that he would be filing a police report against me, starting an court action against me and send a report to the president of the company in the US. My boss told me to let HR handle the inquiry and I filed a statement: - I had not talked to Mr. A in more than one year - I had not talked about Mr. A to anybody in more than one year, except to suggest to his new boss that he be considered for a promotion - I replied truthfully to a question from Mr. A's new boss - Given my objective in talking to Mr. A's boss, it did not make sense that I would malign him. Mr. A has now dropped the issue, but consider the damage done to his reputation. What had happened is that Mr. A's boss had suggested to Mr. A that he improve his skills in strategic planning and made an offhand comment that I had mentioned that Mr. A did not do strategic planning as part of his initial assignment. This is where papanca took over. Mr. A took that casual remark and built it up into a conspiracy. He misinterpreted the remark and then layer upon layer of emotions added more fuel to the fire until he was so distressed that (according to his email), he was "suffering mental anguish, unable to eat or sleep" and he wrote a long email to me at 1:00 in the morning. I am also guilty of working myself up over an imagined situation. I've seen it in my wife and in my kids as well. Concepts (papanca) / reality is not just theory. It has a direct bearing on our day to day life. It is my understanding (the theorists can help me here) that the only way to have a kusala citta is to see things as they truly are (i.e. no concept) and that as soon as there is concept, the thought will be akusala. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15698 From: robmoult Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 4:19pm Subject: Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob Hi Herman, Fuzzy logic / quantum theory (modern science) work with probability of truth / existence. What started this exchange is that I commented that in the Cula- Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha to clarify if: 'After death a Tathagata exists', 'After death a Tathagata does not exist', 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'. (This is the famous poison arrow sutta). I was commenting that it was interesting that Malunkyaputta gave four options wheras "tradtional logic" only allowed two. As you probably recall, the Buddha refused to be drawn into this discussion. I am not aware of parts of the Tipitaka where the four states are explored more deeply. If there are examples in the Tipitaka of the four logical states being used or analyzed, I would be interested in getting references. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Egberdina" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > > > > Hi Stephen, > > I think there are valid logical systems that have more than just the > two possible outcomes of the George Bush paradigm of us & them, good > & evil, true & false. > > But if the outcomes of say, an undefined N state system, are defined > in terms of a defined two state system, then we are just tying our > cortexes in an unnecessary knot. > > I would have been happier if the 4 terms as you initially raised them > were explained in the Tipitaka in a way that I could understand > them :-) > > My hat is in the ring of a three state system. X, not X, X does not > apply. > > All the best > > Herman > > > Herman, > > Ahhh, intuitionist logic. Brings back my student days; > unfortunately not > > enough to actually recall what it means :-) (Problems with material > > implication as I dubiously recall.) Now as you can make this > reference throw > > your hat in the ring: what are the last two statements if not the > above and a > > virtual definition of "contradiction"? Can these two statements be > subsumed > > under syllogistic logic or are they something new which the Buddha > foresaw? > > >I don't think I have not earned my chocolate :-) > > I'd send one for sure but the moderators don't allow attachments ;-) > > metta, stephen 15699 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Searching for 'Courage' /Sarah Dear Christine & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Dear Sarah, > > I'm not sure I see why 'confession' should happen ... what the > benefit is of: > "when he commits a transgression he acknowledges it as such and > confesses it to his co-religionists." Acknowledging and making > restitution to the person harmed is one thing, but is there really > the expectation of Confession (but not Absolution?) within Buddhism > for lay followers? It hasn't been a huge success (IMO) within > Christianity - has resulted in some people feeling that one was 'off > the hook', had a clean slate and could start again with the same old > behaviour patterns, until next time. I was thinking about this and suggest the following benefits of confession, 1) One doesn't hide one's fault: this is in contrast to one who knows the faults, but doesn't want others to know. 2) One makes a resolution not to repeat the transgression: remember the Dhatu Vibhanga sutta where Pukusati apologized to the Buddha for addressing him as friend? He apologized making a resolution not to repeat the transgression. 3) If the fault is made known by others, the confession is (partly) acknowledging and thanking the others' efforts to make known one's faults. The confessor doesn't become "hard to teach/advise". 4) The confession serves as a strong reminder that one still has such a defilement: it is just waiting for the right conditions to come out. 5) One confesses (or apologizes) so one is relieved (hopefully) of the possible udhacca-kukucca thinking about one's own faults in the present and in the future. Obviously, confession doesn't absolve the already-committed kamma, but it is another opportunity for kusala, and for relieving oneself from feeling bad about it. Remember Devadatta? Although his kamma (causing the buddha to bleed internally, and causing a break in the sangha) ensures a long suffering in hell, his intention to apologize, as well as his offering of his bone to the Buddha, also ensures him an eventual rebirth as a paceka-buddha. kom 15700 From: Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:09pm Subject: Some Thoughts on Nibbana in Light of the Sutta 'The All' Hi, all - My apologies for multiple copies for those of you on all three of the lists to which I am mailing this. I just found a mini-essay (it would be a prose-poem if only it had proper meter) which I wrote at one time but never posted, and I have decided to post it now. I don't consider what I write in it to be "the truth", nor do I submit it for purposes of debate and defending a "position". I submit it only as a possible way to think about nibbana in light of the sutta 'The All', which says the following: "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ******************************************* Nibbana Not a dhamma above and beyond "the all", nibbana is "the all", but divested of the defilements of ignorance, craving, and aversion. With avijja replaced by vijja, there are no longer separate, reified dhammas to be found, no core anywhere, no longer any insulated conditions arising and ceasing; the triple world of experienced conditions appears here as "the unconditioned". The "all", originally misperceived, originally that apparent wandering called "samsara", is seen here through the eye of wisdom. This nibbana is, in one sense, coextensive with and not different from samsara - each is "the all", but, in another sense is totally "other" and indescribable in terms understandable to the worldling. Ordinary consciousness, vi~n~nana, conditioned by ignorance and mediated by mental fabrications, rules samsara. It's carving out of seemingly separate, self-existing "things" observed by an apparent personal "self" makes it the Master of Illusion. But the unmanifestive discernment of nibbana is vi~n~nana freed of defilement and transformed into the nondual discernment of reality: a dynamic, flowing, living suchness; a vibrant emptiness wherein no separate conditions, things, or selves are to be found, and yet all is there. ************************************************ 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) 15701 From: azita gill Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nutriment / impermanence --- epsteinrob wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > Howard > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > > Dear Jon, Robert, Howard, < Following on from this question of nutriment, I have a query about impermanence (aniccata). Within the 28 rupa-khandha, Aniccata is > mentioned as one of them. I don't understand this. > Space element[akasa-dhatu]; physical agility[rupassa-lahuta] for example, I can grasp, theoretically; however, impermanence I can't grasp - hope you see the absurdity in this comment!!! > Seriously, can someone explain why/how aniccata can be a rupa? Looking at the list I have in front of me - Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary - under khandha [more absurdities], aniccata seems like the odd one out to me. Please explain[another absurdity-but possibly understood by Qld-ers only] > patience,courage and good cheer, > Azita. > > 15702 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:19pm Subject: Re: DSG as an analogy of the mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: Hi Rob, > As for myself, at the moment, I am thinking about the parallels > between ancient Buddhism and modern science. I have not been reading > the concepts / reality postings. In a few weeks, I need to do a > lecture on concepts and reality and at that time, I will return to > the recent string of messages as part of my research. To add to your research load, perhaps as helpful as anything you'll find here is to take a look at the works of masters Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the renowned Buddhist logicians who dealt with these issues head-on. Particulalrly Dharmakiirti's "Pramanavaartika" (Treatise on Valid Cognition), which is an excellent source for the relationships between concept, reality, and mind--what is deemed "valid perception". The reading can be tough going if you get stuck with books like Stcherbatsky's "Buddhist Logic" (which deals with Dharmakiirti's logic as regard "valid cognition"), but it's definitely worth it if this is an area you have to instruct in. No presentation of Buddhist thought on this topic would be complete without some familiarity with either of these great commentators. The tradition of logic to reason to what is and isn't "valid cognition", as presented by Dharmakirti, is alive and well even today in the Tibetan Geluk-pa school, so it's entirely relevant to contemporary Buddhism, and not a mere historical artifact. Cheers, Erik 15703 From: robmoult Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 7:34pm Subject: Re: DSG as an analogy of the mind Hi Erik, My class is held at the local Vihara on Sunday mornings. The students are primarily parents whose kids are in Sunday school at the same time. I recently ran across Stcherbatsky's "Buddhist Logic" (both volumes) at the local Buddhist bookstore, but put it back on the shelf. Too theoretical for my class. My focus is making the Abhidhamma relevant to daily life, expressing it in layman's terms and linking it to the Dhamma. My Class Notes (available in the files section) will give you an idea of the level of presentation. I am not turning my back on Stcherbatsky, it is just not the time right now. Thanks, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > As for myself, at the moment, I am thinking about the parallels > > between ancient Buddhism and modern science. I have not been > reading > > the concepts / reality postings. In a few weeks, I need to do a > > lecture on concepts and reality and at that time, I will return to > > the recent string of messages as part of my research. > > To add to your research load, perhaps as helpful as anything you'll > find here is to take a look at the works of masters Dignaga and > Dharmakirti, the renowned Buddhist logicians who dealt with these > issues head-on. Particulalrly Dharmakiirti's "Pramanavaartika" > (Treatise on Valid Cognition), which is an excellent source for the > relationships between concept, reality, and mind--what is > deemed "valid perception". The reading can be tough going if you get > stuck with books like Stcherbatsky's "Buddhist Logic" (which deals > with Dharmakiirti's logic as regard "valid cognition"), but it's > definitely worth it if this is an area you have to instruct in. No > presentation of Buddhist thought on this topic would be complete > without some familiarity with either of these great commentators. > The tradition of logic to reason to what is and isn't "valid > cognition", as presented by Dharmakirti, is alive and well even > today in the Tibetan Geluk-pa school, so it's entirely relevant to > contemporary Buddhism, and not a mere historical artifact. > > Cheers, > Erik 15704 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 8:07pm Subject: Re: DSG as an analogy of the mind --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > We haven't chatted in a bit, but I have been watching your posts (I > always read all of yours). > Hi Rob M, Not exactly sure which post you are refering to - but will assume it is: "Confused...and getting worse" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15658 ------------------------------------------- Rob M: "In your posting, you expressed dosa that the DSG was moving in a direction that you did not like (too much theory of concepts / realities). Like pain during meditation; my advice is to simply note it, don't fight it, and wait until things change (DSG is anicca). As you know, if you stop your meditation as soon as there is a bit of pain, you won't progress." ------------------------------------------- Chris: Rob, I'm grateful for you telling me how it seemed to you. Usually I'm advised that I'm into too much theory and book learning, and not enough 'practice' :)) No, Rob, I don't feel dosa at too much theory of concepts/realities - sorry I gave the wrong impression to you. What I intended to publicly express certainly was an unpleasant feeling, but it was 'self directed' not 'other directed'. A mix of exasperation, helplessness, yearning to acquire understanding quickly, and the seeking of support, encouragement and assistance from Dhamma friends. (Which, thankfully, was promptly provided and gratefully received.:). I am unable (quite literally) to leave things alone if I once believe that they are essential understanding for progress on the path. I believe Samsara is so unendurably long. I know life is so fragile and death can come at any time. I believe human birth is so rare, and the Dhamma so deep. I am conscious always of this need to know the Dhamma and develop understanding now, before the chance is gone. So, I end up like a dog with a bone, gnawing and gnawing away at the subject - this is, doubtless, akusala - I don't know. That's just how it is. Mostly, though, it is a joyful experience. Your analogy of the DSG working as a mind is interesting - however, perhaps there is another way of looking at what happened.... In the final paragraph in which you put the question, you mention not wanting to say that the Mahayanists are wrong, and ask DSG immediately afterwards 'What is your view?' The only previous mention of Mahayana Buddhists in your post is in the sentence 'Many Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarian because they interpret the eating of meat as indirect killing of animals.' After that, it is unlikely that in any group, not just DSG, that a discussion could have proceeded apart from the rights and wrongs of Vegetarianism, and how the individual precept should 'really' be kept. The question was perhaps polluted by the narrow focus and brevity of the preceding discussion, and in its framing. People live in different worlds, because of differing accumulations and the conditions that have made them what they are. Envisaging DSG as one mind may be inadvisable - perhaps it would be more fruitful to use a framework of conditionality and the different accumulations of the actively posting twenty or so members, not all of whom are Theravadin or even label themselves as Buddhist. At the hospital where I work, when two people enter into a Supervision contract, each does a mini-frameworks survey to show what their values and ethics are, how they learn, and how they respond to and see the world. There is no right or wrong, or preferred answers. The reason for this is not expressed to them from a Buddhist point of view, just that 'people are very different, and look at things differently because of personal characteristics and specific training'. Often, say, a Social Worker (who is usually hightly process oriented) may be supervising a Physiotherapist (who is usually highly outcomes oriented). Or you may have one person who is intellectual/rational, supervising a intuitive/feeling person. (That's always interesting.:) They live in very different worlds. These surveys are then shown to each other and used as a basis to prevent misunderstandings and miscommunications in the professional supervision process. To use a cliche "they know where the other is coming from". It allows each to remind the other, and provides transparency and equity in the relationship. Otherwise, you get people seeing someone as 'right' (themselves) and someone as 'wrong'(the other) - and judgmentalism reigns supreme. Sorry for rambling on ........ Not that DSG -ers can all complete a survey, just to make the point that there is no possible "one way" for two or more people to view things - unless they have the same accumulations and life experiences. Why not just ask your Precepts question without a story attached? e.g.. "Are the Precepts meant to be binding Commandments? What was the original wording and explanation given by the Buddha? What are the textual references? Did He (or the Arahats) ever indicate that the Precepts had a wider or a narrower meaning?" May I ask a question about your class notes?- does the supervising Bhikkhu wish that you present the Theravadin perspective to your students, or are you presenting a Generic Buddhist perspective? Enjoying your posts Rob, and continuing to browse your Class Notes :) metta, Christine > Let me share with you an experience. In July, I posted the following > message on the DSG: > > =================================================================== > Hi all, > > I was eating a burger with a Christian friend and he said, "I > thought that Buddhists were supposed to be vegetarian." > > I said that all Buddhists should follow the first precept, to > abstain from killing. Many Mahayana Buddhists are vegetarian because > they interpret the eating of meat as indirect killing of animals. My > understanding of the Theravada perspective is that if the animal was > not killed explicitly for me, then eating meat is okay. In other > words, I cannot go to one of those seafood restaurants where you > pick the fish that you want to eat, but I can order fish from the > menu or buy it in the supermarket. > > My friend said, "I am an accountant. I don't like ambiguity. So, who > is right? Something as fundamental as a precept should not be left > open for wide interpretation." > > I pondered. > > My friend continued, "Is it true that after enlightenment, the > Buddha upheld all of the precepts." I said that it was true. He then > asked, "Did the Buddha eat meat?" I said that I thought that there > were instances when the Buddha ate meat when it was given to him. My > friend said, "So then eating meat is not breaking a precept." > > So here is my question to the DSG. I agree with my friend that > something as fundamental as a precept should not be left open for > wide interpretation. However, I don't want to say that the > Mahayanists are wrong. What is your view? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > > =================================================================== > > Now my intention on making this post in July (and my question to the > DSG) was summarized in the last paragraph; I feel an affinity with > my Mahayana brothers, but how can we differ on something as > fundamental as a precept? > > This posting of mine caused a number of responses on vegetarianism. > Theravada view of vegetarianism, personal experiences of > vegetarianism, etc. > > Vegetarianism was not the subject that I wanted to discuss and I > posted a couple of messages to try and get the DSG focused on what I > wanted. It did not work. > > I decided to simply note the posts on vegetarianism (a subject that > I am not very interested in discussing at the moment) and wait until > they went away. > > And so the postings on vegetarianism eventually died off and DSG > postings returned to subjects that I was more interested in. > > Here is the analogy of the DSG working as a mind: > - The DSG received a stimulus (my posting) > - The first person who responded was not practicing mindfulness and > responded on the subject of vegetarianism (this is papanca) > - With this trigger, there were a flurry of additional responses > (papanca proliferates) > - I tried to control / focus the DSG but it did not work > - I decided to simply note the DSG changes (all is impermenant, DSG > subjects change all the time) > - I made a mental note to myself that there is an accumulation of > the DSG to latch onto the subject of vegetarianism, so I should > avoid mentioning it in future posts. > > In your posting, you expressed dosa that the DSG was moving in a > direction that you did not like (too much theory of concepts / > realities). Like pain during meditation; my advice is to simply note > it, don't fight it, and wait until things change (DSG is anicca). As > you know, if you stop your meditation as soon as there is a bit of > pain, you won't progress. > > As for myself, at the moment, I am thinking about the parallels > between ancient Buddhism and modern science. I have not been reading > the concepts / reality postings. In a few weeks, I need to do a > lecture on concepts and reality and at that time, I will return to > the recent string of messages as part of my research. Perhaps when > the conditions are right, you will be motivated to dive into this > important subject and you can then review the dialogue between our > learned friends. But for now, I suggest that you simply note (and > save on your hard disk). > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) 15705 From: robmoult Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 8:24pm Subject: Re: DSG as an analogy of the mind Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > The question was > perhaps polluted by the narrow focus and brevity of the preceding > discussion, and in its framing. I agree that the question was unclear. > May I ask a question about your class notes?- does the supervising > Bhikkhu wish that you present the Theravadin perspective to your > students, or are you presenting a Generic Buddhist perspective? The Chief Reverend, Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda, has often said, "I do not refer to myself as Theravada. I refer to myself as a Buddhist." There are many Mahayana monks and nuns who visit the temple as well. When I went to the Chief Reverend and asked him about prompting on Sloth & Torpor, his answer was based on the Mahayana Abhidhamma. Recently, Bro. Teo went through the Heart Sutta (core to the Mahayanists) to show how the teachings were virtually the same, with only a difference in emphasis. Bottom line is that there is no rule that I must restrict myself to Theravada. However, this does tend to be the case because I am teaching the Abhidhamma (the Theravada version). It is also the Buddhism that I am comfortable with (I haven't studied much Mahayana). Thanks, Rob M :-) 15706 From: mentalculture Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi, I am new to Dhamma Study Group, but I am impressed by the high quality discussion featured in this group, primarily insight. I will share by experience with all of you (though limited) :) (Denoted by MC: MentalCulture.org) May all of you attain Nibbana! Metta & Karuna Teo Kok Eng MentalCulture.org --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Larry and Kom, May I butt in? I find your dialogue most interestiung > and very important, I appreciate it very much. There are so many points > here, I shall touch on only a few. > > op 02-09-2002 04:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > > > L:"He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; > > he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and > > he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense- desire > > comes to be." > N: this is about the four right efforts, very actual for daily life. When > there is awareness and understanding of nama and rupa, they will reach > accomplishment. > MC: In Vipassana (Insight) Meditation, the main importance is placed in the realisation of rising and falling. Bur rise and fall of what?? The rising and falling of mind-matter in regards to the 4 foundations of mindfulness (body, feelings, mind, mind-objects). It is through realising mind-matter, rising-falling, that one sees impermanance (anatta). From this very point onwards, you will have no belief in a self, that you are nothing but mind-matter, and mind-matter is impermanant subject to changing conditions resulting in rising- falling. > L: "Herein, monks, a monk thinks, "Thus is material form;..." > > > > "Herein, monks, a monk knows the eye and visual forms and the fetter > > that arises dependent on both..." > N: this is all about satipatthana now. > MC: This part requires the meditator to "see" (with mindfulness) the 6-sense base contacts, mind-matter relationship and interdependence, and realising that the 6-sense base is impermanent and empty (exist only if conditions are present). > L: "Herein, monks, when the enlightenment-factor of mindfulness is present, > > the monk knows, "The enlightenment-factor of mindfulness is in me,"" > N: Satipatthana. In my series on anapanasati I shall deal more with the > enlightenment factors. MC: As you are aware of mind-matter, you discover the presence and development of the 7 enlightenment factors. You will be able to identify each quality beyond doubt, and whether it is present, developing or waning. > > "Herein, monks, a monk knows, "This is suffering," according to > > reality..." > > > > K: How do you define "contemplation?" > > > > L: Conceptual cognition; not necessarily papanca but definitely vitakka > > and vicara. All the examples above are more than naming, but not a lot > > more. It isn't encyclopedic. > > > > "Naming" is how I interpret something like this: "Herein, monks, a monk > > knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust...". I think several > > meditation masters teach that the proper way to deal with this is to > > "note". I'm calling it naming. It is more than simply paying attention > > to what is happening or witnessing. It is a little nugget of cognition; > > although it is often mechanical and not so cognitive. > > N: I personally believe that it is highly cognitive, it is panna. This is > dukkha...etc., well, that is the realization of the four noble Truths. We > often read this phrase in the suttas. > MC: Simply put, contemplation is application of the mind on the mind- object for investigation for realisation of insight (dhamma). Noting simply trains the mind from discursive thinking (or generating a chain reaction of thoughts) and assists in direct knowledge. > L (snip) That's why I think the study of abidhamma without any meditation > > discipline _could_ accomplish samma sati. > N: Study of Abhidhamma without any meditation: again, what do people mean by > meditation. I would say, just as Kom, study without mindfulness of nama and > rupa is not enough. MC: Abhidhamma is a good-to-know analysis of the mind-matter interactions and the resulting mental states. BUT is not a pre- requisite to realising of the dhamma through meditation. Sometimes, it impedes the mind from realisation with too much pre-conceived thoughts. Study Abhidhamma without meditation to realise Nibbana is only possible for individuals who have trained in their past life (very rare!). > L: What is A. > > Sujin's view on satipatthana meditation? Why doesn't she teach it? Does > > she teach a similar discipline for developing detachment? > > N: There should be development of satipatthana, that is, sati and panna, > development of direct awareness and understanding of the characteristics of > nama and rupa, very, very gradually. There may be a lot of thinking > involved, but there can also be a moment of noting a characteristic without > thinking. This may be seldom, but in this way the difference between > thinking and sati can be known. The development of satipatthana will lead > first to detachment from self, and later on from all namas and rupas. But > together with satipatthana all perfections should be developed. They support > panna. When the perfections are being developed there is a degree of giving > up of clinging: dana, sila, renunciation, patience, metta, and the other > perfections. MC: Discursive (stray) thoughts is not present or minimum, awareness is present and every moemnt is the direct knowledge of mind-matter. When you realise mind-matter is impermanent, what is there that is worth clinging, where clinging only leads to suffering (4 Noble Truths). You will abandon the 5 aggregates and experience sunatta (emptiness), and enter nirodha-sammapatti (cessation of consciousness). This is the closest you can get to taste Nibbana. > Best wishes > from Nina. 15707 From: mentalculture Date: Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana Hi, For overview of the meditation instructions that can be derived from Maha Sattipattana Sutta, you may like to take a look at Meditation Instructions of www.MentalCulture.org. Metta & Karuna Teo Kok Eng --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > First, on the subject of concepts, I basically disagree with the > received wisdom. What is a concept if not a ditthi? There are true and > correct ditthi and untrue and incorrect ditthi. Panna is just a true > ditthi. In its simplest form, a correct name. Understanding is a > psychological phenomenon which I don't really understand (haha). So > let's wait on that one. > > Second, as for meditation, what I am hearing as implication from you, > Jon, Robert, and Nina is don't bother to meditate because you will > probably get it wrong. Instead, just study and eventually the truth will > accumulate in your continuum. I think this is bad advice. What I would > like instead is for you to encourage people to meditate but be open to > correction. Beyond that, what I would really like is for Acharn Sujin to > give meditation instruction. As recent discussions have shown, there are > many ways of implementing this 'only way' of satipatthana. I would like > to see what sort of program she could come up with. > > Larry 15708 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 0:04am Subject: Moderator bulletin Dear All, Lately there have been several posts citing non-Theravadin texts (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist). Please note that texts from other disciplines are off-topic for this forum, no matter how interesting or related to a current thread they may be. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah PS As usual, any comments on this message should made off-list. ===================================================== 15709 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 0:52am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Suan , Thanks very much.I liked to hear of Connolly and his antics. No need for us Buddhists to be serious lot;) Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Robert > > You wrote: > > "But if there is understanding of realities then the aversion becomes > the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes the object . And > by becoming the object I mean that it is understood as simply > feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language the anger has > gone and there is acceptance of the present moment." > > What you wrote can be regarded as the essence of the Buddha's > teachings, and as how we could turn abhidhamma into an applied > discipline. > > In fact, what you wrote is also a mockery of the views of some > misguided academics in the Religious Departments or Asian Studies > Departments at the universities in the West who wrote off abhidhamma > as an unnecessary part of Buddhist learning. > > By the way, last night (12 September 2002), I watched Bill Connolly's > World Tour comedy show. Near the end of the program, he talked about > Buddhist philosophy, and guess what? He said he wanted his children > to learn to accept things as they are. And, he closed the program > riding his tri-motor bike away in nude! > > And you also wrote in the above paragraph: > > "Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is > acceptance of the present moment." > > What a coincidence! But, I am sure that you wrote those lines while > fully dressed! SMILE > > With kind regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > wrote: > > > --- > Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in > satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as > this understanding grows then the difference between the realities of > nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen > as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just as > much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by the > thoughts. > For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and > touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to the > pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove > on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing > aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the > aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes > the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is understood > as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language > the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. > > This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh > language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't > have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because > there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality and > concept as concept the delusion is ended. > > Robert > > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > > wrote: > > > --- > > > > > > Dear Christine, > > > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > > > > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > > > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > > > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > > > let us consider a couple of thinking. > > > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > > > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > > > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > > > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > > > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > > > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > > > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > > > real. > > > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > > > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > > > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > > > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > > > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > > > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > > > > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > > > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > > > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > > > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > > > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > > > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > > > concepts for objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > > > > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > > > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > 15710 From: robertkirkpatrick.rm Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 1:12am Subject: Re: Papanca is akusala --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: >I am also guilty of working myself up over an imagined situation. > I've seen it in my wife and in my kids as well. > > Concepts (papanca) / reality is not just theory. It has a direct > bearing on our day to day life. > > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) > ______________________ Dear Rob., I like your story as it is common to daily life in the world. As you say understanding concept and reality has direct bearing on daily life. Rob M.: It is my understanding (the theorists can help me here) that the > only way to have a kusala citta is to see things as they truly are > (i.e. no concept) and that as soon as there is concept, the thought > will be akusala. > -------------- It is a little more complicated. For example samatha bhavana (concentration meditation) such as metta bhavana take a concept as object but the citta is kusala. And when we think about the Dhamma this is taking different concepts but it can be in a wholesome way. the pali word for concept is pannati - papanca has different meaning, although it is tied up with concepts. As you say if things are known as they truly are then it is kusala of a high degree; but sometimes there can be the (apparent) experience of realities but the citta that experiences them may be with subtle desire (to know or experience) or with a hidden sense of control or or someone who is knowing. Robert 15711 From: Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 1:40am Subject: Very Brief Re: [dsg] Re: DSG as an analogy of the mind Hi, Christine - In a message dated 9/13/02 11:08:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > I believe Samsara is so unendurably long. > ============================= It surely may be. On the other hand, samsara is always*right now*. It is reality polluted by the three poisons. I believe that the way is open to us to uproot those deep-seated defilements *right now* as well. It could happen at any time "when conditions are right" as Jon and Robert and others correctly say. So, let us put aside our upset over the possible/probable length of the journey, and simply walk along at each moment as the Buddha directed - for this present moment is all there is. 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) 15712 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob Hi Rob M (Herman, Stephen, Howard & other Chocophiles), --- robmoult wrote: > What started this exchange is that I commented that in the Cula- > Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha to clarify > if: 'After death a Tathagata exists', 'After death a Tathagata does > not exist', 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist' > or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'. > (This is the famous poison arrow sutta). > > I was commenting that it was interesting that Malunkyaputta gave > four options wheras "tradtional logic" only allowed two. As you > probably recall, the Buddha refused to be drawn into this > discussion. I am not aware of parts of the Tipitaka where the four > states are explored more deeply. If there are examples in the > Tipitaka of the four logical states being used or analyzed, I would > be interested in getting references. ..... You may like to read all the views set out in the Brahmajala Sutta. If you don’t have a copy of B.Bodhi’s very clear translation with extensive commentary and sub-commentary notes (BPS), you might like to pick one up when you’re next in Colombo. From Samyutta Nikaya (1V.7.3) and quoted by B.Bodhi in his intro to the text, we read: “Now, householder, as to those divers views that arise in the world,...and as to these sixty-two views set forth in the Brahmajala, it is owing to the personality view that they arise, and if the personality view exists not, they do not exist”. ***** How did your study week on anatta go? As a reminder, in the Brahmajala suta, we read about 1) Eternalism views (exists after death), 2) Partial-eternalism views, 3) Finitude and Infinity of the World views, 4) Endless Equivocation views, 5) Fortuitous Origination views, 6) Future speculations, 7) Percipient immortality views, Non-percipient immortality views, Neither percipient nor non percipient immortality views, 8) Annihilationism views, 9) Nibbana Here and Now views, As B.Bodhi says in the intro: “The scheme of sixty-two cases is a net cast out by the buddha upon the ocean of human thought designed to catch and contain all possible philosophical theories on the nature of the self and the universe. It takes as its target not only those which were being formulate by the thinkers contemporary with the Buddha, or those which have come to expression in the course of man’s intellectual history, but all that are capable of coming to expression whether they have actually appeared or not. The Brahmajala is an all-embracing net, a net which contains no loopholes and no portals of escape.” ***** Nina has just eferred to the ‘Endless equivocation (Amaraavikkhepavaada) views’. Let me quote just one of the four ‘Partial-Eternalism (Ekaccassatavaada) views which I find quite interesting as an example which may be relevant to your discussion: “In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honourable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal? “Herein, bhikkhus, some recluse or brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view - hammered out by reason, deducted from his investigations, following his own flight of thought -thus: ‘That which is called “the eye”. “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and “the body” - that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called “mind” (citta), or “mentality” (mano), or “consciousness (vi~n~naa.na) - that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.” ***** The various views and commentary notes are very interesting and I understand these views to be a more extensive ‘all-embracing’ discussion of those mentioned in your post. I expect the chocolate’s been shared around too much already and would have long since melted in this part of the world, so I’ll pass. Sarah ===== 15713 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi Teo Kok, --- mentalculture wrote: > Hi, > > I am new to Dhamma Study Group, but I am impressed by the high > quality discussion featured in this group, primarily insight. > > I will share by experience with all of you (though limited) :) > (Denoted by MC: MentalCulture.org) .... Welcome and hopefully we’re all continue to live up to your favourable first impressions :) I’m not sure if you prefer to be addressed as ‘Teo Kok’ or TK or other. Where do you live, I wonder? Any other comments about your interest in dhamma would also be appreciated. You make many helpful points in your post to Larry and Nina and it’s good to see your contributions. The first point you make is this one: > > MC: In Vipassana (Insight) Meditation, the main importance is placed > in the realisation of rising and falling. Bur rise and fall of what?? > The rising and falling of mind-matter in regards to the 4 foundations > of mindfulness (body, feelings, mind, mind-objects). It is through > realising mind-matter, rising-falling, that one sees impermanance > (anatta). From this very point onwards, you will have no belief in a > self, that you are nothing but mind-matter, and mind-matter is > impermanant subject to changing conditions resulting in rising- > falling. ..... As you stress, there’s no use in talking about ‘rising and falling’ unless there is an understanding that it is the rising and falling of ‘mind-matter’. Befor there can be this insight, there has to be very clear understanding of the various ‘mind-matter’ dhammas and the distinct characteristics of each over and over again. As you continue to say, what is taken for a self merely consists of this ‘mind-matter’ (or namas and rupas), In an ultimate sense, we can say there is no self to have or not have any belief in anything. Look forward to more of your comments, Sarah p.s When I tried to access your website, I got an “Under Construction’ message. Some websites can’t be accessed by Macintosh computers also. ================================= 15714 From: robmoult Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 6:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > You may like to read all the views set out in the Brahmajala Sutta. If you > don't have a copy of B.Bodhi's very clear translation with extensive > commentary and sub-commentary notes (BPS), you might like to pick one up > when you're next in Colombo. I do have a copy of the book, but admit that I haven't looked at it carefully yet. I plan to summarize it when I teach "Wrong View" next year. > ***** > > How did your study week on anatta go? > My wife went to Jakarta for a week, leaving me as "Mr. Mom". I hardly had a moment to spare; I have a new respect for my wife's patience. Thanks for the pointers on the Brahmajala sutta; I feel that it is something that one must tackle at a single sitting rather than picking out bits and pieces. I am going to wait until next year before taking it on. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15715 From: Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: illogical? Howard, Herman, Rob Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 9/14/02 9:14:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > As a reminder, in the Brahmajala suta, we read about 1) Eternalism views > (exists after death), 2) Partial-eternalism views, 3) Finitude and > Infinity of the World views, 4) Endless Equivocation views, 5) Fortuitous > Origination views, 6) Future speculations, 7) Percipient immortality > views, Non-percipient immortality views, Neither percipient nor non > percipient immortality views, 8) Annihilationism views, 9) Nibbana Here > and Now views ============================== As a clarification, in case someone might misunderstand, #9 does not have anything to do with the formulation of nibbana I recently suggested. It does not pertain to seeing nibbana in samsara in the sense that I put forward. On nibbana.com I found the following with regard to the "Nibbana Here and Now" views: ********************************** Ditthadhamma-nibbana vadas were held by those who believed in the doctrine of happiness in this life on five grounds, namely 1. one can get happiness (Nibbana) when one's soul is in full five pleasures of the senses, 2. when one attains first jhana, 3. second jhana, 4. third jhana, and 5. fourth jhana. Thus we find that they considered the fullest enjoyment of all the sense pleasures or the happiness derived from the attainment of the four stages of meditation (Rupajjhana) to be equivalent to Nibbana. But our Blessed One had mentioned in the Dhammapada that Nibbana is Paramasukha, which is far exceeding the happiness born of jhanas. According to this the four Rupajjhanas appear to have been practised by the monks and brahmins at the time of the Buddha and these, like the Formless Meditation (Arupajjhanas), were pre-Buddhistic practices. *********************************** 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) 15716 From: Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Sarah, A few days ago I wrote that khandhas are "irreducible [by direct observation/ or something similar]. All khandhas are compounded and so theoretically infinitely reducible". I think there is a fault in this reasoning. On the Buddhist path direct perception is all important so the theoretical infinite reducibility of khandhas is irrelevant. If something is directly perceived to be uncompounded (irreducible) then it is uncompounded. The reason khandhas are not perceived in this way is because they are directly perceived to be arising, abiding and subsiding with different "strengths" and functions in each phase. So the ultimacy of the khandhas holds true in that they are not perceived as compacted wholes but they are also not perceived as solid uncompounded elements because of their impermanence. I don't know if this hair splitting makes much difference but it was running through my mind. Larry 15717 From: Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nutriment / impermanence Azita: "Seriously, can someone explain why/how aniccata can be a rupa?" Hi Azita, space element, bodily intimation, vocal intimation, lightness, malleability, wieldiness, production, continuity, decay, and impermanence "are designated non-concretely produced matter because they do not arise directly from the four main causes of matter but exist as modalities or attributes of concretely produced matter. Thus they are not included among the ultimate realities (paramattha dhamma)." according to "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Larry 15718 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 1:17pm Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse Hi Christine and all, I like the discourse Simsapa Sutta, The Simsapa Leaves. A lot have been said in the DSG and not all of them are about the teaching of the Buddha. Many of the posts are discussions in metaphysics, which can be a very engaging intellectual pastime for many. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > I thought I had a working understanding of a concept and a reality, > but currently everything posted seems to be meaningless words to > me ... I find I have insufficient understanding to even ask a > question. I am feeling particularly stupid as I haven't understood > much on this List for the last week or so. But it seems that it is > vital to understand, and I can't find the steps out of my confusion, > which is getting worse. > I realise that it is a strong possibility that everyone else > understands and I'm the only one having great difficulty. > With regard to the Teachings on this, what exactly (as a minimum) > do I need to understand, and are there any straight forward, simple, > explanations anywhere? (This is quite a serious situation for me, as > I noticed this morning for the first time that I am starting to not > read most of the posts.) > > metta, > Christine 15719 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 2:55pm Subject: "Your duty is the contemplation" ( was Re: Confused ... and getting worse) Hi Victor, and all, Victor, this seems to be a clear, concise sutta, thank you. I agree - Objects of knowledge are limitless. And I probably should stop right there ... but... The Blessed One says: ""Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" What Action (duty) is the Buddha telling us to perform here? Is this to assess a situation and to use discernment as to its worth or worthlessness in leading to cessation? (To use discernment one first has to 'have' discernment) ....or Is this 'contemplate' in the sense of 'mull it over'? Or is it having mulled over something to then meditate in the sense of e.g. sitting meditating on the breath and watching what arises? or is it continually meditating in the sense of mindfully observing what realities arise at the sense doors? Often the words 'meditate' or 'contemplate' mean vastly different things to different people - causing marked differences in the way people live their lives and practice the Teachings. So the translation of a word as 'meditate' or 'contemplate' can cause confusion. Sometimes the words are used as if they have the same meaning, and at other times as if they don't. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > > I like the discourse Simsapa Sutta, The Simsapa Leaves. > > A lot have been said in the DSG and not all of them are about the > teaching of the Buddha. > > Many of the posts are discussions in metaphysics, which can be a very > engaging intellectual pastime for many. > > Metta, > Victor 15720 From: robmoult Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 3:43pm Subject: Corrections to Bikkhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Hi All, One of the students in my class attended an Abhidhamma course in Singapore in November 2000 conducted by Sayadaw U Silananda. The student passed me a copy of the course handouts and a set of correction notes to Bhikkhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". You will note that Sayadaw U Silananda is credited with providing the Abhidhamma tables in Bhikkhu Bodhi's book. The student said that Bhikkhu Bodhi visited the class (she showed me a photo of Bhikkhu Bodhi and herself) and that Bhikkhu Bodhi agreed with the list of corrections. I suspect that most of us use Bhikkhu Bodhi's book as our main reference to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, so I am passing along these correction notes for you to insert (please use pencil) into your book. P 113 (Table 2.4) ================= There are two rows in the "Totals" section - Inital application: move "55" from first row to second row - Sustained application: move "66" from first row to second row - Zest: move "51" from first row to second row - Illimitables 2: delete the "79" in the second row - Wisdom: insert "79" in the second row P133 (Table 3.4) ================ Mark an asterisk (*) beside the "6" in the Invs. - eqn. column Mark an asterisk (*) beside the "6" in the SS Result column At the bottom of the table, add a footnote "* These also occur as door-freed citta." P 230 / 231 (Table 5.7) ======================= 21 Great Reward: Change NeW Realm from "5-31" to "5-22, 28-31" 14 Maha Brahma: Change NeW Realm from "5-31" to "5-22, 28-31" 11 Paranimmitavasavatti: Change New Realm from "1-31" to "1-22, 28- 31" 11 Paranimmitavasavatti: Change Rebirth Consciousness from "All Possibilities" to "All except the Pure Abodes" 6 Catummaharajika: Change New Realm from "1-31" to "1-22, 28-31" 6 Catummaharajika: Change Rebirth Consciousness from "All Possibilities" to "All except the Pure Abodes" P 232 (Table 5.7 continued) =========================== 21 Great Reward: Change New Realm from "21, 23-31" to "21" P257 "In the Fine-material World" ================================= Second paragraph, last line, change "temperature are found." to "temperature are also found." P289 "The noble truth of the origin of suffering..." ==================================================== Add one more paragraph after "craving for annihilation (vibhavatanha) and include: "The Abhidhamma texts explain craving for continued existence as lust accompanied by the view of existence (bhavaditthi), i.e. by the eternalist view; craving for non- existence as lust accompanied by the view of non-existence (vibhavaditthi), i.e. by the annihilationist view. See Vibh Chap 916. [Note from Rob M: there should be dots under both letter "t"s in bhavaditthi and vibhavaditthi] Page 364 "Guide to 43" ====================== Second paragraph, 5th line, change "(1) that any requisites ... protected by the attainment itself);" to "(1) that any requisits not connected to his body should not be destroyed during the attainment (the requisites connceted to his body, such as robes, are automatically protected);" Thanks, Rob M :-) 15721 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 3:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Nutriment / impermanence/Azita Dear Azita, This may be relevant or totally Not. It may be worth having a look at this message on rupas on the Dhamma Studies List from K. Amara to Prof. Tadao Miyamoto, and the links it leads to. Or, alternatively, you'll be able to have a chat to her about it when in BKK :)... [excerpt]: "The 4 lakkhana-rupas 1. Upacaya-rupa is the rupa when it first arises. 2. Santati-rupa is the rupa at the moment it develops. 3. Jarata-rupa is the rupa at the moment it declines. 4. Aniccata-rupa is the rupa at the moment it falls away." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DSList/message/545 [Azita, dear Dhamma friend, should we let Pauline H. still haunt our dreams? :) If so, please explain! :) An example of anicca healing a uniquely Queensland form of dukkha?] metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., azita gill wrote: > > Dear Jon, Robert, Howard, > < Following on from this question of > nutriment, I have a query about impermanence > (aniccata). Within the 28 rupa-khandha, Aniccata is > > mentioned as one of them. I don't understand this. > > Space element[akasa-dhatu]; physical > agility[rupassa-lahuta] for example, I can grasp, > theoretically; however, impermanence I can't grasp - > hope you see the absurdity in this comment!!! > > Seriously, can someone explain > why/how aniccata can be a rupa? Looking at the list > I have in front of me - Nyanatiloka's Buddhist > Dictionary - under khandha [more absurdities], > aniccata seems like the odd one out to me. Please > explain[another absurdity-but possibly understood by > Qld-ers only] > patience,courage > and good cheer, > Azita. > - Always be connected to your Messenger Friends 15722 From: Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Your duty is the contemplation" ( was Re: Confused ... and getting worse) Hi Christine, My impression is that 'contemplate' does mean 'mull it over'. The 'this' in "This is stress" etc. is slightly ambiguous and I think refers both to Buddhist doctrine and one's own life experience of stress, desire, release, and the way to effectuate that release. There is probably an abhidhamma definition of 'contemplate' somewhere; maybe someone could look it up. To me, meditation means seclusion and a sustained focus or intention so I can see how 'contemplation' could have a more general and open application but 'duty' does connote a sense of discipline to me. Larry ------------------ Christine wrote: Hi Victor, and all, Victor, this seems to be a clear, concise sutta, thank you. I agree - Objects of knowledge are limitless. And I probably should stop right there ... but... The Blessed One says: ""Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" What Action (duty) is the Buddha telling us to perform here? Is this to assess a situation and to use discernment as to its worth or worthlessness in leading to cessation? (To use discernment one first has to 'have' discernment) ....or Is this 'contemplate' in the sense of 'mull it over'? Or is it having mulled over something to then meditate in the sense of e.g. sitting meditating on the breath and watching what arises? or is it continually meditating in the sense of mindfully observing what realities arise at the sense doors? Often the words 'meditate' or 'contemplate' mean vastly different things to different people - causing marked differences in the way people live their lives and practice the Teachings. So the translation of a word as 'meditate' or 'contemplate' can cause confusion. Sometimes the words are used as if they have the same meaning, and at other times as if they don't. metta, Christine 15723 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 10:51pm Subject: What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Dear All, This sunny Sunday afternoon I received (from a Buddhist friend) an email petition to sign and distribute. It was addressed to the Australian House of Representatives and Australian Senate and was titled "NO Australian Support for War on Iraq!" This subject may not be occupying the thoughts of most people - The Australian Government and the British Government are the only governments of nations (at this point) publicly supporting President Bush's stance on Iraq. And so only Iraqi, American, Australian and British citizens are likely, in the first instance, to face mortal danger. My children are Australian citizens. How are we to live in daily life as Buddhists when our nation is actively heading down a slippery slope towards war? Each nation is convinced that the other side is evil and their own nation is righteous. But just as I have a son and daughter for whom I wish health and happiness - so too do the Iraqi mothers and fathers wish health and happiness for their sons and daughters. As I do also. Do we as Buddhists merely observe what arises at the sense doors and tell ourselves this is a story, don't get caught up in stories of 'right and wrong', 'who deserves what', and 'what the real agendas are'? I remember a Dhamma teacher once telling me that 'not saving' when the possibility exists, is not the same as 'harming' with regard to keeping the Precepts. A delicate point. But I feel the need to do something a little more effective than thinking about 'stories', 'not- self', 'kamma' and 'a just war'. Right now is not last September. Right now there is no war, there is only the increasing prospect of war (a pre-emptive strike is 'war', not 'self-defense'.). Do we sign petitions? Do we join in meetings and marches? Isn't the emotion involved in meetings and protest marches akusala? What to do? Is doing nothing tantamount to agreeing with killing and war? I don't know if others would consider this an area where the Dhamma is of relevance, but I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. metta, Christine 15724 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 11:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk My Dear Friends, Many of you know that I gave all my fortune and became a monk in a Laotian temple in Sydney and then I came to a Laotian temple in Canberra.First, I follow everything without questions what I was told to do. I learnt all my chantings and and followed all the rules, but slowly I start noticing a lots of differences what I imagine that a buddhist monk should be and what the reality is. When I ordained I told the abbot that I did not want any money for chanting in houses or funerals, as soon as I did that I was never taking to any ceremonies anywhere, later on the oldest monk who is great told me that almost all the monks received all the time money to support families in Laos, Thailand or Cambodia and that they were not happy with my stand about money. Also I was not allowed to drive a car and to visit the jails and drugs reavilitations centres because I did not have transport. I depended all the time for food from the Asian of each temple, Australian, like Americans have a different approach of alms and if I live in a western temple nobody will bring food or give the support that the Asian do. Then one day the Abbot told me that I was a monk in a Laotian temple and I should not behave like an American but as an Asian. That did it. With all my respect I inform the 11 monks that I had no intentions to become or act as an Asian, I became a Buddhist to follow the teaching of Buddha and not to give up my personality or identity. In short I have now my own temple in Canberra, it was register with the Australian Federation of Buddhism as WAT BUDDHARAN AUSTRALIA, Tradition, Theravata ( Western). To make the temple liable and be able to eat and cover expenses I am the first monk anywhere to have a Full time job. I am Lecturing Chemistry and Biochemistry at a College, I received a very large salary, but all money comes to the temple for maintanence and donations to a drug rehabilitation hospital. On November 21st I am flying to North Carolina for one day to be as support at Dave and Dhamaratti's ordination, and to show that we westernes can also be good Buddhist monks and in a way we can support each other. It has been almost three month since this, yet I have become very much wanted by the Thai, Lao, Cambodians and specially by the Sri Lanka monks and communities. Almost every Sunday I participate in ceremonies with the Sri Lanka monk, the reason, he is alone and does not speak English, all the Sri Lankan children are born in Australia and only speak English, so we do the ceremony together and I do the dhamma talk in English. I know that a lot of people will think that I am a heretic, but as a western monk I found that is the only way I can survive. Ofcourse I teach at Uni in my full ropes as a monk and not once there has been a question or criticicism. If anybody (males) want to become a monk for a long or short time you are most welcome to to come and stay with me. My salary is good to help newcommers. May the western shanga prosper. With much metta. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott [mailto:dsgmods@y...] Enviado el: Sábado, Septiembre 14, 2002 05:05 p.m. Para: DhammaStudyGroup Asunto: [dsg] Moderator bulletin Dear All, Lately there have been several posts citing non-Theravadin texts (both Buddhist and non-Buddhist). Please note that texts from other disciplines are off-topic for this forum, no matter how interesting or related to a current thread they may be. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah PS As usual, any comments on this message should made off-list. ===================================================== 15725 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Dear Christine and Rob M, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > Do we sign petitions? Do we join in meetings and marches? Isn't the > emotion involved in meetings and protest marches akusala? What to do? > Is doing nothing tantamount to agreeing with killing and war? > I don't know if others would consider this an area where the Dhamma > is of relevance, but I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. ..... When I saw your message a little while ago, I said to myself that this was a topic I’d definitely leave to others and I doubt my thoughts will be of any interest. Yet I’ve come back to it already, thanks partly to the stormy weather outside in Hong Kong ;-). Personally, I’m no more interested in petitions, meetings and marches than I am in hamburgers and most kinds of meat. They just don’t appeal and can be a condition for dosa quite easily for me. Indeed one of the main reasons I gave up college lecturing and started my own business was to avoid the meetings and ‘issues’. Nonetheless, the problem as we all know on DSG is never the meat or the petition or whether one eats the meat, signs the petition or abstains. The problem, when there is one, is always rooted in ignorance and other kilesa (defilements) which will be a condition for long, long stories and no awareness. Just as one can eat meat with kusala citta, so one can sign petitions or attend meetings (however long - some of Jon’s Legislative Council meetings can last all day) with kindeness, consideration, understanding of realities and calm reflection. We can only know our ‘own’ cittas at any of these times. For most of us -- certainly in ‘my’ experience -- there are bound to be many more moments of akusala cittas (unwholesome consciousness) than kusala cittas (wholesome consciousness) just as at any other time, such as even now while we are reading dhamma messages, perhaps. A little understanding can develop which knows the different characteristics of each and begins to see these realities as anatta, as not mine or anyone else’s. This understanding can also begin to know thinking now as a reality, quite different from all the stories which are mere concepts. In summary, I don’t see there is any rule. It depends on so many factors how and whether we will ‘participate’. We often participate in situations where others have emotional reactions, like in our workplaces for a start. Others’ distress or concerns may be a condition for dosa or compassion or equanimity on our part. It just depends. Guarding the sense doors and developing more understanding doesn’t mean more or less ‘action’ on our part. It would be wrong understanding if we thought , for example, we shouldn’t sign petitions or discipline our children/students or go near those in distress because such action would be a ‘hindrance’ to our practice. Instead, it would be likely to indicate the strong clinging to ourselves and ‘our kusala’. When it comes to differentiating concepts and realities, as Howard expressed so well, it’s not a matter of being concerned about how long samsara is, but of developing wisdom at this moment -- one moment at a time. And as Rob K expressed in his ‘stove’ post, by knowing these realities, at these moments, the concepts and stories begin to lose their grip and hold on us, just very briefly. We shouldn’t underestimate the power of a ‘fingersnap’ of awareness or the value of a moment of kusala of any kind. This would be the gist of my advice btw, Rob M, for anyone from any background. Metta, Sarah ===== 15726 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 3:28am Subject: Re: Elements of Thinking/Contemplation in Vipassana Bhavana Hi all, I've noticed that Kom sometimes refers to paramattha dhammas as dukkhas. The Buddha's very first discourse, the Dhammacakkappavvttana Sutta, clearly says this is the case: "In brief, the five aggregates of clinging (khandhas), are dukkha." After this discourse, the Buddha spent the rest of his life, pointing out how everything that is real, other than Nibbana, is khandha i.e., conditioned paramattha dhamma i.e., dukkha. He said, "I teach two things, dukkha and release from dukkha." So when he refers to birth, decay and death, for example, as dukkha, we are meant to see that they are only dukkha (paramattha dhammas). We are NOT to understand him to be saying that those conventional things have the characteristic (ti-lakkhana), of dukkha. There is a world of difference between these two ways of hearing the Dhamma. The Buddha was a debunker of conventional reality. When we hear his words correctly, we are enthralled in the same way that an audience is enthralled to see that what they had taken to be real was just a conjurer's trick. What was taken to be a vase of flowers, is just a reflection in a mirror; what were taken to be birth, decay and death are just dukkha -- paramattha dhammas. When, in the Satipatthana Sutta, he said that a monk who is walking, knows he is walking, again we should be enthralled. No longer does that monk harbour the delusion that `he' and `walking' have the characteristic, dukkha; now he has the realisation, "when I am walking, there is nothing more than dukkha (paramattha dhammas)." Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I list below portions of the Satipatthana Sutta which seem to me to > rather unambiguously describe thinking/contemplation as part of the practice. > (I will set off what I wish to draw particular attention to by using double > vertical bars, ||, before and after the material): > ********************************** > 1) Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. > When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns > that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying down. Or > however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. > [Upasaka note: Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all > pa~n~natti] > snip 15727 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana (parmatha dhamma) (realities/concep... Hi Larry (Azita & Chris), I think you make a good correction here:. L:“A few days ago I wrote that khandhas are "irreducible [by direct observation/ or something similar]. All khandhas are compounded and so theoretically infinitely reducible". I think there is a fault in this reasoning. On the Buddhist path direct perception is all important so the theoretical infinite reducibility of khandhas is irrelevant. If something is directly perceived to be uncompounded (irreducible) then it is uncompounded. The reason khandhas are not perceived in this way is because they are directly perceived to be arising, abiding and subsiding with different "strengths" and functions in each phase. So the ultimacy of the khandhas holds true in that they are not perceived as compacted wholes but they are also not perceived as solid uncompounded elements because of their impermanence. I don't know if this hair splitting makes much difference but it was running through my mind.” ***** The other point you raised was this: “L: As the quotation from Pm observed, the tilakkhana is conceptual so there is some kind of relationship between concept and reality in a magga citta and certainly in the daily life of an arahat. Apart from these quibbles, I'm fine with everything else. So if no one rocks the boat too much it will be smooth sailing from here on out.” ***** S:This is a little more tricky and reminds me of Azita’s question on aniccata. The tilakkhana are not conceptual but are characteristics of all realities. However, they don’t have an ‘essence’ (sabhava) that can be known apart from that of the realities or aggregates in question. They all refer to the true nature of these aggregates and the distinctions (pannatti-visesa) are for convenience. (Chris, I think it was in a recent extract from ADL that you read the message about one of these 3 characteristics being apparent just before the enlightenment process. This is because only one characteristic of a reality can be known at a time - not because the others are not fully comprehended. K.Sujin once used the example of a drink on the table. One may look at the juice or one may look at the clear glass with no juice. It just depends on conditions which ‘aspect’ predominates.) With regard to Azita’s question, I also find it rather strange that the four characteristics inherent in all rupas (integration-upacaya, dontinuity -santati, decay -jara, destruction -aniccata) are classified as different rupas.The Vism says of these characteristics that they “are not born of anything. Why? Because there is no arising of arising...”. As you (Larry) have pointed out from CMA, only 18 of the 28 rupas are “produced rupa” (nipphanna rupa), i.e concrete rupas with characteristics which can be known. The other ten, including these 4 characteristics are “unproduced” (anipphanna) and not “suitable for comprehension since they are merely the mode-alteration, and limitation-of-interval, of various instances of materiality.” (Vism). There is more detail also in the Visuddhimagga, ch X1V, 73f and ch XV111, 13 where this quote is from, as well as in CMA and Nina’s booklet on Rupas. ***** These are difficult areas that you’ve both raised and I’m rapidly getting out of my depth and probably raising more questions than I'm answering, so I’ll pause here. I hope Nina or anyone else will correct any mistakes I make or add more. Let me repeat this quote from Jon’s earlier post (quoting CMA): “Ultimate realities are knowable only to wisdom- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. Thus ‘paramattha’ is described as that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge. “ So,Christine, if you’ve followed this message, rest assured, that we ‘ordinary’ people all are blind almost all the time to these ‘subtle and profound’ truths. Yet as Kom put it so clearly: “Without understanding Paramattha dhammas and concepts, we may have the wrong idea that the Buddha talked about concepts when he talked about Khandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus, and objects of Satipatthana. Therefore, we must first understand the differences between paramattha dhammas and concepts; otherwise, we are bound to get confused.” Sarah ===== 15728 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Corrections to Bikkhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" Hi Rob M & All, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > One of the students in my class attended an Abhidhamma course in > Singapore in November 2000 conducted by Sayadaw U Silananda. The > student passed me a copy of the course handouts and a set of > correction notes to Bhikkhu Bodhi's "A Comprehensive Manual of > Abhidhamma". ..... Thank you for these. Out of curiosity, I thought I’d try to follow the first few directions below, but got lost trying to move “55” below (probably b.c. I need a magnifying glass for it), so will just let be and put your notes in the back. > P 113 (Table 2.4) > ================= > > There are two rows in the "Totals" section > - Inital application: move "55" from first row to second row > - Sustained application: move "66" from first row to second row > - Zest: move "51" from first row to second row > - Illimitables 2: delete the "79" in the second row > - Wisdom: insert "79" in the second row ..... Btw, we’ll probably be seeing B.Bodhi when he is in Hong Kong in a couple of weeks’ time, so if anyone has anything in particular they’d like addressed to him, we can try to help. (Nina, I remember you asked me to check about using his translation of CariyaPitaka Atthakatha which I’ll do unless you tell me otherwise). As I mentioned before, he told us that he will be giving up his position (and authority) in BPS at the end of this year. ***** Also, this reminds me, the last weekend in November, there will be quite a gathering of us in Bangkok.....from DSG, Nina, Rob K, Christine, Azita, Num, Betty & Sukin and ourselves with K.Sujin. I’m just wondering if anyone else, especially those in the region like KC =Ken O, Rob M, Jaran or Erik might have a chance to join us. If so, let any of us know off list for any details. Sarah ===== 15729 From: robmoult Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Hi Christine, I'm not sure how I got pulled into this... but here are my two cents worth. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine and Rob M, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > Do we sign > petitions? Do we join in meetings and marches? Isn't the > > emotion involved in meetings and protest marches akusala? What to do? > > Is doing nothing tantamount to agreeing with killing and war? > > I don't know if others would consider this an area where the Dhamma > > is of relevance, but I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. > ..... In the Suttas, "pointless talk" is defined as "talk of kings, robbers, ministers, armies, dangers, battles, food, drink, clothing, beds, garlands, perfumes, relatives, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, countries, women, heros, streets, wells, the dead, trifles, the origin of the world, the origin of the sea, whether things are so or are not so." [quite an eclectic mix, eh?] Abstinence from "pointless talk" is part of "Right Speech" in the Eightfold Noble Path (together with abstinence from false speech, abstinence from divisive speech and abstinence from harsh speech). Anyway, that is my point of view. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15730 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the lakknana rupas, impermanence Daer Azita, The list of 28 rupas includes rupa as concrete matter, but also some characteristics or properties of rupas, and these are not rupas with their own distinct nature, such as hardness or sound. See my Ch 8 or Rupas: Thus here are four characteristics of rupa. As to the three characteristics of all conditioned realities, it has been said in the list of concepts that Larry quoted, that the three characteristics are concepts, but we have to remember that they themselves are not ultimate realities, but that they are properties of ultimate realities. Thus, they are always characteristics *of* nama and rupa. Impermanence, dukkha and anattapertain to ultimate realities. Does this clarify, or does it make matters more complicated? I can understand that you find it not so easy. Keep courage and good cheer! Nina. op 14-09-2002 03:43 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: I have a query about impermanence > (aniccata). Within the 28 rupa-khandha, Aniccata is >> mentioned as one of them. I don't understand this. >> Space element[akasa-dhatu]; physical > agility[rupassa-lahuta] for example, I can grasp, > theoretically; however, impermanence I can't grasp - > hope you see the absurdity in this comment!!! >> Seriously, can someone explain > why/how aniccata can be a rupa? 15731 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:34am Subject: Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no 8 Perfections, Ch 5, Wisdom, no 8 We read in the Khuddhaka Nikåya, Cúlaniddesa, ³Ajita¹s Questions²: ³Kusalo sabbadhammånaÿ², means: he is skilful in all dhammas. He knows that conditioned dhammas are impermanent, that conditioned dhammas are dukkha and that all dhammas are anattå. In order to directly understand and penetrate the truth we should study the Dhamma in all details, so that we come to know the precise meaning of the term ³all conditioned realities², saòkhåra dhammas. This includes everything that appears right now, and this is impermanent, it arises and falls away. The dhammas which arise and fall away are dukkha and all dhammas are anattå, non-self. We read further on: Again, he is skilful in the khandhas (aggregates), the dhåtus (elements), the åyatanas (bases), the paìiccasamuppåda (dependent origination), satipaììhåna, the sammå-padhånas (four right efforts), the indriyas (faculties), the balas (powers), the factors of enlightenment, the path, the fruit, nibbåna. This means, he is in this way skilful in all dhammas (8) . The five khandhas of rúpas, feelings, remembrance, formations and consciousness are present at this very moment. The elements, the åyatanas (bases), the dependent origination, refer to dhammas which are very intricate and arise in interdependence on one another. The four right efforts, the faculties and powers pertain to paññå which has been developed. At the same time there should be energy to understand the characteristics which are appearing. The person who is skilful in all dhammas is, as we read, skilful in the factors of enlightenment which pertain to the realization of the four noble Truths, the magga-citta, path-consciousness, which attains enlightenment and the phala-citta, the fruition-consciousness which is the result of the magga-citta, and nibbåna. We are not skilful in all dhammas if we merely listen for a short time. We read further on: And again, the åyatanas (bases) are: the eye and visible object, the ear and sound, the nose and odour, the tongue and flavour, the bodysense and tangible object, the mind and mental objects, and these are called: all dhammas. The person who has developed paññå can, when he listens to the Dhamma and also understands the characteristics of the dhammas that are appearing, realize at that moment the arising and falling away of realities. He is skilful in the åyatanas, such as seeing and what appears through the eyesense at this very moment. Some people wonder how, in the development of satipatthåna, one can at the moment of seeing understand the characteristics of the realities that are appearing. There is only one way: when someone has listened to the Dhamma he can be mindful so that he will understand the characteristic of seeing that sees at this very moment, or the characteristics of the other dhammas that are appearing at this moment. At the moment of understanding realities satipatthåna is being developed. Sati is mindful of the characteristics of the reality which experiences or knows, such as seeing, and paññå is able to understand that characteristic, it realizes that it is only a reality which is not self, not a being, not a person. At whatever moment there is seeing, hearing, the other sense-cognitions or thinking, the åyatanas can be understood: the eye and visible object, the ear and sound, the other sense-bases and sense objects, thinking and mental objects. At those moments paññå begins to develop by knowing the characteristics of realities which are appearing. We can use the word satipatthåna for this process, but what matters above all is knowing how paññå is to be developed: when there is seeing, one begins to understand the characteristic of seeing, when there is hearing, one begins to understand the characteristic of hearing, and so on for the other sense-cognitions and for thinking. The perfection of energy, viriya, should arise together with paññå, otherwise one will make an effort for something else, different from the right effort to understand the characteristics of realities, just as they naturally arise in daily life. Footnote: 8. The åyatanas, bases are: the five sense bases, mind-base, including all cittas, the five sense objects, and mind-object. The four right efforts, sammå-padhånas, are: the effort of avoiding akusala, of overcoming akusala, of developing kusala and of maintaining kusala. The five faculties, indriyas are: confidence, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. The five powers, balas, are the same realities as the five spiritual faculties, indriyas, but when the indriyas have been developed so that they are unshakable by their opposites, they have become powers. The seven factors of enlightenment are: sati, investigation of the Dhamma (dhamma-vicaya), energy (viriya), rapture (píti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samådhi) and equanimity (upekkhå). The Dependent Origination teaches the conditionality of the nama and rupa in the cycle of birth and death. 15732 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 8:11am Subject: Re: Confused ... and getting worse: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Robert Glad to know that you do not mind having a sense of humor. Lately, I have been noticing Aussie comedians, via ABC TV, delivering jokes by staging out-of-context "interviews" with politicians and the like. Billy Connolly's World Tour show features the tours themselves and stand-up comedy on the stage in front of a large audience in a theatre. So when he talked about Buddhism on the stage, he was, of course, fully dressed, and was addressing to his audience. As my post did not tell the details, it gave the impression that Billy Connolly might have discussed Buddhism without his clothes on. Well, only after the stand-up show and only when on the road, Connolly was riding his tri-motor bike away in nudity, and only in a manner suitable for viewing by all of us. So, that part of my post was kind of out-of-context joke! But, I could not help noticing that Billy Connolly included serious Buddhist discussion and wish in what was supposed to be an event of stand-up comedy. With kind regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" wrote: Dear Suan , Thanks very much.I liked to hear of Connolly and his antics. No need for us Buddhists to be serious lot;) Robert > --- > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > > > Dear Robert > > > > You wrote: > > > > "But if there is understanding of realities then the aversion > becomes > > the object and it dissipates, or the feeling becomes the object . > And > > by becoming the object I mean that it is understood as simply > > feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language the anger > has > > gone and there is acceptance of the present moment." > > > > What you wrote can be regarded as the essence of the Buddha's > > teachings, and as how we could turn abhidhamma into an applied > > discipline. > > > > In fact, what you wrote is also a mockery of the views of some > > misguided academics in the Religious Departments or Asian Studies > > Departments at the universities in the West who wrote off > abhidhamma > > as an unnecessary part of Buddhist learning. > > > > By the way, last night (12 September 2002), I watched Bill > Connolly's > > World Tour comedy show. Near the end of the program, he talked > about > > Buddhist philosophy, and guess what? He said he wanted his children > > to learn to accept things as they are. And, he closed the program > > riding his tri-motor bike away in nude! > > > > And you also wrote in the above paragraph: > > > > "Then before any harsh language the anger has gone and there is > > acceptance of the present moment." > > > > What a coincidence! But, I am sure that you wrote those lines while > > fully dressed! SMILE > > > > With kind regards, > > > > Suan > > > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- > > Just to add to this post Christine. The most basic step in > > satipatthana is about distinguishing concept from reality; and as > > this understanding grows then the difference between the realities > of > > nama and rupa becomes slowly more apparent . When concepts are seen > > as unreal they lose their deluding power. Thinking continues just > as > > much as always but there is not the same tendency to be fooled by > the > > thoughts. > > For example, say someone left the stove on and I come along and > > touch it and get a little burn. Immediately there is aversion to > the > > pain. And then there is thinking such as "who left the stove > > on", "why did they do that" - and this is all rooted in increasing > > aversion. But if there is understanding of realities then the > > aversion becomes the object and it dissipates, or the feeling > becomes > > the object . And by becoming the object I mean that it is > understood > > as simply feeling, not my feeling. Then before any harsh language > > the anger has gone and there is acceptance of the present moment. > > > > This is a very different process from trying to not have harsh > > language or realising that anger is bad and thinking you shouldn't > > have it. With direct understanding there is no supression because > > there doesn't have to be: as soon as reality is known as reality > and > > concept as concept the delusion is ended. > > > > Robert > > > > > > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" > > > wrote: > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Dear Christine, > > > > This is a letter I wrote about 2 years back that might help: > > > > > > > > Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different > > > > cittas and cetasikas all arising and passing away rapidly. These > > > > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > > > > let us consider a couple of thinking. > > > > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > > > > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > > > > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. > > > > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > > > > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > > > > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > > > > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > > > > real. > > > > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > > > > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > > > > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > > > > are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept. > > > > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > > > > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > > > > > > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > > > > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > > > > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > > > > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > > > > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > > > > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > > > > concepts for objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > > > > > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > > > > > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > > > > > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > > > > > > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > > > > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > > > > 15733 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Your duty is the contemplation" ( was Re: Confused ... and getting... Hi, Larry (and Christine) - In a message dated 9/15/02 12:49:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Christine, > > My impression is that 'contemplate' does mean 'mull it over'. The 'this' > in "This is stress" etc. is slightly ambiguous and I think refers both > to Buddhist doctrine and one's own life experience of stress, desire, > release, and the way to effectuate that release. There is probably an > abhidhamma definition of 'contemplate' somewhere; maybe someone could > look it up. > > To me, meditation means seclusion and a sustained focus or intention so > I can see how 'contemplation' could have a more general and open > application but 'duty' does connote a sense of discipline to me. > > Larry > ============================= I'm coming to the view that our meditative practice needs to be a multi-pronged one, involving concentration (as deep as possible), sharp mindfulness (as sharp and sustained as possible), clear comprehension (as clear as possible), and an energetic investigation of all that arises, both pa~n~natti and paramattha dhammas, by means of both "direct observation" as well as by "mulling over", contemplating, and drawing inferences. I do think that thinking can be a tool which, when purified by other factors, and in combination with other tools, can help lead one to the well of wisdom. 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) 15734 From: Jim Anderson Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:28am Subject: Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear All, I'm following Dan's lead with a report on my meeting with the group in Niagara Falls. My trip lasted five days but that was because I made some overnight stops on the way there and back. I think it might take between 3 and 4 hours to drive the 160 miles directly to the Falls from where I live. An old friend of mine named Victor had offered to take me down in his car and it so happened that he'd recently won a free night's accommodation in NF so that worked out well. We arrived shortly after 9pm on Thursday night (the 5th) and checked into the hotel which was only about a five minute walk from the one where Khun Sujin and the group were staying. Up until this time I had never met or talked to anyone from the group in person and I had planned to meet them around 10am the following morning. Although it was getting late in the night we decided to phone their hotel to see if there was any chance of meeting Amara that night and to find out more about what was happening the next day. I spoke with Khun O who said it would be okay for us to come over and Amara would be there to meet us in the hotel lobby. I think it was probably after 11pm by the time we arrived. We were greeted by Khun O who told us to have a seat in the lobby while we waited for Amara. It was good to meet and talk with her for the first time. It was a short visit and we left around midnight. We also met Khun Jack and his wife at this time. I returned alone to the group's hotel the following morning at 9am and Victor was to meet me there later at noon. It wasn't too long after I had taken a seat in the lobby when Amara came by to greet me. She moved me to a more suitable location in the lobby for a small group and soon afterwards I was introduced to K. Sujin and her sister who sat down with us to talk. I have a severe hearing loss (in addition to being visually impaired) which can make it very difficult, if not impossible, to carry on a conversation in certain situations. I had come not knowing what to expect and ill-prepared to ask questions. I don't remember much about what KS or I said during this part of the morning. I can remember KS first asking about my interest in Pali. I think it was Amara who asked me if I had a dhamma question for KS. I tried to think of one and thought of asking why concept (pa~n~natti) cannot be an object of satipatthana. I failed to grasp much of her reply partly because of my hearing and her accent. She agreed that satipatthana and satisampaja~n~na (meaning a citta with sati + pa~n~naa) were the same. I pointed out that according to the Dhammasangani a dhammaaramma.na (which includes pannatti) can be an object of satisampaja~n~na. While this discussion was going on K. Kom and K. Jack joined us. About half way through the morning discussion we moved to the farside of the lounge area where the discussion resumed with KS, Amara, Kom, and myself taking part but this time it was recorded on a tape for me to take home. The tape is a 90 min. one and is almost filled up with the discussion. Even though we were speaking into a microphone connected to a loudspeaker, I still had a lot of trouble hearing what was being said. I've since been listening to the tape and trying to hear, understand, or decipher what was said. Other topics besides concept and reality that were touched on were the meaning of attha in paramattha and when the notion of a self is eliminated. The discussion ended at about noon when Victor and I were invited to join a group of about 20 for lunch at a nearby Chinese restaurant. Amara, Kom, Victor, and I sat at a table to ourselves. After a pleasant lunch we walked down with the group (Victor decided to leave us) to see the falls which I had not seen for decades. If you look down at the river below the falls you will see small islands of foam floating around and this can serve as a reminder. A ball of foam is used as a simile for ruupa in the Phe.nasutta. I also went with Amara and K. Chu for a short boat ride that takes you right up close to both falls. Raincoats are provided by the tour operator since without one you'd get soaked to the bones with all the spray from the falls. After the boat ride we hurried back to the hotel to meet Dan between 4 and 4:30pm but we arrived rather late at about 4:30 which was okay as Dan & Lisa didn't come until 5:00. When we arrived, a discussion in Thai was already in progress and presumably being taped like the morning one with people speaking into a microphone connected to a loudspeaker. While we were waiting for Dan, KS came and sat with us for a few minutes. It was obvious to me that she was interested in some more dhamma discussion. But in view of not knowing what to ask and my hearing problem combined with the loud Thai discussion going on in the background I thought it would be almost impossible for me to converse with KS. I could only offer a cookie. :( It was nice to meet Dan and Lisa but unfortunately there wasn't much time left to get to know them better. My friend Victor arrived a little before 6:30 and I decided that it was time for me to say goodbye and leave. Looking back and in spite of the difficulties I faced, I'm glad I went to meet K. Sujin and the group for the first time. It was well worth it and a once in a lifetime experience. I believe this was KS's first visit to Canada. The group that flew into Buffalo from San Francisco were about 35 in number consisting mostly of Thais with a few Laotians. Seventeen of them had come all the way from Bangkok. With a large group like that it's hard to meet everyone in a single day and I only met 9 of them not counting Dan & Lisa. K. Sujin is really a wonderful and special person to meet. It was nice to hear the way others pronounced the Pali words like the way Amara rolled the 'r' in 'dhammaaramma.na' and KS calling off '. . . sakadaagaami, anaagaami, arahatta' at lightning speed with a delightful pronunciation. I could see the added benefits of having live discussions where your understanding is really put to the test with no time to slip away to do some research like with the email discussions here on DSG. I'm very grateful for the warm welcome, the wonderful treatment, and the help I received in some difficult situations especially to Amara, Kom, K. Chu, and K. Annop. Best wishes, Jim 15735 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 5:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Hi, Christine - In a message dated 9/15/02 1:52:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear All, > This sunny Sunday afternoon I received (from a Buddhist friend) an > email petition to sign and distribute. It was addressed to the > Australian House of Representatives and Australian Senate and was > titled "NO Australian Support for War on Iraq!" > This subject may not be occupying the thoughts of most people - The > Australian Government and the British Government are the only > governments of nations (at this point) publicly supporting President > Bush's stance on Iraq. And so only Iraqi, American, Australian and > British citizens are likely, in the first instance, to face mortal > danger. My children are Australian citizens. > > How are we to live in daily life as Buddhists when our nation is > actively heading down a slippery slope towards war? Each nation is > convinced that the other side is evil and their own nation is > righteous. But just as I have a son and daughter for whom I wish > health and happiness - so too do the Iraqi mothers and fathers wish > health and happiness for their sons and daughters. As I do also. > Do we as Buddhists merely observe what arises at the sense doors and > tell ourselves this is a story, don't get caught up in stories > of 'right and wrong', 'who deserves what', and 'what the real agendas > are'? > I remember a Dhamma teacher once telling me that 'not saving' when > the possibility exists, is not the same as 'harming' with regard to > keeping the Precepts. A delicate point. But I feel the need to do > something a little more effective than thinking about 'stories', 'not- > self', 'kamma' and 'a just war'. > Right now is not last September. Right now there is no war, there is > only the increasing prospect of war (a pre-emptive strike is 'war', > not 'self-defense'.). > Do we sign petitions? Do we join in meetings and marches? Isn't the > emotion involved in meetings and protest marches akusala? What to do? > Is doing nothing tantamount to agreeing with killing and war? > I don't know if others would consider this an area where the Dhamma > is of relevance, but I would be interested in anyone's thoughts. > metta, > Christine > ================================= Here's my 2 cents. From the political perspective, I feel that I just don't know the facts. I think it likely that Iraq does have some "weapons of mass destruction" and that its government is working to obtain deliverable nuclear weapons. But I do not *know* this, and, worse, I don't think any of the world goverments including those of the U.S., Australia, and England have hard proof of this either at this point in time. In fact, I am appalled at the apparent gross inadequacy of the U.S. intelligence agencies! (Probably they have been spending too much time and money on "covert action" and not enough on hard intelligence efforts!) On the other hand, Iraq's continued nose-thumbing at the U.N. added to its history of aggression against its neighbors and even its own citizens (the Kurds, in particular) make Iraq a very dangerous nation-state. When and if its goverment has "the bomb" and the means to deliver it, I think that we all will be in grave danger. My position at the present time, and at least until the clarity of information improves or a resolution is achieved or seen to be hopeless, is to encourage Australia, the United States, and England to work through the United Nations to (quickly and unambiguously) remove the sting from this situation. Some people may be truly convinced that the Iraqi regime has showed itself, by consistently not permitting inspections, to be on a course, one whose end is not far off, leading to horrendous attacks against other peoples. Still others may have grave doubts about this, and truly believe that an attack at this point against Iraq, by a group of nations, or even by the entire U.N., is immoral and unjustified by the facts. There can be honestly held, morally motivated views on both sides (and Machiavellian ones as well). But as far as the propriety of taking a stand and exerting peaceful (and internally calm) efforts in support of one's position is concerned, I do not think it is preferable to "merely observe what arises at the sense doors and tell ourselves this is a story, don't get caught up in stories of 'right and wrong', 'who deserves what', and 'what the real agendas are'?" The Buddha certainly recognized wrong worldly action and distinguished it from right, and he often spoke to and advised rulers about quite worldly and conventional matters! The Buddha, of course, was a Buddha, and he never experienced anger or ill will. We are not Buddhas, and thus have to be careful in guading our senses in all we do. With metta, Howard P.S. To the moderators: I think this thread may be right at the margin of what is acceptable on this list. If I have overstepped the line here, I apologize. Please let me know if I have. /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) 15736 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Dear Sarah, and Rob M, Sarah: I well understand anyone's lack of interest in this topic. I imagine if someone wanted to discuss the war between Eritrea vs Ethiopia, I'd read the subject line and delete. So thank-you for taking a little time to reply. Your reply is good and sensible, and following what I know of Theravada doctrine. But it raises for me the fact that I mostly don't understand that doctrine at all. It isn't a State Secret that I don't understand anatta - sometimes I seem to almost get it intellectually - then it drifts away with the current. But sometimes on this List, life is talked about as if it were a dream, as if nothing much matters except ensuring that nothing much matters. Life is a movie, whatever happens isn't important, hire another actor, write another script. Emotion is alway 'bad', Equanimity is the all. And only internal states matter. It is such a contradiction that I can see quite clearly and agree with Rob K and his 'burned finger' explanation, but find it hard to apply to "the big things in life". Rob M: I'm not sure either how you got pulled in, but thanks for rising to the occasion ... :) And as this is not a topic of your choice, I'll be brief. I think my question was a little different to discussing the superiority of a mercedes over a ford, whether General Rommel should have used different tactics in desert warfare, the latest fashions and perfumes for summer, and how the local footy team is performing. The question was more a teasing out of an ethical stance, a dhamma-informed response, than 'what shall we chat about at morning-tea time'. As far as I know I am the only, or one of very few, buddhists in a workforce of 3,000 people. I had already been wondering about 'how a buddhist is to live in a time of gathering war clouds', as I had been approached twice last week by staff members for a buddhist perspective on this issue. They spend all their time gently easing tiny helpless bundles of khandas into the world, or fighting with all their knowledge and energy to prevent the untimely, or painful, exit of others from the world - so they tend to see each human life as infinitely precious. (I'm not normally up at this time - 3.00 a.m. or so here - but the dog is emphatic that there is a monster down near the dam, so while he quarters the area and earns his keep, I'm taking a quick look at the List. Please accept lack of sleep as the excuse for any deficiencies in style and content in this post.) Thanks, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine and Rob M, 15737 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 10:12am Subject: Re: What should a Buddhist parents' response be?/Howard Dear Howard, Thanks for this - it is helpful to me. I'll look for scripture refs. .. may you live with ease and well being, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - <<<<>>>> But as far as the propriety of taking a stand and exerting peaceful > (and internally calm) efforts in support of one's position is concerned, I do > not think it is preferable to "merely observe what arises at the sense doors > and tell ourselves this is a story, don't get caught up in stories of 'right > and wrong', 'who deserves what', and 'what the real agendas are'?" The Buddha > certainly recognized wrong worldly action and distinguished it from right, > and he often spoke to and advised rulers about quite worldly and conventional > matters! The Buddha, of course, was a Buddha, and he never experienced anger > or ill will. We are not Buddhas, and thus have to be careful in guading our > senses in all we do. > > With metta, > Howard 15738 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 6:20am Subject: Re: [d-l] RE: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Hi, Bhante - Your post impresses me greatly. I sincerely hope that your full-time job still allows you full participation in all of a monk's activities, especially the meditating, chanting, and appropriate observation of the Bhikkhu's training rules. As far as your work is concerned, so do those other monks work who accept money for chanting and presiding at funerals and other functions. So, as I see it, you are simply being more straightforward and honest in what you do. Moreover, what you do with the proceeds is commendable! (I don't think that those other monks who accept money should be thought ill of to any great extent, however. They accept the money out of compassion for their families whom they "left behind" in going forth.) With much metta and best wishes for the prospering of Wat Buddharran Australia, Howard P.S. I look forward to meeting you in person at the ordination in November. I also will arrive on the 21st. In a message dated 9/15/02 2:48:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sanz@n... writes: > My Dear Friends, Many of you know that I gave all my fortune and became a > monk in a Laotian temple in Sydney and then I came to a Laotian temple in > Canberra.First, I follow everything without questions what I was told to > do. > I learnt all my chantings and and followed all the rules, but slowly I > start > noticing a lots of differences what I imagine that a buddhist monk should > be > and what the reality is. When I ordained I told the abbot that I did not > want any money for chanting in houses or funerals, as soon as I did that I > was never taking to any ceremonies anywhere, later on the oldest monk who > is > great told me that almost all the monks received all the time money to > support families in Laos, Thailand or Cambodia and that they were not happy > with my stand about money. Also I was not allowed to drive a car and to > visit the jails and drugs reavilitations centres because I did not have > transport. > I depended all the time for food from the Asian of each temple, Australian, > like Americans have a different approach of alms and if I live in a western > temple nobody will bring food or give the support that the Asian do. Then > one day the Abbot told me that I was a monk in a Laotian temple and I > should > not behave like an American but as an Asian. That did it. With all my > respect I inform the 11 monks that I had no intentions to become or act as > an Asian, I became a Buddhist to follow the teaching of Buddha and not to > give up my personality or identity. In short I have now my own temple in > Canberra, it was register with the Australian Federation of Buddhism as WAT > BUDDHARAN AUSTRALIA, Tradition, Theravata ( Western). To make the temple > liable and be able to eat and cover expenses I am the first monk anywhere > to > have a Full time job. I am Lecturing Chemistry and Biochemistry at a > College, I received a very large salary, but all money comes to the temple > for maintanence and donations to a drug rehabilitation hospital. On > November > 21st I am flying to North Carolina for one day to be as support at Dave and > Dhamaratti's ordination, and to show that we westernes can also be good > Buddhist monks and in a way we can support each other. It has been almost > three month since this, yet I have become very much wanted by the Thai, > Lao, > Cambodians and specially by the Sri Lanka monks and communities. Almost > every Sunday I participate in ceremonies with the Sri Lanka monk, the > reason, he is alone and does not speak English, all the Sri Lankan children > are born in Australia and only speak English, so we do the ceremony > together > and I do the dhamma talk in English. I know that a lot of people will think > that I am a heretic, but as a western monk I found that is the only way I > can survive. Ofcourse I teach at Uni in my full ropes as a monk and not > once > there has been a question or criticicism. If anybody (males) want to become > a monk for a long or short time you are most welcome to to come and stay > with me. My salary is good to help newcommers. May the western shanga > prosper. With much metta. Venerable Yanatharo > /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) 15739 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Your duty is the contemplation" ( was Re: Confused ... and getting... Hi Howard, Your program looks excellent. I was wondering what exactly is the point of mindfulness of in and out breathing. Is it to develop detachment to the body, let go of the desire to breathe, or just let go of desires to do something more entertaining or 'important?' For me it's mostly the latter coupled with a letting go of attachment to thinking brought on by the contrast between the nowness of rupa sensation and the conceptuality of thinking (vitakka/vicara). The problem is, I don't see anything like any of this in the suttas. What I see in the suttas is contentment with a rather simple understanding: now I breathe in, now I breathe out. There is evolution beyond that but that evolution looks like skillfulness rather than insight that effects letting go of desires. What do you, or anyone else, see as the 'point' of mindfulness of in and out breathing, both in practice and according to the suttas? Larry ---------------- Howard wrote: I'm coming to the view that our meditative practice needs to be a multi-pronged one, involving concentration (as deep as possible), sharp mindfulness (as sharp and sustained as possible), clear comprehension (as clear as possible), and an energetic investigation of all that arises, both pa~n~natti and paramattha dhammas, by means of both "direct observation" as well as by "mulling over", contemplating, and drawing inferences. I do think that thinking can be a tool which, when purified by other factors, and in combination with other tools, can help lead one to the well of wisdom. 15740 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Ven. Yanatharo, Sir, I am suffering from some confusion and I wonder if you could be of assistance in dispelling it please ... In your only other letter to this forum, Sir, you authoritatively stated: " As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in Australia, I contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a female as a monk. I will always oppose it. And to ordain a female monk you nedd a minimum of FIVE ORDAINED FEMALES MONKS, at the moment there is no even one. With all my respect you should close this debate because it will go no where. Metta. Venerable Yanatharo, Buddhist Chaplain University of Canberra" I assumed that you were speaking about the unassailable and unchanging Vinaya, which, we are told has been observed by the Sangha through unimaginable difficulties for two and a half thousand years. I wonder if I am correct in that assumption? Perhaps my error, Sir, is in supposing that it was the inalterable Vinaya (which is said to make it impossible for the reconstitution of the Bhikkhuni Sangha) that forbad Monks to work in ordinary wage paying jobs, or handle money, like a layperson? I ask your teaching (and correction?) on this matter, Sir. Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: 15741 From: robmoult Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Rob M: > I'm not sure either how you got pulled in, but thanks for rising to > the occasion ... :) And as this is not a topic of your choice, I'll > be brief. I think my question was a little different to discussing > the superiority of a mercedes over a ford, whether General Rommel > should have used different tactics in desert warfare, the latest > fashions and perfumes for summer, and how the local footy team is > performing. The question was more a teasing out of an ethical stance, > a dhamma-informed response, than 'what shall we chat about at > morning-tea time'. > As far as I know I am the only, or one of very few, buddhists in a > workforce of 3,000 people. I had already been wondering about 'how a > buddhist is to live in a time of gathering war clouds', as I had been > approached twice last week by staff members for a buddhist > perspective on this issue. They spend all their > time gently easing tiny helpless bundles of khandas into the world, > or fighting with all their knowledge and energy to prevent the > untimely, or painful, exit of others from the world - so they tend to > see each human life as infinitely precious. Let's look at how the Buddha acted. Undoubtedly, there were social injustices at the time of the Buddha. Are there examples in the Suttas of the Buddha getting himself involved to try and rectify them? I don't know of any (I admit that my knowledge of the Suttas is weaker than it should be). I know that the Buddha got involved on issues of personal salvation, but I am not sure that he involved himself in "general causes". If I were in your shoes, I would point out that Buddhists believe that all killing is bad and that Buddhists promote patience. Undoubtedly, the person asking will say that this perspective is impractical in this situation because... If they are receptive to listening, show them the Subhasita-jaya Sutta (on page 113 of my Class Notes), the debate on patience. I think that it may be relevant. Of course, promoting patience does not preclude the signing of a petition. Look at the example of the Dali Lama and Tibet. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15742 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 11:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Your duty is the contemplation" ( was Re: Confused ... and getting... Hi, Larry - In a message dated 9/15/02 3:46:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Your program looks excellent. I was wondering what exactly is the point > of mindfulness of in and out breathing. Is it to develop detachment to > the body, let go of the desire to breathe, or just let go of desires to > do something more entertaining or 'important?' For me it's mostly the > latter coupled with a letting go of attachment to thinking brought on by > the contrast between the nowness of rupa sensation and the conceptuality > of thinking (vitakka/vicara). The problem is, I don't see anything like > any of this in the suttas. What I see in the suttas is contentment with > a rather simple understanding: now I breathe in, now I breathe out. > There is evolution beyond that but that evolution looks like > skillfulness rather than insight that effects letting go of desires. > What do you, or anyone else, see as the 'point' of mindfulness of in and > out breathing, both in practice and according to the suttas? > > Larry > ================================ I think the Anapanasati Sutta pretty well explains the role of mindfulness with breathing. It seems to be an instance of meditation on the body (as basis) that is readily available, serves to cultivate concentration well because of the increasing subtlety of the breath as the mind becomes increasingly calm, and serves as a vehicle for the development of both jhanas and insight. The Sutta on this form of meditation clearly indicates that it is a complete vehicle for implementing the four foundations of mindfulness. Hence all insights, including those you mention, are available through it. (I have my doubts about the letting go of the desire to breathe, however! ;-)) 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) 15743 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 2:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be?-Rob Hello Rob, >Let's look at how the Buddha acted. Undoubtedly, there were social >injustices at the time of the Buddha. Are there examples in the >Suttas of the Buddha getting himself involved to try and rectify >them? I don't know of any (I admit that my knowledge of the Suttas >is weaker than it should be). I know that the Buddha got involved on >issues of personal salvation, but I am not sure that he involved >himself in "general causes". PIC AND HISTORY (I'm sure there's a better source but this is what googol came up with. BTW, what an amazing amount of cr-- is being sold with the Buddha's name in it; put Buddha + water in googol and scores of Buddha fountains and other such appear.) metta, stephen 15744 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 3:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What should a Buddhist parents' response be? Hello Christine, You should sign the petition and pursue other actions to help overt war; you should seek out such causes. The US and British blockade has already, by our own estimates, resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, mostly children and old people. (Of course our terrorism is righteous, so okay.) The military industrial complex is the institutionalization of dosa; as is global capitalism of lobha. I hope you are familiar with the writings of Sulak Sivaraksa, a very important voice in the Theravada community*. People (this is a comment on some of my local Buddhists, not anyone on DSG) who think that they're going to meditate or observe the arising of various cittas and such while they live in huge houses (have "starter castles" caught on in Australia?), drive monstrous SUV's, and ignore politics are not going to do so as they have not established even the rudiments of sila. As the saying goes: Living high and letting die. There's the classic Mahayana criticism of the arahant, in favor of the bodhisattva, that the former is an inherently selfish ideal. I believe this is wrong, though many do their best to live up to it by only looking within, ignoring the suffering of others. You have seen the Wheel of Life? It has a pig, snake, and rooster in the center, the six realms surrounded by the links of paticca samupadda? It's a popular Tibetan thanka (spelling?) but it's said to be very old, possibly originating in monasteries right after the Buddha's time; it apparently has a Theravada origin. The Buddha, in the upper right, standing off the wheel of samsara, points to the rabbit in the moon on the upper left. The is a reference to the Jataka tale where the Buddha sacrificed himself to feed a guest, who turned out to be a god; in gratitude he placed the rabbit's image in the moon. The Buddha is pointing out that the way off the wheel is through generosity and altruism *"Socially Engaged Buddhism for the New Millennium, Essays in Honor of Ven. Phra Dhammapitaka (P.A. Payutto) on his Sixtieth Birthday Anniversary" might interest you. (I always liked how Buddhadasa's teaching blended naturally into a social component; and have always found this conspicuously lacking in abhidhamma.) metta, stephen 15745 From: Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 3:01pm Subject: Re: Some Thoughts on Nibbana in Light of the Sutta 'The All' Hello Howard, There are, I think, two different ideas about nibbana; they split the Theravada, and run through the other systems as well. To use western terms they are the transcendent and immanent perspectives. Another way to put it is to ask if nibbana is a particular or a quality. The former has (at least) two forms. One is to add the definite article to "nibbana is unconditioned" making it: Nibbana is the unconditioned. Some kind of object or element (no term here is going to be satisfactory). The second is to see sense-consciousness as basically defiled and thus bound by upadana to the world, to various objects / arammana; nibbana is the freed consciousness. This works well by taking the fire analogy literally and using the physics of the day. Both could use the Udana quote about the elements finding no footing; both would say that nibbana is the total negation of the "The All." You seem to be working in the second approach. Johansson ("The Psychology of Nibbana") said that nibbana was simply the transformation of personality / consciousness; and that the abhidhammist falsified this into an independent reality — from subjective to objective. Perhaps*. (I'll just causally saddle you with this!) But I'm interested in hearing more about your ideas on the subject. You say that The All remains but not separate or reified. This is not clear to me; I doubt you mean some undifferentiated mush. Can you elaborate? You have referred before to the stopping of the vinnana / nama-rupa vortex, which I'm sure is relevant to the above question; can you also say more about this? (Isn't it sanna, not vinnana, which applies concepts to the world? We see things somewhat differently here but I have some idea about sanna being replaced by panna...) The All is samsara or nibbana depending on the state of observer? metta, stephen *IMHO, due to the fact that nothing was written down for hundreds of years, and much worked over in the interim, minimally for mnemonic purposes, it's not clear which approach the Buddha took. I still have some hope they can be harmonized. 15746 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 11:12pm Subject: Right Speech and war (was: Re: What should a Buddhist parents' response be?) Dear Rob M, Ven U Dhamminda said in "Right Speech": "There is another place in the commentaries where it mentions that not all talk about kings and thieves and ministers (and armies, dangers and wars) etc. is idle chatter - it depends on the context in which it is spoken because even the Buddha sometimes he would use them as examples to illustrate a point of Dhamma. So in the context of Dhamma sometimes you have to talk about these things - and talk about food or whatever. So it depends on the context in which it's been spoken - if it is of benefit to somebody in a Dhammic sense in order to teach them some aspect of the Dhamma then you can talk about these things." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eightfold-l/message/2203 with metta, Antony. ---- Original Message ---- In the Suttas, "pointless talk" is defined as "talk of kings, robbers, ministers, armies, dangers, battles, food, drink, clothing, beds, garlands, perfumes, relatives, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, countries, women, heros, streets, wells, the dead, trifles, the origin of the world, the origin of the sea, whether things are so or are not so." [quite an eclectic mix, eh?] Abstinence from "pointless talk" is part of "Right Speech" in the Eightfold Noble Path (together with abstinence from false speech, abstinence from divisive speech and abstinence from harsh speech). Anyway, that is my point of view. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15747 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 11:15pm Subject: Buddha as peacemaker (was: Re: What should a Buddhist parents' response be?) Dear Rob M, There is the case where the Buddha intervened when two armies were about to make war over irrigation water. The Buddha said that blood is more precious than water and convinced them not to fight. with metta, Antony. ---- Original Message ---- Let's look at how the Buddha acted. Undoubtedly, there were social injustices at the time of the Buddha. Are there examples in the Suttas of the Buddha getting himself involved to try and rectify them? I don't know of any (I admit that my knowledge of the Suttas is weaker than it should be). I know that the Buddha got involved on issues of personal salvation, but I am not sure that he involved himself in "general causes". If I were in your shoes, I would point out that Buddhists believe that all killing is bad and that Buddhists promote patience. Undoubtedly, the person asking will say that this perspective is impractical in this situation because... If they are receptive to listening, show them the Subhasita-jaya Sutta (on page 113 of my Class Notes), the debate on patience. I think that it may be relevant. Of course, promoting patience does not preclude the signing of a petition. Look at the example of the Dali Lama and Tibet. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15748 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sun Sep 15, 2002 11:13pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Dear Christine, I have not been a monk for a long time and when I say something or do something I always call my Upajha in Sydney and ask for his advice. My Upajha is a Laotian monk of 42 years in the monkhood and he explained to me that it is impossible to ordain a woman as a monk because they need five ordained female monks. I am not a male chauvinist , unfortunally it came that way in my explanations. My upajha has forbid me to participate in any discussion or procedures that will ordain a female as a monk, that is why I took my time to call alltheravatan temples to ask every abbot their feelings about this. I am replying to you because you were so kind and respectfull and I am very grateful for that. As per monks handling money or having a job, Once again I asked my upajha and 19 senior monks what should I do. They told me that it was ok to work as a teacher (right view, right prof), I do not handle the money. The money is paid into the monastery account, all expenses are paid from there, the rest goes to the drug reab programme. As you have read in all news papers and TV in Australia, two years ago I gave almost 50 million US$ away, but I will not lie. I put in trust for me 10 millions US$ in Hawaii, only to be retrive in case that I leave the monkhood. I will work very hard to support the monastery with my work and efforts and beleive me I am trying very hard to keep every single rule of the Patimoka and the Vinaya so No criticims will come to me.With much metta and gratitude. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Enviado el: Lunes, Septiembre 16, 2002 07:16 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Ven. Yanatharo, Sir, I am suffering from some confusion and I wonder if you could be of assistance in dispelling it please ... In your only other letter to this forum, Sir, you authoritatively stated: " As I said for the last two years no Theravada monk in Australia, I contacted all the temples 12 months ago) will participate or ordain a female as a monk. I will always oppose it. And to ordain a female monk you nedd a minimum of FIVE ORDAINED FEMALES MONKS, at the moment there is no even one. With all my respect you should close this debate because it will go no where. Metta. Venerable Yanatharo, Buddhist Chaplain University of Canberra" I assumed that you were speaking about the unassailable and unchanging Vinaya, which, we are told has been observed by the Sangha through unimaginable difficulties for two and a half thousand years. I wonder if I am correct in that assumption? Perhaps my error, Sir, is in supposing that it was the inalterable Vinaya (which is said to make it impossible for the reconstitution of the Bhikkhuni Sangha) that forbad Monks to work in ordinary wage paying jobs, or handle money, like a layperson? I ask your teaching (and correction?) on this matter, Sir. Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: 15749 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Ven. Yanatharo, Sir, I appreciate your frank reply. I have learned a lesson from you today - that what I initially take to be the 'only' meaning of a post isn't always so, and isn't always what the writer intended to say. Knowing the background information has been helpful. Thank you, Sir. with metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Christine, I have not been a monk for a long time and when I say > something or do something I always call my Upajha in Sydney and ask for his > advice. My Upajha is a Laotian monk of 42 years in the monkhood and he > explained to me that it is impossible to ordain a woman as a monk because > they need five ordained female monks. I am not a male chauvinist , > unfortunally it came that way in my explanations. My upajha has forbid me to > participate in any discussion or procedures that will ordain a female as a > monk, that is why I took my time to call alltheravatan temples to ask every > abbot their feelings about this. > I am replying to you because you were so kind and respectfull and I am very > grateful for that. > As per monks handling money or having a job, Once again I asked my upajha > and 19 senior monks what should I do. They told me that it was ok to work as > a teacher (right view, right prof), I do not handle the money. The money is > paid into the monastery account, all expenses are paid from there, the rest > goes to the drug reab programme. As you have read in all news papers and TV > in Australia, two years ago I gave almost 50 million US$ away, but I will > not lie. I put in trust for me 10 millions US$ in Hawaii, only to be retrive > in case that I leave the monkhood. I will work very hard to support the > monastery with my work and efforts and beleive me I am trying very hard to > keep every single rule of the Patimoka and the Vinaya so No criticims will > come to me.With much metta and gratitude. Ven. Yanatharo > 15750 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hi Howard, Just a few words... Howard: I've had the same issues with vedana, also because of Mr Goenka's formulation. It was either Sarah or Nina (I'm sorry, ladies - I forget which of you) who cleared it up for me. Vedana is, indeed, a feeling of pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality conditioned by some bodily sensation (rupa) or by a thought or memory (nama). So a pain, for example, is a feeling of unpleasantness conditioned by a bodily sensation such as a throbbing or pressure or sharpness etc. The throbbing or pressure or sharpness etc is rupa, and the feeling of unpleasantness conditioned by it is the pain vedana. And neither of these is the aversion - the aversive reaction is sankhara. This is how I now understand the matter. I may still be off in some way on this, and I stand to be corrected. Dan: The sensing of the pressure is viññana (body-consciousness). Rupa is the thing sensed. A question to ponder...Is domanassa a kind of vedana (as unpleasant mental feeling) or sankhara (as aversion reaction)? Also, it is useful at times to think of sankhara as "reaction," but there is also a danger. Try reading through your list of cetasikas in CMA and see if you can't understand them also as the coloration of cittas (the way things are at the moment), and as active generators of samsara (rather than just reactive). Dan 15751 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana Hi Frank, Sorry it took so long to get back to you... Dan: I think back to how KS's explanation fits so well with Bhikkhu Bodhi's definition of 'vedana' as: "the affective tone of experience - - pleasure, pain, or neutral feeling -- which occurs on every occasion of experience through any of the six sense faculties." Issue resolved. Frank: Exactly. How we react to feeling each moment - with pleasure, aversion, ignorance, or understanding the nature of feeling is what's important. Right there is our dukkhometer measuring the quality of happiness we experience right now. Knowing whether cheetahs move at the speed of light or whether they arise concurrently with lobsters and other atomic realities doesn't really matter. -->Dan: 1. So, suppose the dukkhometer reads, "Suffering, suffering, suffering, suffering, suffering..." I decide to go the movies and eat a bowl of popcorn to see if I can't turn down the volume a little. "Ah! That's better!" Issue resolved? 2. Understanding how fast cheaters run is crucial. Otherwise, you might think you'll be able to keep up with them by "reacting"! Dan 15752 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 4:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal meditation practice (was, Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice) Rob Ep Hi! This is the first of a number of replies to your posts that I'll be posting over the next day or so. You will notice that I've done quite a lot of trimming, because I found there was a fair bit of repetition among the different threads. Please feel free to pick me up on anything that I haven't addressed in my replies. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, <> Thanks, Rob. And the same to you from me, too. <> The emphasis of what I've been saying, or trying to say, in this thread is that to my reading the teachings do not advocate a 'formal meditation practice' as the prescribed means of developing satipatthana, and nor do they recommend a 'daily life practice', a 'sutta reading practice', an 'abhidhamma practice' or indeed any particular kind of 'practice'. What they do is to explain, in great detail and repeatedly, the conditions necessary for the development of insight. What are those conditions? In brief, they are (1) hearing the true dhamma (for which one is dependent on meeting the right person(s)), (2) considering and reflecting on what has been heard, so that one has having a solid grasp of its meaning, and (3) applying what has been thus understood to the present moment of experience. So while it is not a 'practice' in the generally understood sense of that word, it is by no means 'doing nothing'. <> The subject that I referred to as being discussed at length in the suttas is insight (i.e., the understanding that leads to release from samara) both what it is and what are the factors necessary for or conducive to its development. In terms of what is to be found in the suttas, the Satipatthana Sutta is a pretty good place to start. A lot can be learnt from a close reading of that sutta, but of course not in isolation from the rest of the tipitaka. Fortunately for us, the commentary and sub-commentary are still available in English translation. I think it's best to read the suttas without the bias of a particular 'practice' of any kind. <> All I can say on this is that the whole thrust of the teachings seems to be the development of understanding of a presently arising dhamma/phenomena, regardless of what that dhamma is. Throughout the suttas one finds mention of these dhammas/phenomena, presented under different classifications and from different angels (khandhas ayatanas, dhatus), but always the same dhammas. No priority is assigned to one kind of dhamma over another (wholesome vs. unwholesome mental states, rupas vs. namas), as regards the development of insight into their true characteristics. Also, the idea that insight can be aroused by directing one's attention to an object/to the task seems to run directly counter to the teaching on not-self. If dhammas are not-self in the sense of not being subject to our control, and of arising only when the necessary conditions occur, this would seem to imply that no level of kusala can be brought on by directed attention. If you argument/supposition was correct and the Buddha's teachings supported the selecting of certain objects in preference to others for the development of insight (and this, after all, is what directed attention is all about), then I imagine the quickest way to find the relevant sutta references would be to look among the writings of the well-known insight meditation teachers, who presumably have assembled textual references in support of their practices (but I understand that iin fact they each have their own ideas about which should be the preferred objects). Jon 15753 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Rob Ep I think we're in danger of straying from the central point of this thread which was, Did the Buddha teach formal meditation practice as the way of development of understanding? In your post below you bring up a slightly different point (without conceding on the first, I'm sure ;-)), namely, that even if formal meditation practice isn't what the Buddha taught, a person can still develop understanding by that means of such a practice as long as he is aware of the potential pitfalls. I'm not sure I see this as being a productive line for discussion. Let me just say that while I believe that awareness can arise at any time if the necessary conditions are present, it is my understanding that wishing for/willing awareness to arise is not one of those conditions, and would indeed be antipathetic to that aim. I would be interested to know which of the following you think is the more useful to discuss, ponder over and learn more about: the development of insight at times of formal meditation practice, or the development of insight during the remaining part of our lives -- 95% or more for most of us, I suspect -- that is not, and will never be, a time of formal meditation practice. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > <> If as you suggest "some development of concentration and awareness is necessary to focus consciousness on its own object with mindfulness", one would expect to find this stated or at least strongly implicit in the suttas or commentaries. To my reading, however, the suttas emphasise the same factors -- listening, considering, applying -- for disciples of all levels of understanding, without distinction. <> Is there here an idea (express or implicit, gross or subtle) that without such preliminary 'work' there cannot realistically be any level of discernment of presently arising realties? If so, wouldn't the effect of this be to take one away from the present moment that is present now (pardon the tautology)? <> Just for the record, this is not what I have been trying to convey ;-)). To put it somewhat more directly, I'm saying one needs to forget all about trying to follow any practice. It would be better to keep in mind that the aim is to come to a better understanding of how things are right now at this very moment, and that the prerequisites given by the Buddha for this are firstly paying more attention to what he actually said about the way things are at the present moment and, secondly, seeing for oneself whether what he said appears to be consistent with one's own moment-to-moment experience. <> For all we know, neither may be necessary (that is to say, in the terms in which we perceive them)! Jon 15754 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Jon. <> The point I was trying to make here was that there is nothing in the expression 'mindfulness of breathing' itself that connotes any idea of 'meditation'. Is there any reason to use a term other than the term chosen by the Buddha, particularly when the alternative term has definite overtones as regards manner of practice that are not found in the original? [I'm sure Howard will be with me on this point ;-))] <> I think you will have seen my thoughts on this already, as mentioned in recent posts to Howard and Erik. In summary (an somewhat simplistically), the Anapanasati Sutta is a teaching on attaining to the superior kind of insight known as 'insight both ways', based on jhana, in this case jhana with breath as object. As such, is directed at those who have already attained jhana with breath as object or who are potentially capable of doing so. For such individuals, breath is already a naturally arising object in their daily life, a daily life that is far different from yours and mine. So, no, I do not read this sutta as *advocating* anything about taking a particular object for insight development. <> Well, this may not have been a point I was trying to make ;-)). But since you mention it, it is worth keeping in mind when reading about *apparently* 'formal' sitting and focussing on the breath that what for you and me would not be taking place except as part of a 'formal session' may, in the context of the sutta, be describing a part of the daily life of the person(s) to or about whom the sutta speaks. <> A good question. As I have indicated, the sutta was given for the benefit of those (monks) who are already highly adept at attending to the breath (actually, its nimitta) as an object of samatha, and for those persons the sutta is indeed about the discernment of an 'everyday object'. <> The commentaries on the Satipatthana Sutta have much to say on this subject, and are well worth spending some time looking at. <> Something to consider: is the breath ever a presently appearing reality for you in your normal daily life? If the answer to that is yes, then the realities that comprise what is taken for breath (the rupas of harness/softness, or heat/cold) as such moments could be the object of mindfulness, but only if the conditions for mindfulness to arise were present. So it is the conditions for mindfulness that needs developing, not the attention to breath. <> No, but we're getting closer, aren't we? (please say we are...). Jon 15755 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Overstepping the line --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - ... > ================================= > Here's my 2 cents. > From the political perspective, I feel that I just don't know the > facts. I think it likely that Iraq does have some "weapons of mass > destruction" and that its government is working to obtain deliverable > nuclear weapons. ... ...to (quickly and unambiguously) remove the sting from this situation. > Some people may be truly convinced that the Iraqi regime has > showed > itself, ... ... > With metta, > Howard > > P.S. To the moderators: I think this thread may be right at the margin of > what is acceptable on this list. If I have overstepped the line here, I > apologize. Please let me know if I have. Well, since you ask, and for the benefit of other members who may be wondering, yes most of it is off-topic. We'd appreciate it if others don't pursue the political angle. Thanks for your cooperation. Jon (& Sarah) 15756 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha, Samadhi and Right Concentration Howard I'm sure you've had the experience of gaining some real understanding into an essential aspect of the teachings, at whatever level, outside the context of some kind of 'practice'. For example, while reflecting on an earlier discussion/exchange and, perhaps unconsciously, 'testing' what you are considering against your present experience. In fact I remember some very useful posts of yours summarising recent discussions and adding your own 'insights' gained from further reflection. It might be interesting to consider what's going on at such times. It's not a situation of 'willing' because there is no idea at the time of following any kind of 'practice'. Yet one is not exactly doing nothing either. I liked Christine's mention recently of reading through a book that she hadn't looked at for some time and realising how much knowledge she had gained since that last time through. Of course, no-one is saying it must be a deep level of understanding, but the point is that understanding of whatever level is something that grows naturally if the soil and other nurturing conditions are there; it's not something that is *made* to grow (think of the adze-handle simile). Hoping you won't find this post as frustrating as my previous reply in this thread ! ;-)) (for which my apologies). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh. Well, good, Jon - so there's nothing I need to do. What will > be, > will be. That's good. It certainly makes my life easier - less > complicated. > If I sleepwalk through my days and exert no effort to do otherwise, > that's > unfortuanate, but just my accumulations. If "the direct experience of > dhammas > " should happen, that will be nice, and, if not, well - c'est la vie. > Nothing > to do. Nothing to cultivate. > I apologize for the irony, Jon, but this is how I evaluate what > you > are saying. There is nothing for us to do, no actions that we should or > can > take. What is it, then, to be a practicing Buddhist? If, to put into > practice > the teachings of the Buddha does not require *doing* something, > exercising of > will, then everyone is a Buddhist practitioner. I'm sorry, but this > no-exercise-of-volition position just escapes me. (I'm speaking > conventionally here, Jon. I know that there is no "us" to be doing > anything. > I know there is no "you" and no "me" - but still I write to you! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ 15757 From: Frank Kuan Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 6:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hi Dan, Good to hear from you. Where have you been hiding? --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > Dan: The sensing of the pressure is viññana > (body-consciousness). > Rupa is the thing sensed. > Makes sense to me, but to add to the confusion, there is the 5 type of feeling classification, which lists physical feeling as 2 of the 5 types (pleasant physical and painful physical). Sticking my head in ice cold water is painful sometimes (produces painful MENTAL feeling). Is it a painful physical feeling? I don't think so. If I have a bunch of mosquito bites, the very same cold water feels (MENTALLY) pleasant. -fk 15758 From: Frank Kuan Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana > -->Dan: > 1. So, suppose the dukkhometer reads, "Suffering, > suffering, > suffering, suffering, suffering..." I decide to go > the movies and eat > a bowl of popcorn to see if I can't turn down the > volume a > little. "Ah! That's better!" Issue resolved? > Dan, what you're talking about there is the worldling dukkhometer. You need to upgrade to the mega-ariyan-XL brand, which clearly indicates that eating popcorn to produce pleasant feeling has the underlying tendency to lust, which immediately sets off the dukkha alert. > 2. Understanding how fast cheaters run is crucial. > Otherwise, you > might think you'll be able to keep up with them by > "reacting"! > Much more important is to know what conditions the different types of feelings, and how to react to those feelings with wisdom instead of delusion. You can study abidhamma all day and memorize a bunch of tables and numbers, but if you don't practice mindfulness and skillful response to feeling, your quality of life is not going to improve (appreciably). I'm in the camp of 99% practice and 1 % theory. -fk 15759 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 8:40am Subject: The Right Mone Making By A Theravadin Monk Is Okay: To Sayadaw Yanatharo Dear Sayadaw Yanatharo I am glad to know that you have been teaching chemistry and biochemistry at the University of Canberra. These subjects are modern branches of Abhidhamma as they deal with matter that is one of the ultimate realities (paramattha dhammaa). So, what you have been doing is teaching Abhidhamma as far as I am concerned. If you haven't already done so, all you need to do now is inclusion of three characteristics of nature whenever you teach those subjects. This should make them as proper formal subjects of Abhidhamma. As you have already known, the three characteristics of nature are impermanence, misery, and selflessness. Ruupam aniccam, ruupam dukkham, and ruupam anattam should become your new aphorisms and instructions whenever you teach chemistry and biochemistry. Matter is impermanent, matter entails misery (attachment to matter leads to misery), and matter is selfless. You are in a far better position than anyone else to demonstrate how a chemical phenomenon can emerge only when test conditions are present. So chemical phenomena are selfless. Does pa.ticcasammuppaada (dependent emergence) ring the bell? As soon as you have converted chemistry and biochemistry into the proper divisions of Abhidhamma, you become an Abhidhammika, a specialist and teacher of Abhidhamma. Then, what you have been teaching at the university becomes what a Theravadin monk should have been doing all along. Any salary that you have been being given in return for teaching matter divisions of Abhidhamma also automatically becomes donations to you by the university. As soon as you have converted the salary into donations in the above manner, the so-called employment also becomes the right livelihood (sammaa aajiivo), which is one component of the Noble Eightfold Path. Since you have been following the Noble Eightfold Path, you are perfectly in line with Pali Vinaya Pi.taka. Now, please allow me to give you examples of how Theravadin Sayadaws in Myanmar earn the right livelihood. The late Sayadaw U Vicittasaaraabhivamsa was a Tipi.takadharo (one who can recite the whole Pali Tipi.taka from memory). He was also one of the key participants in Cha.t.tasangaayanaa (the Sixth Congress Recital). He had written "The Great Biography Of The Buddha" (Mahaa Buddhavamsa) in many volumes. The Myanmar readers buy those books. The money generated from the sale of those books becomes donations to the great Sayadaw and his monastery. The late Mahaasi Sayadaw was also one of the key participants in the Sixth Congress Recital. He was also a very prolific writer, and published many books on Buddhism. Every city in Myanmar has distributors of his books. Needless to say, the money generated from the sale of those books becomes donations to the great Sayadaw and his monastery. I have bought his work on Mahaasatipa.t.thana Suttam, his translation of Vissudhimagga, and four volumes of Visuddhimagga Mahaatiikaa Pali Nissaya. And, the late Ashin Janakaabhivamsa was also one of the key participants in the Sixth Congress Recital. He had written all the textbooks on Pali grammar and all the Abhidhamma commentaries and subcommentaries into modern Pali Nissaya texts. By the way, I have bought all those Abhidhamma A.t.thakathaa and Tiikaa Pali Nissaya Texts except those on Dhaatukathaa and Puggalapaññatti (to be bought in future). The Sayadaw once wrote that he had been criticized by some for writing popular textbooks and making money from book sales. But, he had to support more than 500 monks studying under him and a very large monastery in Amarapura (near Mandalay) to accommodate those monks. The above three Sayadaws are only examples who wrote books that sell. In fact, ever since the British Colonial Government introduced printing machines to the former British Burma, the Myanmar Sayadaws wrote and published Buddhist texts that sell. The money generated from book sales goes towards support for the monks and the monasteries. Here, I do not see any difference between the money from book sales and the salary from teaching at the university. Therefore, Sayadaw Yanatharo should not have any qualms about receiving salary from teaching at the university. As long as you treat that salary as donation to the Theravadii sangha (sanghika vatthu), and handle it acording to the rules of Vanaya, you are simply earning the right livelihood. With fivefold-touch bow, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 15760 From: Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hi, Dan - In a message dated 9/16/02 6:39:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhd5@c... writes: > > Hi Howard, > Just a few words... > > Howard: I've had the same issues with vedana, also because of Mr > Goenka's formulation. It was either Sarah or Nina (I'm sorry, ladies - > I forget which of you) who cleared it up for me. Vedana is, indeed, a > feeling of pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality conditioned by > some bodily sensation (rupa) or by a thought or memory (nama). So a > pain, for example, is a feeling of unpleasantness conditioned by a > bodily sensation such as a throbbing or pressure or sharpness etc. > The throbbing or pressure or sharpness etc is rupa, and the feeling > of unpleasantness conditioned by it is the pain vedana. And neither > of these is the aversion - the aversive reaction is sankhara. This is > how I now understand the matter. I may still be off in some way on > this, and I stand to be corrected. > > Dan: The sensing of the pressure is viññana (body-consciousness). > Rupa is the thing sensed. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, the pressure is rupa and the sensing of it is vi~n~nana. When I speak of a "sensation" I mean the thing sensed, the rupa, and not the sensing, the vi~n~nana. It does seem to me, however, that the cognizing of paramattha dhammas, especially through the body door, is closer to being a nondual experience than the cognizing of pa~n~natti. For example, coldness in my hands and the experiencing of that coldness are closer to indistinguishable to me than are the tree in my garden and my observing of it (visually). ----------------------------------------------------- > > A question to ponder...Is domanassa a kind of vedana (as unpleasant > mental feeling) or sankhara (as aversion reaction)? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know, but Nyanatiloka gives it as vedana. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also, it is useful at times to think of sankhara as "reaction," but > there is also a danger. Try reading through your list of cetasikas in > CMA and see if you can't understand them also as the coloration of > cittas (the way things are at the moment), and as active generators > of samsara (rather than just reactive). > > Dan > > ================================ 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) 15761 From: Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha, Samadhi and Right Concentration Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/16/02 8:51:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > I'm sure you've had the experience of gaining some real understanding into > an essential aspect of the teachings, at whatever level, outside the > context of some kind of 'practice'. For example, while reflecting on an > earlier discussion/exchange and, perhaps unconsciously, 'testing' what you > are considering against your present experience. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider such reflecting and comparing against experience an element of practice. I think that contemplation of the Dhamma and ongoing mindfulness during "ordinary times" and guarding the senses during "ordinary times" are all essential elements of practice. (And I also consider contemplation and observation from a state of deep concentration and calm obtained by formal meditation to be essential as well.) ----------------------------------------------------- In fact I remember some> > very useful posts of yours summarising recent discussions and adding your > own 'insights' gained from further reflection. > > It might be interesting to consider what's going on at such times. It's > not a situation of 'willing' because there is no idea at the time of > following any kind of 'practice'. Yet one is not exactly doing nothing > either. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it seems to me that cetana is operative most of the time, though it is normally aimed at immediate matters. We can will all we want about end-results to no avail. Ultimate goals require that specific intermediate conditions be attained. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I liked Christine's mention recently of reading through a book that she > hadn't looked at for some time and realising how much knowledge she had > gained since that last time through. Of course, no-one is saying it must > be a deep level of understanding, but the point is that understanding of > whatever level is something that grows naturally if the soil and other > nurturing conditions are there; it's not something that is *made* to grow > (think of the adze-handle simile). > > Hoping you won't find this post as frustrating as my previous reply in > this thread ! ;-)) (for which my apologies). > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm very relaxed in replying to this post, Jon! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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) 15762 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] trip Bgk op 15-09-2002 14:59 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > ..... > Btw, we’ll probably be seeing B.Bodhi when he is in Hong Kong in a couple > of weeks’ time, so if anyone has anything in particular they’d like > addressed to him, we can try to help. (Nina, I remember you asked me to > check about using his translation of CariyaPitaka Atthakatha which I’ll do > unless you tell me otherwise). Dear Sarah, wonderful. He translated onl;y the last part of the Cariyapitaka, the `pkinnaka Katha, and from this I quoted parts. Good if you can mention it. S: Also, this reminds me, the last weekend in November, there will be quite a > gathering of us in Bangkok.....from DSG, Nina, Rob K, Christine, Azita, > Num, Betty & Sukin and ourselves with K.Sujin. N: getting excited, wonderful to meet all the friends, and also Azita after such a long time. Could Azita take her diary with notes of Phra Dhammadharo, a good topic. But all depends on conditions, such as the world situation. We hope to be there from Nov. 27. Best wishes Nina. 15763 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:I am walking Dear Ken H and Howard, I would like to add something that was quoted before by Rob K from the Co to the satipatthana Sutta (tr. ven. Soma) about the sentence: I am going: Because of the operation of different elements there can be what we call going. There are only nama and rupa elements, no person. This can be realized through awareness of them as they appear one at a time. That is the contemplation contained in this sutta. It goes for each item. They may seem conventional terms, but they bring us to the reality of this moment. We can use the words mulling over, reflecting, contemplation, meditation, it does not matter what we call it, but we should know that there are many levels of contemplation: intellectual understanding, which is the foundation for direct awareness, and later on awareness can develop so that panna can perform its function of direct understanding. A gradual process. Howard wrote: I've owned a copy of the Visuddhimagga for years, and have yet to really get through it. (The best I've done is look at parts of it from time to time.) I don't like to have significant works just sitting around un-read! ;-)) Nina: it makes very good and interesting reading with many edifying stories. The subjects of meditation of samatha give us many good thoughts for daily life, such as about death, the Triple Gem, foulness of food, brahma viharas. If you have some time, you will not regret reading the Vis. Best wishes from Nina. op 15-09-2002 12:28 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > When, in the Satipatthana Sutta, he said that a monk who > is walking, knows he is walking, again we should be > enthralled. No longer does that monk harbour the > delusion that `he' and `walking' have the characteristic, > dukkha; now he has the realisation, "when I am walking, > there is nothing more than dukkha (paramattha dhammas)." > > > Ken H > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: >> Hi, all - >> >> I list below portions of the Satipatthana Sutta which seem > to me to >> rather unambiguously describe thinking/contemplation as part of the > practice. >> (I will set off what I wish to draw particular attention to by > using double >> vertical bars, ||, before and after the material): >> ********************************** >> 1) Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is > walking. >> When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he > discerns >> that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying > down. Or >> however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. >> [Upasaka note: Walking, standing, sitting, and lying down > are all >> pa~n~natti] >> 15764 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:40am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Elements of Thinking/Contemplation in Vipassana Bhavana Dear Ken, > -----Original Message----- > From: kenhowardau [mailto:kenhowardau@y...] > When, in the Satipatthana Sutta, he said that a monk who > is walking, knows he is walking, again we should be > enthralled. No longer does that monk harbour the > delusion that `he' and `walking' have the characteristic, > dukkha; now he has the realisation, "when I am walking, > there is nothing more than dukkha (paramattha dhammas)." > I am delighted to hear this explanation. In the past week discussion (where we had tons of food, chaos everywhere), I asked A. Sujin about dhamma inside and dhamma outside (in the Satipatthana sutta) and what is meant by knowing the outside dhamma (because I can only guess about other people's feelings). A. Sujin said that before learning about the buddha's teachings, we think of the different dhammas as mine or others', but after having listened to the teachings, we sometimes start to think (or directly know) that is just another dhamma that appears. kom 15765 From: Ruth Klein Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 3:59pm Subject: Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons This is a rather personal account of my weekend that I want to share, as it taught me a very valuable lesson. It may be rather difficult to explain in email, so bear with the circles of a wandering mind and the constraints of BBS posting. I spent this past weekend as observing 8 precepts at a Thai monastery in Oklahoma City. I have been attending evening chanting there 3-4 times a week since I 'discovered' the Wat on my return to school in late August. The 2 resident monks are Thai and speak very little English. There are several lay supporters who I have met who have acted as rough translators, although their English is also pretty broken. Anyway, one of my 'translators', Somporn, invited me to spend the weekend with her. I went to the weekend with certain expectations: Somporn wanted to live as a nun, I wanted only to have a quiet space for meditation and also to be around the 'more spiritually advanced' - i.e. the monks - for inspiration and to be able to ask for assistance. I also only had one other experience at a different monastery, so I brought the memory of that visit with me. Even though I didn't want to ordain, per se, I did agree to wear the customary white clothing of people observing 8 training precepts. So to start off with I was uncomfortable in borrowed clothes, and surrounded by people speaking mostly Thai. But Saturday night I got through a 2 hour chanting service ok and then got to do about 1 hour of meditation before I just had to get some sleep. By Sunday at 10am the monastery was filled with lay people and families. This was not the graceful group of supporters that I had found at Wat Metta in CA, but seemed rather to me like a swarm of bees. They were all dressed in their 'Sunday best' and the air was filled with the buzz of conversations. These didn't stop when the service started. So from my completely 19th century western perspective on etiquette, felt to me quite rude. Let me try to explain a little better. I had gotten used to the alms round at Wat Metta. At first it seemed a bit forced - a simulation of a Thai village - where the monks process past a single line of silent lay people, each putting a bit of food in the monks' alms bowl. Rice is used ceremonially, as it is dumped out after the procession and the real meal is then offered to the monks when they return to the meditation hall. Just before eating the senior monk leads a short prayer, all the monks join in a chant, and then while they eat, the lay people chant their gratitude to have such venerable spiritual leaders. Cleanup continues in silence and then the laity depart to eat their own meal. Of course I brought with me that all temples operate like that! Ha! Yesterday, everything took place in the hall - the monks sitting on a small platform, their bowls in front of them and people crawling around trying to put some rice into each bowl. While this was going on there was a man talking loudly in Thai over the PA system. I have no idea what he was saying, but no one seemed to be listening anyway as they continued to talk amongst themselves. It continued even when the monks started chanting and all through the meal. And everyone ate at once. With my head swimming through the language barrier, my perceived rudeness from a western system of etiquette, and actually being the only caucasian it became too much. I actually left the hall for about 1/2 hour and walked around with this overwhelming feeling that I just didn't belong there, but that I knew I couldn't go back 'from whence I had come' because I don't belong there anymore either. Like everything, though, the feeling passed, and I returned to the sala just in time to miss all of lunch - the 6th precept is to keep from eating after noon. I was, however, invited to speak to the senior monk, and he seemed to realize what had happened and assured me that I was doing a good thing for my practice and that I could always find a home wherever I kept the Dhamma. As things cleared out and I actually did find some solitude and some time for personal reflection, I realized that though my beliefs are changing, they are not completely changed and I'm not comfortable yet with my own internal refuge. So when things got uncomfortable outside, I had nowhere to turn inside to find any comfort. Evening chanting and early morning chanting this morning went much more smoothly for me. I had another long talk with Ajahn Somkit who starting teaching me to speak Thai - and in return I am to help him to learn English. There's positive action! And I do, once again, feel welcome. BTW, Nina, Tan Ajahn gave me one of your books to read - Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. I think more to practice reading Thai than anything else, since this copy has English and Thai on facing pages. :) He seemed quite amused that I've 'talked' to you via the internet! May you find your own refuge, Ruth 15766 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons Dear Ruth, Thankyou for sharing your experiences. --- Ruth Klein wrote: > > By Sunday at 10am the monastery was filled with lay people and > families. > This was not the graceful group of supporters that I had found at Wat > Metta > in CA, but seemed rather to me like a swarm of bees. They were all > dressed > in their 'Sunday best' and the air was filled with the buzz of > conversations. These didn't stop when the service started. So from > my > completely 19th century western perspective on etiquette, felt to me > quite > rude. ..... I understand very well. I remember when I went to my first Thai funeral (long ago) and having a similar reaction to the laughter, conversation and non-stop eating which continued while the monks chanted and the service proceeded. Now I realise that much of my perception of ‘rude’ comes from the social, cultural values I’ve been brought up with. I still find the background noise so prevalent in Hong Kong and Thailand (such as in restaurants, or on coach tours) unpleasant and a problem, however, even though I know others like it. Like you find, the internal refuge is often lacking;-) I think it helps to know our own accumulations or inclinations at these times and not to feel we ‘should’ fit in like everyone else. Nina always remembers the dosa (aversion) I felt one time when I visited the Temple of the Tooth in Kandy and we were supposdedly paying respects in a small, stuffy room absolutely full of people. On our recent visit to Kandy with the Thai group, on the appointed day for the visit to this temple, I was pretty sick and opted for some extra sleep instead. I never feel I need to pay respect in the same way as others or to set any rules. I always enjoy this passage from the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta under the section of the 4 clear comprehensions (sampaja~n~na): “Among these four kinds of clear comprehension, the clear comprehension of purpose is the comprehension of (a worthy) purpose after considering what is worthy and not worthy, with the thought, "Is there any use to one by this going or is there not?" One does this not having gone immediately, just by the influence of the thought, at the very moment the thought of going forwards is born. In this context, purpose is growth according to the Dhamma, by way of visiting a relic shrine, Tree of Enlightenment (Bodhi Tree), the Sangha, the elders, and a place where the dead are cast (a cemetery) for seeing the unlovely (a corpse, a skeleton and the like). By visiting a relic shrine, a Bodhi Tree, or the Sangha, for producing spiritual interest, and by meditating on the waning of that interest one could reach arahantship; by visiting elders and by getting established in their instruction one could reach arahantship; and by visiting a place where the dead are cast, by seeing a corpse there and by producing the first absorption (pathamajjhana] in that unlovely object, one could reach arahantship. So the visiting of these is purposeful. Clear comprehension of suitability is the comprehension of the suitable after considering what is suitable and not. For instance, the visiting of a relic shrine could be quite (worthily) purposeful. But when a great offering is made to a relic shrine, a multitude of people in a ten or twelve yojana area gather, and men and women according to their position go about adorned like painted figures. And if in that crowd greed could arise for the bhikkhu in an attractive object, resentment in a non-attractive one, and delusion through prejudice; if he could commit the offence of sexual intercourse; or if harm could come to the holy life of purity; then, a place like that relic shrine would not be suitable. When there could be no such harm it would be suitable. The visiting of the Savgha is a purpose of worth. Still when there is all-night preaching in a big pandal in the inner village and there are crowds and one could possibly come to hurt and harm in the way mentioned earlier, that place of preaching is not suitable to go to. When there is no hurt or harm possible one may go there as it would then be suitable. In visiting elders who are surrounded by a large following suitability and non-suitability should also be determined in the way stated above.” ***** > As things cleared out and I actually did find some solitude and some > time > for personal reflection, I realized that though my beliefs are > changing, > they are not completely changed and I'm not comfortable yet with my > own > internal refuge. So when things got uncomfortable outside, I had > nowhere to > turn inside to find any comfort. ..... It’s good that you appreciate what the real causes of the discomfort are at such times - i.e. ‘internal’ rather than ‘external’. ..... > > Evening chanting and early morning chanting this morning went much > more > smoothly for me. I had another long talk with Ajahn Somkit who > starting > teaching me to speak Thai - and in return I am to help him to learn > English. > There's positive action! And I do, once again, feel welcome. BTW, > Nina, > Tan Ajahn gave me one of your books to read - Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. > I > think more to practice reading Thai than anything else, since this > copy has > English and Thai on facing pages. :) He seemed quite amused that I've > 'talked' to you via the internet! ..... It sounds like a very happy and useful ending and TA Somkit sounds very understanding. I know Nina will be happy to hear that one of her books is being put to such good use and I’m very impressed that you are learning to read Thai already. So often the problem lies in the expectations. Next time you visit, it won’t be such a shock and you’ll also have more idea of what is tolerable or useful for you, though I hope you don’t go hungry again;-) Sometimes we can just appreciate the value of patience (but not always;-)). > > May you find your own refuge, Likewise and best wishes, Sarah ===== 15767 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] subtle point Dear Nina (& Kom), ***For others, a definition from Dhammasangani: “What is that (material) form which is bodily intimation (kaayavi~n~natti)? That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in rsponse to a thought, whether good , bad or indeterminate, on the part of one who advances, or recedes, of fixes the gaze, or glances around, or retracts and arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the making known, the state of having made known - this is that (material) form which constitutes bodily intimation.”*** ***** --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah > Thank you very much. I have an older edition, less Pali. But I have the > Pali > of Fruits of Recluseship, and this is the same sort of passage. What is > difficult for me: what is the monk conveying to himself here by > kayavinnatti? I go forward with mindfulness? ..... Let me just add a few tentative comments after looking at the posts on this thread again (apologies in advance if I’m missing the point or for any errors). 1.The meaning conveyed by the kayavinnatti is the going forward. There is the intention to move and the ‘mind-originated air element’ arises with the citta producing the kayavinnatti (bodily intimation). This is the same for all, regardless of any ‘knowing’. 2. The distinction for the one with ‘clear comprehension’ is that there is no illusion of a self walking forward or a self directing actions. Instead there is the understanding ‘of mere phenomena’ and so on..ie namas and rupas. As you said, the same or similar passages (quoted again at the end for others) appear in many texts inc. Satipatthana Sutta com along with other examples used to stress (as I understand) the essential Teachings- i.e satipatthana whilst following any activity - sitting, stretching, walking, putting on robes, eating, defecating...... I don’t read that it is necessarily at all “the bodydoor of his kusala kamma since he develops samatha and vipassana while walking” . I believe it would more likely be kusala kamma through a subsequent mind-door process, for example, in between the body door and other sense-door processes. 3.As Kom reported, bodily kamma may or may not be committed using kayavinnatti (though, Kom in your ‘Godfather example with the ‘nod’, I would have thought that kayavinnatti would be involved in this movement too - even in a prticular ‘look’). Also when there is kayavinnatti ‘making known an intention by means of bodily movement’, there may or may not be bodily kamma patha. For example, one may move forward and step on an insect accidentally or on purpose, depending on the intention. There may even be stepping forward to avoid harming the insect. So in these cases, what the person would be conveying to himself by kayavinnatti would be different accordingly. I was just looking at the sections under the 4 sampajanna ( (clear comprehension) in the Satipatthana sutta com and sub com for my post to Ruth.I mentioned under the first ‘clear comprehension of purpose’, the example of visiting a relic shrine or Bodhi Tree or Sangha or a corpse. Whilst walking in the direction with a ‘pure’ purpose or paying respect, perhaps there can be kusala kamma through body or mind. Someone may remind me of the fine details on kusala kamma patha. 4. I think the reason KS stressed to Kom that kayavinnatti only lasts ‘one citta moment’ when ‘the citta conditions the communication of meanings’ is to show that there are so many different phenomena involved whilst stepping forward and also various mind and sense door processes. It’s impossible to know or ‘catch’ which process or doorway, panna arises in or to know just when there is kusala/akusala kamma patha. Usually, we walk forward in ignorance, but occasionally there may be awareness of any nama or rupa at these times too (without any selection or special action) and at each moment of awareness with panna, there is a little more detaching from the idea of self. ***** Nina, as usual I’ve just raised more questions than answers. I'm not sure if there's anything helpful here. Btw, I’ve appreciated a couple of your comments in particular today. One was about viriya being essential for performing kusala because “one should go against the current of akusala, against the stream of attachment to comfort and well-being...” So much time in a day (fin my case anyway) is spent being concerned about comfort and well-being. The other one that’s been a good reminder for me recently was about ‘worry’ and how what seemed like such a concern or worry in the past is inconsequential now and so on. Again we get lost in the objects, in the pannatti and find these concerns so important. I was worrying about a bad investment and then I just smiled when I remembered your comment. I also really liked your comments on Abhidhamma to Frank which I had kept aside: “Abhidhamma is seeing, hearing, attachment, aversion. Abhidhamma is life, you cannot escape Abhidhamma, Frank. Understanding of Abhidhamma means understanding of your life...........Hearing is a reality, a dhamma, or an element: its characteristic cannot be changed, there is no need to name it or to use terms. We can change the name hearing, but the reality or the dhamma cannot be changed....We need courage and perseverence to study the reality of the present moment. the perfection of energy, viriya, should be developed so that we do not become disheartened.” Sarah ===== 15768 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:10pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Elements of Thinking/Contemplation in Vipassana Bhavana Dear Kom (& Ken H), --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear Ken, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: kenhowardau [mailto:kenhowardau@y...] > > > When, in the Satipatthana Sutta, he said that a monk who > > is walking, knows he is walking, again we should be > > enthralled. No longer does that monk harbour the > > delusion that `he' and `walking' have the characteristic, > > dukkha; now he has the realisation, "when I am walking, > > there is nothing more than dukkha (paramattha dhammas)." > > > > I am delighted to hear this explanation. In the past week discussion > (where > we had tons of food, chaos everywhere), I asked A. Sujin about dhamma > inside > and dhamma outside (in the Satipatthana sutta) and what is meant by > knowing > the outside dhamma (because I can only guess about other people's > feelings). > A. Sujin said that before learning about the buddha's teachings, we > think of > the different dhammas as mine or others', but after having listened to > the > teachings, we sometimes start to think (or directly know) that is just > another dhamma that appears. ..... I appreciate both your comments. “For feeling, whether it be in the past, future, or present, is (after all and always) just feeling. And so is perception, so rae mental activities, so i consciousness........” (Atthasalini,392) Without the development of satipatthana, we’re used to considering feelings and other dhammas on account of external or internal causes, relating to others, our body, or any number of concepts. However, the reality which appears and can be known at such times is merely ‘feeling’ regardless of the particular conditions. For clarification, we can say it is ‘my’ rather than ‘his’ or ‘her’ feeling experienced, but when there is sati, no idea of ‘mine or others’. --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi all, > > I've noticed that Kom sometimes refers to paramattha > dhammas as dukkhas. The Buddha's very first discourse, > the Dhammacakkappavvttana Sutta, clearly says this is the > case: "In brief, the five aggregates of clinging > (khandhas), are dukkha." > > After this discourse, the Buddha spent the rest of his > life, pointing out how everything that is real, other > than Nibbana, is khandha i.e., conditioned paramattha > dhamma i.e., dukkha. He said, "I teach two things, > dukkha and release from dukkha." ..... You mentioned in Noosa you had been considering this important sutta and these are helpful comments. I look forward to hearing more of your reflections. Sarah ===== 15769 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re:I am walking Dear Nina and Kom, Kom wrote; "I am delighted to hear this explanation. In the past week discussion (where we had tons of food, chaos everywhere), I asked A. Sujin about dhamma inside and dhamma outside (in the Satipatthana sutta) and what is meant by knowing the outside dhamma (because I can only guess about other people's feelings)." ----------------------- Thanks Kom. Actually, you give me too much credit. One day, I might understand what it was I said. :-) What I had in mind was that you, if I remember correctly, sometimes refer to paramattha dhammas as dukkhas. Perhaps this is what is meant by samkhara-dukkha(?). In any case, it fits with the way I am hearing the Dhamma from you and other dsg people. I like to consider the Dhammacakkappavvttana Sutta because it was the first discourse given by the Buddha. Here, we have the long, long awaited pronouncement of the path that leads out of samsara. Central to the path are the four noble truths and first and foremost of the four noble truths is dukkha: `"THIS IS THE NOBLE TRUTH OF DUKKHA." Thus, O Bikkhus, with respect to things unheard before, there arose in me the eye, the knowledge, the wisdom, the insight and the light.' It is said elsewhere that, "he who sees dukkha, sees also the arising of dukkha, sees also the cessation of dukkha and sees also the path leading to the cessation of dukkha." (Samyutta-nikaya V (PTS) p437) Here, dukkha must refer to all of conditioned ultimate reality, so, it makes sense to refer to paramattha dhammas as dukkha(s). Conversely, anything said to be dukkha is a paramattha dhamma. Having only a little `dust in their eyes,' the audience to the first sutta, would have known that dukkha was something infinitely more profound than the worldly concepts of birth, decay, death, not getting what one wants etc. But that is how the Buddha described it. Then he added; "In brief, the five khandhas are dukkha." Surely this means that when we see birth decay, death etc., we should see the five khandhas that are arising now, at any one of the six doorways. A recent quote from Nina (and K.Sujin), was; "Visible object is just what appears through the eyes, that is all." I'm wondering if that could be paraphrased as; "Dukkha -- ultimate conditioned reality -- is just birth, decay, death, etc., that is all." In the normal manner of speaking, nothing could be less profound than to say, "he knows sickness as suffering," or, "when he is walking, he knows he is walking." And yet, when it is said in this middle way, it has the absolute height of profundity. Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Ken H and Howard, > I would like to add something that was quoted before by Rob K from the Co to > the satipatthana Sutta (tr. ven. Soma) about the sentence: I am going: > similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does > not shed the belief in a living being...neither becomes a subject of > meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness...Who goes? no > living being or person whatsoever. Whose going is it? Not the going of any > living being or person. On account of what does the going take place? On > account of the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental > activity...> > Because of the operation of different elements there can be what we call > going. > There are only nama and rupa elements, no person. 15770 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kind speech and self-exmination Dear Nina, > This reminded me to examine myself before going to sleep. I had > neglected > this. I realized the countless, countless moments of forgetfulness. But > I > know that they are conditioned. The passes on like a movie picture, > stronger moments of akusala stand out, but there are so many moments of > ignorance, unnoticed, forgotten already. Many moments of slight bodily > pain > when knocking a hand or touching the hot lamp, and then aversion. But no > awareness. Sarah, you said that you, before going to sleep, think of > kusala > you can perform the next day. An excellent advice. Could you elaborate > more > on this? ..... I think I hesitated to reply before because it made it sound like I always have useful reflections before going to sleep or something far from the truth;-) It is true, however, that without any special intention, there are often conditions for me to reflect on moments of kusala (anyone’s) during the day -- an act of dana, moments of metta, some kindness on the list -- and also sometimes to reflect on opportunities or good intentions for kusala the next day in spite of having missed opportunities today. If I am having any difficulty sleeping or inclined to worry about something, then I find these kinds of reflection particularly helpful. It is mostly just thinking however, let me stress....though at moments of kusala reflection, the citta is calm. Moments of lobha and moha jump in and out all the time, however, and a moment of awareness of a reality is most precious of all as we know. Funnily enough (well, maybe it’s not funny), but when I’m swimming laps, again by conditions rather than any special intending, there tends to be a lot of reflection on ‘my’ kilesa during the day. At these times, dosa can easily jump in and out, so again it’s far, far from being ‘pure’ or even mostly ‘pure’. I know K.Sujin would also say ‘it’s just thinking....’ .Whatever the subject matter, however ‘good’. it’s easy to get carried away by the concepts and forget all about awareness. I followed Howard’s suggestions to Lodevick (about nightmares) with interest. These are pretty rare for me for now, but I remember after my father died in unhappy circumstances, waking from a nightmare night after night for months. We never know when this may happen. For me, I find the best thing is to get up as quickly as possible and go to another room and listen to the radio or read some dhamma or DSG for quick diversion, rather than lying in bed in distress. No rules. maybe next time, I'll text Howard's way;-) Just a few ‘personal’ comments -- however 'disturbing' , the dhammas can always be objects for sati with detachment - not mine or others' as Kom just reminded us . Sarah ====== 15771 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Sep 16, 2002 11:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Elements of Thinking/Contemplation in Vipassana Bhavana Hi Sarah, You wrote: > You mentioned in Noosa you had been considering this important sutta and > these are helpful comments. I look forward to hearing more of your > reflections. > > Sarah > ===== -------------- Thank you. I've just read that after sending my post to Nina and Kom. Consider yourself one of the addressees :-) Ken H 15772 From: mentalculture Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 2:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation and Satipatthana Hi, Sarah, You can address me as KE. I assist in teaching Basic Buddhism and Meditation. The system of meditation instruction I give consist of 4 stages: (You can find it in one of the dropdownlist @ MentalCulture.org below the logo.) 1. Metta - Reduce hatred 2. 32 parts of the body - Reduce attachment of the body 3. Jhana - increase mental concentration, pre-requisite for vipassana 4. Vipassana - nama-rupa, rising-falling, anatta, and nibbana Stage 1: Practise loving kindness towards all beings in all directions. This can be easily done by you (instructions are also available @ MentalCulture.org). Stage 2: Visualise the removing of the 32 parts of your body (available @ website) and put into containers in front of you. (Some people find it disgusting, but it reduce the mind's attachement to the body.) Stage 3: Jhana (Absortions - Mental Concentration) requires the pre- exercises in Stage 1 & 2. It first starts with single-pointedness concentration. (Training is provided by Singapore Phor Kar See Temple every Sunday Morning), before developing into the 4 jhana states. Although you can progress to Arupa-jhanna, however it is not necessary for vipassana. At the 4th jhana stage where mind is very concentrated, we will advise meditators to realise nama-rupa. Stage 4: Vipassana progress of the 4 stages of Sainthood. I will provide further details in your next request,and I will reference material from my website, MentalCulture.org. Metta Karuna Kok Eng --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hi Teo Kok, > > --- mentalculture wrote: > Hi, > > > > I am new to Dhamma Study Group, but I am impressed by the high > > quality discussion featured in this group, primarily insight. > > > > I will share by experience with all of you (though limited) :) > > (Denoted by MC: MentalCulture.org) > .... > Welcome and hopefully we're all continue to live up to your favourable > first impressions :) > > I'm not sure if you prefer to be addressed as `Teo Kok' or TK or other. > Where do you live, I wonder? Any other comments about your interest in > dhamma would also be appreciated. > > You make many helpful points in your post to Larry and Nina and it's good > to see your contributions. The first point you make is this one: > > > > > MC: In Vipassana (Insight) Meditation, the main importance is placed > > in the realisation of rising and falling. Bur rise and fall of what?? > > The rising and falling of mind-matter in regards to the 4 foundations > > of mindfulness (body, feelings, mind, mind-objects). It is through > > realising mind-matter, rising-falling, that one sees impermanance > > (anatta). From this very point onwards, you will have no belief in a > > self, that you are nothing but mind-matter, and mind-matter is > > impermanant subject to changing conditions resulting in rising- > > falling. > ..... > As you stress, there's no use in talking about `rising and falling' unless > there is an understanding that it is the rising and falling of > `mind-matter'. Befor there can be this insight, there has to be very clear > understanding of the various `mind-matter' dhammas and the distinct > characteristics of each over and over again. As you continue to say, what > is taken for a self merely consists of this `mind-matter' (or namas and > rupas), In an ultimate sense, we can say there is no self to have or not > have any belief in anything. > > Look forward to more of your comments, > > Sarah > p.s When I tried to access your website, I got an "Under Construction' > message. Some websites can't be accessed by Macintosh computers also. > ================================= > > > > > 15773 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Digest Number 1070 Hello, Ruth, Your observations sound much like mine when I first came to Thailand so many years ago. I too was aghast at what I perceived as a total lack of manners; all those people talking and seeming to ignore the monks as they chanted. It was also strange to be the only caucasian around on many occasions. And when I first arrived, many expected me to be fluent in Thai almost immediately. However, all that has changed after so many years here (over 30). There are still many occasions at which I'm the only farang (Caucasian) present, but I hardly notice it at all. Everyone there are just people. And when we study dhamma we realize that they are only concepts, not realities. Whatever differences between us our minds tend to create, be it race, religion, nationality, language, sex, etc., they are only constructs built by the mind and not the realities of nama and rupa. All of us have accumulations, accrued from countless lifetimes, which determine a lot of our behavior. Some, like yourself, had gone to that temple to try and learn Dhamma. And so you did: dosa arose because you were put off at people's seemingly impolite behavior. But, for many of those present at the wat, who were talking, etc., it was merely a cultural occasion; probably of very little spiritual significance to them. It was a time to meet friends and family, in a familiar cultural situation, to have a taste of home, speak Thai, experience something familiar, because they live every day among people of a different language and culture. We all have lobha (wanting) for the familiar, at times. However, the learning of Dhamma can take place anywhere, at any time and one does not have to be at a wat for it to happen. The fact that you drew some realizations from that experience is one step in the right direction. Being aware of realities as they arise (rupa, various emotional states, etc) is part of the "practice" of Buddhism. 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... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:14 AM Subject: [dsg] Digest Number 1070 > There is 1 message in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons > From: "Ruth Klein" > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:59:43 -0500 > From: "Ruth Klein" > Subject: Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons > > > This is a rather personal account of my weekend that I want to share, as it > taught me a very valuable lesson. It may be rather difficult to explain in > email, so bear with the circles of a wandering mind and the constraints of > BBS posting. > I spent this past weekend as observing 8 precepts at a Thai monastery in > Oklahoma City. I have been attending evening chanting there 3-4 times a > week since I 'discovered' the Wat on my return to school in late August. > The 2 resident monks are Thai and speak very little English. There are > several lay supporters who I have met who have acted as rough translators, > although their English is also pretty broken. > > Anyway, one of my 'translators', Somporn, invited me to spend the weekend > with her. I went to the weekend with certain expectations: Somporn wanted > to live as a nun, I wanted only to have a quiet space for meditation and > also to be around the 'more spiritually advanced' - i.e. the monks - for > inspiration and to be able to ask for assistance. I also only had one other > experience at a different monastery, so I brought the memory of that visit > with me. Even though I didn't want to ordain, per se, I did agree to wear > the customary white clothing of people observing 8 training precepts. So to > start off with I was uncomfortable in borrowed clothes, and surrounded by > people speaking mostly Thai. But Saturday night I got through a 2 hour > chanting service ok and then got to do about 1 hour of meditation before I > just had to get some sleep. > > By Sunday at 10am the monastery was filled with lay people and families. > This was not the graceful group of supporters that I had found at Wat Metta > in CA, but seemed rather to me like a swarm of bees. They were all dressed > in their 'Sunday best' and the air was filled with the buzz of > conversations. These didn't stop when the service started. So from my > completely 19th century western perspective on etiquette, felt to me quite > rude. > > Let me try to explain a little better. I had gotten used to the alms round > at Wat Metta. At first it seemed a bit forced - a simulation of a Thai > village - where the monks process past a single line of silent lay people, > each putting a bit of food in the monks' alms bowl. Rice is used > ceremonially, as it is dumped out after the procession and the real meal is > then offered to the monks when they return to the meditation hall. Just > before eating the senior monk leads a short prayer, all the monks join in a > chant, and then while they eat, the lay people chant their gratitude to have > such venerable spiritual leaders. Cleanup continues in silence and then the > laity depart to eat their own meal. > > Of course I brought with me that all temples operate like that! Ha! > Yesterday, everything took place in the hall - the monks sitting on a small > platform, their bowls in front of them and people crawling around trying to > put some rice into each bowl. While this was going on there was a man > talking loudly in Thai over the PA system. I have no idea what he was > saying, but no one seemed to be listening anyway as they continued to talk > amongst themselves. It continued even when the monks started chanting and > all through the meal. And everyone ate at once. With my head swimming > through the language barrier, my perceived rudeness from a western system of > etiquette, and actually being the only caucasian it became too much. I > actually left the hall for about 1/2 hour and walked around with this > overwhelming feeling that I just didn't belong there, but that I knew I > couldn't go back 'from whence I had come' because I don't belong there > anymore either. Like everything, though, the feeling passed, and I returned > to the sala just in time to miss all of lunch - the 6th precept is to keep > from eating after noon. I was, however, invited to speak to the senior > monk, and he seemed to realize what had happened and assured me that I was > doing a good thing for my practice and that I could always find a home > wherever I kept the Dhamma. > > As things cleared out and I actually did find some solitude and some time > for personal reflection, I realized that though my beliefs are changing, > they are not completely changed and I'm not comfortable yet with my own > internal refuge. So when things got uncomfortable outside, I had nowhere to > turn inside to find any comfort. > > Evening chanting and early morning chanting this morning went much more > smoothly for me. I had another long talk with Ajahn Somkit who starting > teaching me to speak Thai - and in return I am to help him to learn English. > There's positive action! And I do, once again, feel welcome. BTW, Nina, > Tan Ajahn gave me one of your books to read - Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. I > think more to practice reading Thai than anything else, since this copy has > English and Thai on facing pages. :) He seemed quite amused that I've > 'talked' to you via the internet! > > May you find your own refuge, > > Ruth > > 15774 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] A wester shanga, how haed is to be a western monk Dear Ven Yanatharo, --- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > I will work very hard to support the > monastery with my work and efforts and beleive me I am trying very hard > to > keep every single rule of the Patimoka and the Vinaya so No criticims > will > come to me.With much metta and gratitude. Ven. Yanatharo ..... Thank you for sharing your difficulties and considerations so sincerely and honestly. I sympathise with these and appreciate your efforts to follow the Patimoka and Vinaya. It’s not at all easy for any monk to follow good Vinaya these days in any country as I understand. Best wishes, With respect, Sarah ===== 15775 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:01am Subject: anapanasati, part 6 anapanasati, part 6 Part 6. The Perfection of the Seven Enlightenment Factors. Before going back to the Anapanasati Sutta, I shall say something about the seven enlightenment factors. These are part of the thirtyseven factors pertaining to enlightenment, the bodhipakkhiya dhammas. We can enumerate these as follows: the four applications of mindfulness (satipaììhånas) the four right efforts (sammå-padhånas) the four bases of success (iddhi-pådas) the five ³spiritual² faculties (indriyas) the five powers (balas) the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhangas) the eightfold Path (ariya magga) The seven factors of enlightenment are: mindfulness, investigation of dhamma (dhamma vivaya, which is panna), energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samadhi) and equanimity (upekkha). Sati is among the factors of enlightenment and also among the indriyas, faculties, the powers, the factors of the eightfold Path. The factors of enlightenment develop together with satipatthana, mindfulness of nama and rupa. When sati is classified as indriya, the aspect of its leadership has been shown. When sati can arise at any time and at any place, in whatever circumstance, it becomes a bala, a power. I quote parts of A. Sujin¹s Dhamma in Cambodia: We read in the Anapanasati Sutta, (in the translation by Ven. Nyanatiloka, but abridged): <1. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world- on that occasion, unremitting mindfulness is established in him...on that occasion the mindfulness enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him. 2. Abiding thus mindful, he investigates, examines that state with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it)... on that occasion the investigation-of-states (dhamma vivaya) enlightenment is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 3.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who investigates, examines that state (dhamma) with understanding, and embarks upon a scrutiny (of it), tireless energy is aroused... on that occasion the energy enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him... 4. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who has aroused energy, unworldly (niramisa, not involved with the senses) rapture arises... ³The body and mind of one whose mind is held in rapture, becomes tranquillized.² 5.On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, the body and mind of a bhikkhu who is held in rapture, become tranquillized- on that occasion the tranquillity enlightenment factor is aroused in him... ³The mind of one who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated.² 6. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, mind of a bhikkhu who is tranquillized in body and blissful becomes concentrated- on that occasion the concentration enlightenment factor is aroused in him... ³He becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated.² 7. On whatever occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity on the mind thus concentrated- on that occasion the equanimity enlightenment factor is aroused in him, and he develops it, and by development it comes to perfection in him.> The same is stated with regard to the other three applications of mindfulness. The Co. to this sutta (ven. Nyanatiloka):... The Co. the uses a simile of a charioteer and horses which are advancing evenly, not overrunning nor holding back. Evenso is equanimity. We then read: The enlightenment factors are included in the fourth Application of Mindfulness, contemplating dhammas in dhammas. They should not be taken for self. We read in the Co to the Satipatthana Sutta (tr. by ven. Soma) about the conditions for the enlightenment factors, and among them is . We read about right reflection in the section on the hindrance of covetousness: This is not merely thinking, it is deeply considering and contemplating with mindfulness of the object that appears and right understanding of its characteristic. We read more about this kind of reflection in the , V, Mahå-vagga, Kindred Sayings on the Limbs of Wisdom, Ch IV, § 8, Restraint and Hindrance. The enlightenment factors are translated here as Limbs of Wisdom. We read: ... At the time, monks, when the Ariyan disciple makes the Norm (Dhamma) his object, gives attention to it, with all his mind considers it, with ready ear listens to the Norm,- at such time the five hindrances exist not in him, at such time these seven limbs of wisdom by cultivation go to fulfilment.> It all begins with listening, considering, and then there are conditions for mindfulness and direct understanding of whatever reality appears. There should be equanimity, evenmindedness and impartiality towards the object that appears. No matter whether the object is greatly disturbing, it can be object of mindfulness. It is conditioned and it has no owner. The enlightenment factors are most important and they should not be neglected. We read in the same section of the Kindred Sayings, Ch II, §8, neglected and undertaken: ***** Nina. 15776 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice Dear Jon and Rob Ep, I greatly enjoyed reading your dialogues. I find them very much to the point, and please continue. With appreciation, Nina. op 16-09-2002 14:22 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Rob Ep: < discussion!>> > Jon: No, but we're getting closer, aren't we? (please say we are...). 15777 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear Jim, thank you for this delightful report, which gives a good impression of the atmosphere. I admire the way you are overcoming obstacles, and the points you brought were very good, concept and reality, what are the objects of satipatthana. Now I would appreciate it very much if you can highlight a few points of the tape, if you have time. With much appreciation, Nina. op 15-09-2002 18:28 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@y...: (snipped) I > tried to think of one and thought of asking why concept (pa~n~natti) > cannot be an object of satipatthana. I failed to grasp much of her > reply partly because of my hearing and her accent. She agreed that > satipatthana and satisampaja~n~na (meaning a citta with sati + > pa~n~naa) were the same. I pointed out that according to the > Dhammasangani a dhammaaramma.na (which includes pannatti) can be an > object of satisampaja~n~na. ... > K. Sujin is really a > wonderful and special person to meet.... I'm very > grateful for the warm welcome, the wonderful treatment, and the help I > received in some difficult situations especially to Amara, Kom, K. > Chu, and K. Annop. 15778 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:00pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons Dear Ruth, Not to make light of your situation, I was rather amused by your description of the "rudeness" among the Thais when it comes to conversations at inappropriate time. I would like to share some observations with you: 1) This kind of things go on at all the events except when there is somebody to tell you not to speak inappropriately (like in school, in court, etc.). I have been to lectures, seiminars, wedding speeches, chantings, etc., where people have (loud) conversation while the speaker is giving a presentation. 2) Thai temples, especially abroad, are centers for social gatherings, cultural events, source for Thai foods, danas, some teachings from the tipitikas, and "meditations". Given these varieties of purposes, there are bound to be people at the temple with conflicting interests! 3) The teaching from the monk that there can be a home anywhere where there is dhamma (and when we realize that) is pricessless. Even our thinking about the situations, anger toward things that we don't like/agree, and attachment toward things that we like/agree are dhammas too, and they should be known as such. kom 15779 From: Ruth Klein Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 7:52pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons Thanks, Kom. I know that it was totally my perception of rudeness and not actually so. And though it was a wan sart observance, it seemed more like a party! > -----Original Message----- > From: Kom Tukovinit [mailto:kom@a...] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 5:00 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [dsg] Uposatha weekend adventures and lessons > > > Dear Ruth, > > Not to make light of your situation, I was rather amused by your > description > of the "rudeness" among the Thais when it comes to conversations at > inappropriate time. I would like to share some observations with you: > > 1) This kind of things go on at all the events except when there > is somebody > to tell you not to speak inappropriately (like in school, in court, etc.). > I have been to lectures, seiminars, wedding speeches, chantings, > etc., where > people have (loud) conversation while the speaker is giving a > presentation. > > 2) Thai temples, especially abroad, are centers for social gatherings, > cultural events, source for Thai foods, danas, some teachings from the > tipitikas, and "meditations". Given these varieties of purposes, > there are > bound to be people at the temple with conflicting interests! > > 3) The teaching from the monk that there can be a home anywhere > where there > is dhamma (and when we realize that) is pricessless. Even our thinking > about the situations, anger toward things that we don't like/agree, and > attachment toward things that we like/agree are dhammas too, and > they should > be known as such. > > kom > > > 15780 From: Date: Tue Sep 17, 2002 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Howard: >It does seem to me, however, that the cognizing of >paramattha dhammas, especially through the body door, is closer to being a >nondual experience than the cognizing of pa~n~natti. For example, coldness in >my hands and the experiencing of that coldness are closer to >indistinguishable to me than are the tree in my garden and my observing of it >(visually). Experientially this is correct but it doesn't have anything to do with concepts; it has to do with sense modalities. Abhidhammist (perhaps also dormant in the suttas) take vision as the paradigm, and this leads immediately to a philosophical misstep. Consider a coin: one can say that it looks round or that it looks elliptical (from the same perspective or position). Now a painter, or fastidiously correct person, might say elliptical (and be correct) while we usually rapidly move from the phenomenological looks to surmising the round shape (also correct). Now there's a contrast here, and one might suppose that the phenomenological look describes something that might be named, in itself. So were're off down the dharma / sense-data road. But this contrast doesn't apply to other senses: what does tastes sour contrast with? Or smells rancid? No distinctions here. Things simply sound like what they sound like; feeling cold is cold. Seeing a tree on a cold day can mislead if one only thinks of seeing. (All the more so if one follows the visual paradigm with the non-sensuous. So just / only the fact of my desiring chocolate is reified into an object which I can observe. How very odd to stand against a substantial ego yet draw a distinction between the mind (citta, or mana as inner vision) and its contents (cetasikas). When glad, there should not be a receiving subject and an internal object, but just gladness; when seeing a tree there should not be a subject seeing an external object, just the seeing. But don't we agree here?) Hedonic tone implies a sensation, but dukkha and sukha are opposites, yet classified as one thing, vedana. This doesn't seem to make sense. If they are seen as evaluations, adding no new content, but only *about* associated states, then it does, as they are both ratings. So nibbana is sukha, but not some conditioned thing; it's just a way of stating maximal approval. 'All samsara is dukkha' makes no sense if dukkha is a sensation — pleasant sensations are unpleasant? — but does make sense as an evaluation of the world. (Piti is a sensation; or five of them.) metta, stephen 15781 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear Jim, I enjoyed reading your informative account of your visit to N.F. and meeting K.Sujin and others in the group. I’d just like to follow up on this one point of importance, I think:, which you've mentioned to me before: --- Jim Anderson wrote: > Dear All, > I > tried to think of one and thought of asking why concept (pa~n~natti) > cannot be an object of satipatthana. I failed to grasp much of her > reply partly because of my hearing and her accent. She agreed that > satipatthana and satisampaja~n~na (meaning a citta with sati + > pa~n~naa) were the same. I pointed out that according to the > Dhammasangani a dhammaaramma.na (which includes pannatti) can be an > object of satisampaja~n~na. ..... You are a lot more familiar with the Dhammasangani than I am, Jim. I agree that dhammaarammana includes concepts (pannatti). I just tried having a quick look in the PTS translation to see if I could find your reference suggesting these as objects of satisampajanna, but the index is of no help. Perhaps you would give me a pointer. For example, in (1333) and (1335) when it mentions insight, understanding when applied to the 18 elements, under the 18 elements, the last two three are mind element (mano dhatu), mind object (dhamma dhatu) and mind consciousness element (mano vinnana dhatu) --which I don’t understand to include concepts-- surely? (I don’t have the Pali terms in the translation). The only reference the index gives for pannatti is (1308) which is discussing how pannatti (and other terms) refer to designations, expressions, terms, names, “a distinctive mark of discourse on this or that state.” Anyway, I know you will have a good basis for your comments and look forward to considering this area further. Nina or Kom or Num may be able to help too, with access to the Thai. Thanks again for sharing your trip with us. Sarah p.s. If there is any particular part of the tape that is important for you and which is too difficult to hear, I’d be happy to transcribe it for you in due course. =============== 15782 From: Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 6:27am Subject: sweet nothing Dear group, Reality is meaningless and meaning is unreal. Reality and meaning arise together but each is empty of the other. Reality is experience and meaning is relationship. What about truth? Conditional relations are necessary but not sufficient. Is that the extent of truth? Larry 15783 From: Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hi, Stephen - I'm having a little trouble following this post of yours. Please bear with me - I may not be understanding you correctly. In a message dated 9/17/02 11:12:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Howard: > >It does seem to me, however, that the cognizing of > > >paramattha dhammas, especially through the body door, is closer to being a > > > >nondual experience than the cognizing of pa~n~natti. For example, coldness > > in > > >my hands and the experiencing of that coldness are closer to > > >indistinguishable to me than are the tree in my garden and my observing of > > it > > >(visually). > Experientially this is correct but it doesn't have anything to do with > concepts; it has to do with sense modalities. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, this is why I was emphasizing the body door (sense of touch and bodily sensations of weight, pressure, stinging, etc). ----------------------------------------------------- Abhidhammist (perhaps also > > dormant in the suttas) take vision as the paradigm, and this leads > immediately to a philosophical misstep. Consider a coin: one can say that > it > looks round or that it looks elliptical (from the same perspective or > position). Now a painter, or fastidiously correct person, might say > elliptical (and be correct) while we usually rapidly move from the > phenomenological looks to surmising the round shape (also correct). > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It seems to me that the image, if we are to put words to it, at the earliest stage of interpretation is elliptical, and that additional mental processing is required (the mind sense acts further) to see it as round. The uninterpreted image, itself, existing very briefly, is not of roundness nor of ellipticity (is that a word! ;-), but sa~n~na, through a very complex process, wordlessly characterizes it as such. As soon as the cognition of 'ellipse' or 'circle' is there, I think we are dealing with the beginning stages of pa~n~natti - the beginning of an interpretive and projective knowing. ----------------------------------------------------------- Now > > there's a contrast here, and one might suppose that the phenomenological > look > describes something that might be named, in itself. So were're off down the > > dharma / sense-data road. But this contrast doesn't apply to other senses: > what does tastes sour contrast with? Or smells rancid? > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, there is some similarilty, I think, with the second of these examples. Most directly, without further interpretation, the odor that we finally come to identify as "rancid smell" is just a specific odor. Sa~n~na then identifies it as "rancid" and the mind thinks of it as the odor *of* some spoiled food substance in the area. Directly, there is the odor. Indirectly, after much further processing, there is a "rancid odor". ------------------------------------------------------------ No distinctions here. > > Things simply sound like what they sound like; feeling cold is cold. Seeing > a > tree on a cold day can mislead if one only thinks of seeing. > (All the more so if one follows the visual paradigm with the non-sensuous. > So > just / only the fact of my desiring chocolate is reified into an object > which > I can observe. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Hmm. Not sure, but I think we may be agreeing here. ----------------------------------------------------------- How very odd to stand against a substantial ego yet draw a > > distinction between the mind (citta, or mana as inner vision) and its > contents (cetasikas). > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not following your intent here. --------------------------------------------------------- When glad, there should not be a receiving subject and > > an internal object, but just gladness; when seeing a tree there should not > be > a subject seeing an external object, just the seeing. But don't we agree > here?) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Hedonic tone implies a sensation, but dukkha and sukha are opposites, yet > classified as one thing, vedana. This doesn't seem to make sense. If they > are > seen as evaluations, adding no new content, but only *about* associated > states, then it does, as they are both ratings. So nibbana is sukha, but > not > some conditioned thing; it's just a way of stating maximal approval. 'All > samsara is dukkha' makes no sense if dukkha is a sensation — pleasant > sensations are unpleasant? — but does make sense as an evaluation of the > world. (Piti is a sensation; or five of them.) > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You are right that vedana is an evaluative aggregate. Individual instances of vedana are associated with, and conditioned by, particular objects of experience (arammana). I don't think that the dukkha feelings in the vedana aggregate are the same as the "dukkha" the Buddha refers to when he says that "Sabbe sankhata dukkha" (I suspect my spelling/syntax is off here). I believe that this latter usage, while related to the former, is not the same, but, instead, is an adjective that indicates being inadequate, off-kilter, and unworthy of grasping at, and it applies to all conditioned dhammas, not just the unpleasant ones. Even pleasant feelings are dukkha in that sense. They are imperfect in being impermanent, leading to craving and grasping etc. -------------------------------------------------------- > metta, stephen > > ============================ 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) 15784 From: Jim Anderson Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 8:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear Sarah, > --- Jim Anderson wrote: > Dear All, > > I > > tried to think of one and thought of asking why concept (pa~n~natti) > > cannot be an object of satipatthana. I failed to grasp much of her > > reply partly because of my hearing and her accent. She agreed that > > satipatthana and satisampaja~n~na (meaning a citta with sati + > > pa~n~naa) were the same. I pointed out that according to the > > Dhammasangani a dhammaaramma.na (which includes pannatti) can be an > > object of satisampaja~n~na. > ..... > You are a lot more familiar with the Dhammasangani than I am, Jim. I agree > that dhammaarammana includes concepts (pannatti). I just tried having a > quick look in the PTS translation to see if I could find your reference > suggesting these as objects of satisampajanna, but the index is of no > help. Perhaps you would give me a pointer. > > For example, in (1333) and (1335) when it mentions insight, understanding > when applied to the 18 elements, under the 18 elements, the last two three > are mind element (mano dhatu), mind object (dhamma dhatu) and mind > consciousness element (mano vinnana dhatu) --which I don't understand to > include concepts-- surely? (I don't have the Pali terms in the > translation). Yes, it is my understanding that concepts are not included in dhammadhaatu but in the description of the first kusala dhamma (Rhys Davids transl. pp. 1-4) you will see terms like 'associated with knowledge' (~naa.nasampayutta.m); 'and has as its object . . . a [mental] state' (dhammaaramma.na.m), 'mindfulness' (sati) and 'intelligence' (sampaja~n~na.m). The Atthasaalinii (p. 80) includes pa~n~natti in the list of items for dhammaaramma.na (Expositor, p.106). This shows that a citta with pa~n~naa (which I think always has sati arising with it) can have a concept as object. I may be using the term 'satisampaja~n~na' in a way that is not found in the texts. To me it is simply a shorthand expression for the sati and sampaja~n~na found listed next to each other in the description of the first citta noted above. One problem with using an expression like 'the object of satipatthana' is that 'satipatthana' itself is not listed as an ultimate reality in Dhs. and to make sense of it I came up with satisampaja~n~na as a possible equivalent which K. Sujin agreed with and even went so far as to say that a concept can be the object of satisampaja~n~na (according to Kom's notes) but definitely not of satipatthana. I suppose that satipatthana here is referring to higher levels of understanding beyond concepts. However, I still think that concepts can be objects of satipatthana as is quite clear to me when I consider the Satipatthana Sutta. You just recently brought up the 4 sampaja~n~nas which have conceptual objects like purpose or suitability. I guess it all depends on how you define satipatthana. > Sarah > p.s. If there is any particular part of the tape that is important for you > and which is too difficult to hear, I'd be happy to transcribe it for you > in due course. > =============== Thank-you for your offer of help which I'll keep in mind. I will have to spend a lot of time listening to the tape as at this time I really can't very well repeat or go over points I have yet to hear properly or grasp. I'll see how much I can hear over time and keep you and Nina informed on anything I think worth repeating. Best wishes, Jim 15785 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:dukkha Dear Ken, you quoted: > > A recent quote from Nina (and K.Sujin), was; "Visible > object is just what appears through the eyes, that is > all." I'm wondering if that could be paraphrased as; > "Dukkha -- ultimate conditioned reality -- is just birth, > decay, death, etc., that is all." Nina: I did not have this in mind, I wanted to stress something else. The question is, do we penetrate the characteristic of dukkha already? Only if panna directly experiences the arising and falling away of nama and rupa can there be a beginning of understanding of the fact that they are not worth clinging to, that they are not a true refuge or happiness. If panna has not been developed to that stage we can *say* that conditioned realities are dukkha, that birth is dukkha, but there is only intellectual understanding of the Truth of dukkha. As you know there are several stages of insight. First nama should be known as nama and rupa should be known as rupa. It is not easy to realize that what appears through the eyes is only visible object. Don't we have to hear often and remind ourselves that what appears through the eyes is only, only the rupa which is visible object, not a person, not a thing? That seeing experiences only what appears through the eyesense? We should go step by step. We neglect to be aware of feeling, it is only a nama which feels. We are not aware of feeling, because we are immediately carried away by our pleasant or unpleasant feeling. These are conditions for being deluded by stories of people we like or dislike, keeping them in our thoughts endlessly. What is your idea about this? Best wishes from Nina. op 17-09-2002 08:45 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: (snip) > What I had in mind was that you, if I remember correctly, > sometimes refer to paramattha dhammas as dukkhas. > Perhaps this is what is meant by samkhara-dukkha(?). > It is said elsewhere that, "he who sees dukkha, sees also > the arising of dukkha, sees also the cessation of dukkha > and sees also the path leading to the cessation of > dukkha." (Samyutta-nikaya V (PTS) p437) > > Here, dukkha must refer to all of conditioned ultimate > reality, so, it makes sense to refer to paramattha > dhammas as dukkha(s). Conversely, anything said to be > dukkha is a paramattha dhamma. > Surely this means that when we see birth decay, death > etc., we should see the five khandhas that are arising > now, at any one of the six doorways. 15786 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] subtle point Daer Sarah, thank you for your remarks. It is clear now that the bodydoor is not always the doorway of kamma. However, kusala citta with mindfulness is kusala kamma. I am still not sure of conveying a meaning, while walking, perhaps to himself? The definition is clear as to the making known. Good to remember that the kayavinnatti is only one short moment. I found it very useful what Kom cited: Thank you also, Sarah, for your observations about thinking before going to sleep, akusala jumping in also. So sudden, unnoticed, they jump. Best wishes, Nina. op 17-09-2002 07:49 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > ***For others, a definition from Dhammasangani: “What is that (material) > form which is bodily intimation (kaayavi~n~natti)? > > That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in > rsponse to a thought, whether good , bad or indeterminate, on the part of > one who advances, or recedes, of fixes the gaze, or glances around, or > retracts and arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the making > known, the state of having made known - this is that (material) form which > constitutes bodily intimation.”*** > > 1.The meaning conveyed by the kayavinnatti is the going forward. There is > the intention to move and the ‘mind-originated air element’ arises with > the citta producing the kayavinnatti (bodily intimation). This is the same > for all, regardless of any ‘knowing’. > > > 3.As Kom reported, bodily kamma may or may not be committed using > kayavinnatti (though, Kom in your ‘Godfather example with the ‘nod’, I > would have thought that kayavinnatti would be involved in this movement > too - even in a prticular ‘look’). Also when there is kayavinnatti > ‘making known an intention by means of bodily movement’, there may or may > not be bodily kamma patha. > > 4. I think the reason KS stressed to Kom that kayavinnatti only lasts ‘one > citta moment’ when ‘the citta conditions the communication of meanings’ is > to show that there are so many different phenomena involved whilst > stepping forward and also various mind and sense door processes. It’s > impossible to know or ‘catch’ which process or doorway, panna arises in or > to know just when there is kusala/akusala kamma patha. Usually, we walk > forward in ignorance, but occasionally there may be awareness of any nama > or rupa at these times too (without any selection or special action) and > at each moment of awareness with panna, there is a little more detaching > from the idea of self. 15787 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:14am Subject: Perfections, Ch 5, no 9 Perfections, Ch 5, no 9 All dhammas are in conformity with each other, there is no contradiction between them. For example, the Buddha taught mindfulness of death, marana sati. Moreover, he also taught that there are three kinds of death: momentary death (khanika marana), conventional death (sammutti marana) and final death (samuccheda marana) (9. Momentary death is death at each moment, and this means that the life of all of us occurs during only one moment of citta. One may say that life lasts long, that a person is very old, but in reality, life is a series of cittas that arise and fall away in succession. If we reduce the duration of life that seems to be very long into just one extremely short moment of citta, we can understand that life occurs during only one moment of seeing. At this moment of seeing, there is just one moment of life that arises and sees; if there would not be seeing there would be no life. Seeing has arisen and sees, and then it dies, it lasts for an extremely short moment. At the moment we are hearing, life occurs only during one short moment of hearing and then there is death. When someone who develops the perfection of paññå is mindful of death, he should not merely think of death in conventional sense, sammutti marana. It is not enough to think, even with some degree of detachment, that there is nobody who can own anything, and that one day we shall be separated from all things, that all we used to take for self or mine will disappear. Merely intellectual understanding cannot lead to the eradication of defilements. The true understanding of momentary death, death occurring at each moment of citta, is different from understanding of death in the conventional sense. We should understand momentary death: each moment we are seeing, seeing arises and then dies. It is the same in the case of hearing, the other sense-cognitions and thinking. If we have right understanding of momentary death, we will be able to investigate and know as they are the characteristics of the realities that are appearing. This is mindfulness of death. There are different levels of mindfulness of death, in accordance with a person¹s understanding. There is mindfulness of death of the level of someone who develops calm and this is different from the level of someone who develops understanding by considering and investigating the characteristic of death which occurs each moment. If we are mindful of momentary death we come to see the disadvantage of clinging to what falls away immediately. In the ³Dasannaka Jåtaka²(no. 401) the danger and disadvantage of clinging has been explained. We read in the Commentary to the ³Dasannaka Jåtaka² : At the time that the Bodhisatta was the wise Senaka, the royal councillor, Mahå-Moggallåna was the wise Åyura, and Såriputta was the wise Pukkusa. The son of the King¹s household priest came to wait on the King and when he saw the queen he became enamoured, and when he went home he lay down without taking food. When the King came to know about this, he gave the queen to him for seven days, but asked him to send her back on the eighth day. However, it appeared that the son of the household priest and the queen became enamoured of each other and they fled to another country. The King suffered great sorrow and became very sick. The royal physicians could not cure him. The Bodhisatta knew that the King did not suffer a bodily ailment, but that he was touched by mental sickness because he did not see the queen. He thought of using a specific trick to cure him. He arranged for a display where the King could see a man swallowing a sword with a sharp edge which was thirtythree inches long. Thereupon the King asked the wise Åyura (in the first stanza) whether there was anything harder to do than swallowing this sword. The wise Åyura, who was to be in his last life Mahå-Moggallåna, answered (in the second stanza), that saying, ³I shall give this away², is more difficult. This shows that clinging to visible object, sound and the other sense objects is extremely difficult to give up. If someone still clings, how can he say that he will give something away? Footnote: 9. Final death samuccheda maraùa, is the final passing away of the arahat who will not be reborn. 15788 From: Date: Wed Sep 18, 2002 7:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hello Howard, I'm not sure I can put it any clearer, but perhaps by focusing on the central point, the possible hegemony of vision within the abhidhamma. Consider a coin on a table (not viewed perpendicularly). We can say (following Mundle) that it looks-ph elliptical (the phenomenological look, the careful description of appearance) or that it looks round, which is what someone would normally say. This distinction leads one to think that the former, look-ph, is something in itself, in contrast to the object. That the object needs to be, or is, decomposed into looks-ph. So the object is a mental construction from our concepts. This leads, further, to certain other conclusions, one of which is a postulation of an inner vision, a receiving subject (citta) and internal object (cetasika). But this is dualism; the actual happening is non-dual, just, say, the fact of satisfaction. This dualism, or contrast between 'look-ph' and 'look' doesn't seem to exist for the other senses. (So seeing a tree is going to seem more dual than any non-visual experience, but this isn't about pannatti. Not that there isn't, of course, processing going on, and more for round than elliptical.) A sour taste is just a sour taste; nothing to be in contrast to; there's no taste-ph to contrast with taste. It's the forcing of the visual sense onto the other senses and the mind that generates dualism. (And the contrast in the visual sense is misunderstood.) Sorta; this is something I'm thinking about. But I don't understand this: "Howard: You are right that vedana is an evaluative aggregate. Individual instances of vedana are associated with, and conditioned by, particular objects of experience (arammana). I don't think that the dukkha feelings in the vedana aggregate are the same as the "dukkha" the Buddha refers to when he says that "Sabbe sankhata dukkha" (I suspect my spelling/syntax is off here). I believe that this latter usage, while related to the former, is not the same, but, instead, is an adjective that indicates being inadequate, off-kilter, and unworthy of grasping at, and it applies to all conditioned dhammas, not just the unpleasant ones. Even pleasant feelings are dukkha in that sense. They are imperfect in being impermanent, leading to craving and grasping etc." The latter usage, being an adjective that indicates being inadequate... — a variety of negative *evaluations* follow —which is just what I suggested vedana was (or, in the case of sukha, a positive evaluation). But not a sensation as such, which is what hedonic tone is or seems to imply. So I'm missing your point. metta, stephen 15789 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 0:11am Subject: Concepts & Realities in Plain English <1> Dear All, In the Suttas, over and over again, the Buddha talks about the six ‘worlds’ experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind. If we consider the first world now, the world of experience through the eyes, while we are thinking about ‘eyes’, ‘world’ and ‘sight’, there is thinking about concepts and ideas. In other words, the idea of ‘eyes’ and ‘sight’ is not the same as what occurs without any thinking and without any knowledge of Buddhism when we open our eyes. When we open our eyes, what experiences the world through the eyes is seeing or visual experiencing. We can talk about the nature or the characteristic or particular quality of this kind of experiencing of the world, but these are different terms or convenient ways of speaking to help us understand what seeing really is. It’s easy to comprehend that seeing is different from hearing or smelling at an intellectual level at least. It may be a little harder to comprehend that seeing is different from what is seen. When we close our eyes, nothing is seen. When we open our eyes, the objects which are seen, are seen by visual experiencing or seeing. The visible objects and the experiencing of them are quite different and have different qualities or characteristics from each other. Again, when we talk now about ‘eyes’, ‘objects’, ‘consciousness’, we are using concepts. Some of these concepts, however, represent what is acual or real, even though at this moment, there may not be any direct knowledge of the actual or real. Perhaps we can at least comprehend that the talking and thinking about seeing or visible objects is not the same as the actual seeing or experiencing of these objects. So how can the ‘actual’ be known? How can the dhammas taught by the Buddha be tested and proved? How about anatta? What does it matter? ***** This post follows a few comments (on and off list) about confusion with regard to concepts & realities. I hope to continue with a few relatively simple short notes like this one. Comments or objections welcome as usual;-) Sarah ===== 15790 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear Jim. --- Jim Anderson wrote: >> > Yes, it is my understanding that concepts are not included in > dhammadhaatu but in the description of the first kusala dhamma (Rhys > Davids transl. pp. 1-4) you will see terms like 'associated with > knowledge' (~naa.nasampayutta.m); 'and has as its object . . . a > [mental] state' (dhammaaramma.na.m), 'mindfulness' (sati) and > 'intelligence' (sampaja~n~na.m). The Atthasaalinii (p. 80) includes > pa~n~natti in the list of items for dhammaaramma.na (Expositor, > p.106). This shows that a citta with pa~n~naa (which I think always > has sati arising with it) can have a concept as object. ..... Ok, I follow you better now. In the description of kusala dhamma you refer to, this is not just of kusala of the satipatthana kind or level. Sati (of various levels) arises with all kusala states and panna with all moments of kusala at levels of samatha and satipatthana. For example, moments of dana or metta development are accompanied by sati and panna but in these cases concept is the object. For most kinds of jhana, the object is still a concept. So, I assume that here, sampajannam is synonymous with panna, referring to any development of kusala states. What I don’t understand (and hadn’t noticed before) is why under kusala dhamma it is only referring to those accompanied by wisdom (of any level). I’m probably being dense here. Maybe you or Nina can tell me. ..... > I may be using the term 'satisampaja~n~na' in a way that is not found > in the texts. To me it is simply a shorthand expression for the sati > and sampaja~n~na found listed next to each other in the description of > the first citta noted above. One problem with using an expression like > 'the object of satipatthana' is that 'satipatthana' itself is not > listed as an ultimate reality in Dhs. and to make sense of it I came > up with satisampaja~n~na as a possible equivalent which K. Sujin > agreed with and even went so far as to say that a concept can be the > object of satisampaja~n~na (according to Kom's notes) but definitely > not of satipatthana. ..... So, I think it depends on the context. Just as when we talk about sati or panna, it depends on the context whether it is sati and panna of satipatthana that is being referred to. For example, later in the text when it describes the rupas or the dhatus or cetasikas and so on, it is clear that it is talking about paramattha dhammas (for satipatthana) and not of samatha objects (for jhana). ..... >I suppose that satipatthana here is referring to > higher levels of understanding beyond concepts. However, I still think > that concepts can be objects of satipatthana as is quite clear to me > when I consider the Satipatthana Sutta. You just recently brought up > the 4 sampaja~n~nas which have conceptual objects like purpose or > suitability. I guess it all depends on how you define satipatthana. ..... I think the Buddha is talking about realities which can be known throughout the Teachings. For example, you mention the various kusala dhammas and later we read about the akusala states as well. these are realities which can be known along with the vipaka and kiriya cittas, rupas, cetasikas and so on. In other words, the abhidhamma is an elaboration of these phenomena which can be known by the development of satipatthana. Referring to the Satipatthana Sutta, I think it is clear that sati sampajanna is referring to the development of satipatthana. In Soma Thera’s transl, on p37 it refers to insight (vipassana) by clear comprehension and so on. As we’ve seen with recent discussions on 'walking' or 'going forwards', it’s very easy to assume that concepts are the object, but I don’t think this is right. In the sub-com (p61) it talks about ‘the discerning of things rightly..’, ‘non-delusion’ and so on. ‘Rightly’ and with ‘non-delusion’ means, as I understand, according to the real state of affairs, i.e. according to paramattha dhammas and not as we’ve always taken them to be in the world of concepts. I like the phrase ‘non-stupefaction’. It seems when we read about the 4 sampajannas that they are referring to thinking about concepts, but I don’t think this is correct. P.80 and 81, there is more from the Commentary about the first two of ‘clear comprehension of purpose’ and ‘resort’, for example. We read about how there is no self which ‘looks straight’ and ‘eye-consciousness arises fulfilling the function of sight’ and so on. Then we read about how the clear comprension “is indeed called the clear comprehension of non-delusion’ and it continues to describe the sense door and mind door processes. With clear comprehension ‘there is no looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance.....’ In other words, whether we’re visiting the Temple, the Bodhi Tree or Niagara Falls, there can be the development of satipatthana (sati and panna) and the knowing of the various phenomena including the accumulated kilesa at these times. If it’s not clear in texts such as Dhammasangani, I think you’ll find that in others such as the Visuddhimagga in the sections under ‘Understanding’, starting with the aggregates, that it’s clear what the objects of insight are. I've just found the reference you mention in the Expositor (p.106, transl of Atthasalini). As you note, concepts are included in dhammaarammana as objects of citta. Furthermore, in all the examples that follow of dana (generosity), concepts are the objects. As it said just above: "When the object is something tangible, it consists of the three Great Essentials (or elements), vis: extension, heat, mobility. In this connection reference is not to these, but to such things as beds, stools, etc." In other words, it is describing the nature of dana, not the objects of satipatthana as I think it makes clear. I’ll be glad to hear any more of your 'well-informed' comments, Jim. It's helpful to have your references to Dhammasangani as otherwise I just have to guess at the Pali. Sarah p.s Kom - do we get to see your notes as well?? ===== 15791 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 3:26am Subject: Meeting up with Rob M <2> Dear All, On Tuesday evening after work we met up with Rob M for a second time in Hong Kong. Jon and Rob had already been discussing dhamma and sipping tea for an hour when I arrived at the hotel (our side of the harbour this time;-)), totally drenched from the rain. It was a really pleasant occasion for us and this time we were all quite 'at home' together and could pick up on threads from the list and discussions we'd only just touched on last time. These included sati and practices, abhidhamma details and processes, opportune times for practice, different approaches, the difficulty of anatta and other topics such as DSG in general;-) We particularly appreciated Rob 's kindness in carrying and giving us several dhamma books which must have seriously added to the weight of his hand luggage. Several of these have been mentioned on the list, such as the 'other' Abhidhamma in D.L. by Janakabhivamsa. What we are particularly appreciating, Rob, is the thick volume of collated charts and tables by Sayadaw Silananda who you recently mentioned in connection with the charts in CMA. There are charts for everything from a list of conditions with sub-categories to the lifespan of various devas to the distance of different realms from human realms in yojanas to the detailed list of cittas and so on. (Kom, you and Jack would love it). Meanwhile, Rob has left with 'Realities and Concepts' -- a wise choice luggage-wise -- which will help with his lecture on this topic. I had taken over a copy of Nina's transl of 'Survey of Paramattha Dhammas' but was most impressed to find that Rob was already carrying with him a really travel-friendly, small print version of the same text. Even more precious than any of the texts is the work that Rob M has done to make a full back-up of the entire archives of DSG to date. He will also continue to back up new archives. This means that in addition to escribe, there is now a complete back-up with the same numbering for posts (relevant for Useful Post references for example) and we no longer need to live in fear of any yahoo or other calamity losing all these. Rob, himself, is now able to use his back-up system with a search function on the road without internet access as I understand. Rob M, more detail on processes (like the other quote I gave you) in Soma Thera's transl of Satipatthana Sutta and com p.81 and the few pages before would be helpful for you too. I note that both Soma Thera and S.Silananda also talk about 'thought moments' and 'thought processes', so I appreciate you're in good company, even if it seems misleading to me. Rob, we look forward to continuing our discussion and seeing you again whenever you are in Hong Kong and a similar arrangement would suit you. Thanks again for all the gifts. Best wishes, Sarah ===== 15792 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Walking meditation (Rob Ep) Rob Ep What you give below is a useful description of meditation as it might be taught at a meditation retreat nowadays. However, I don't think anyone suggests that what is described here is something that is specifically mentioned in the texts (eating slowly, etc). So getting back to our original thread, there is as far as I know nothing in the texts that meets your description of 'walking meditation', and hence my comment previously that that is an unfortunate choice for the translation of the Pali term 'cankramana' used in the suttas. My point is simply that it seems to be another case of someone thinking they can improve on the term used by the Buddha, and again the term chosen carries a particular connotation in terms of 'method of practice' that is not found in the original. Jon PS I forgot to put your name in the header of some posts I sent off earlier this week. In case you missed them, here are the msg #s: 15752 Re: Formal meditation practice 15753 Re: Meditation and Satipatthana 15754 Re: Anapanasati and Mindfulness Practice --- Robert Epstein wrote: > ... > Dear Jon, > In my limited experience with formal Theravadan meditation practice, > sitting and > walking meditation were interspersed as two ways of practicing > mindfulness. In > sitting meditation with breathing as the object [there were sometimes > other > objects, such as sound, and there is also a meditation on eating in > which one eats > slowly and silently and pays close attention to each of the individual > experiences > of the eating process, usually glossed over by inattention and concept] > one would > practice mindfulness of the breathing, and in the Theravadan tradition I > happened > to be involved with at the time, would use the device of 'noting' the > breath to > involve the mind in the attention to breathing. One would 'note' gently > with the > mind 'rising' and 'falling' with the in and out breath, if the place of > following > the breath were the 'belly'. It was also possible to note breathing > out and > breathing in at the nostrils or with other locations of the breath. One > would > follow the attention and see where it went, if it departed from the > breath and > note what it did, such as 'thinking', 'imagining', 'feeling discomfort'; > whatever > the object of attention was. The noting was a gross method for sort of > marking > one's place and one would hopefully go beyond this to discern the exact > sensation > or thought or movement of the breath to the extent possible. > > To break up the sitting sessions, one would have a silent meal at one > point, > walking meditations at certain points, and in one retreat I attended, > some time > just walking around silently being aware of whatever was around one in > the area > and how it was experienced. > > In the walking meditations, the mindfulness was turned towards the > walking itself. > One would either just walk, noticing the sensation of the feet moving > into the > ground, down and up, etc., or one could silently note the walking. I > don't > remember the actual word used, whether it was something like 'stepping', > 'stepping', or something to that effect, but in any case it was again > just a > reminder towards the act of stepping down and the associated sensations, > to > practice mindfulness of the action as it took place. > > The accumulation of these different meditations did lead to a sense of > mindfulness > being more available and the specific noticing of whatever was arising > at other > times was intensified. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 15793 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Supportive spiritual practices (Rob Ep) Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > <> You say that 'everyone is up to the same endeavour at root'. I suppose in a very general sort of way that could be so, but I wonder how helpful it is to seek to show the common ground between different teachings. On my reading of the Buddha's teachings, the only way of release from samsara is through insight into the true nature of realities, insight that can only be developed by repeated listening to the teachings and considering them at length. This I think rules out the possibility of stumbling upon any part of the essence of the teachings adventitiously through following another practice (although it does not of course rule out learning things of value from other teachings as regards the development of other forms of kusala, including samatha/jhana). << If the Buddha made use of the technology that surrounded him at that time, and then stretched it way beyond its original capacity, he was only showing his mastery of both the time and place and that which was beyond that time and place. His making use of the materials at hand should not somehow be seen as an aspersion upon him.>> Quite so, and I did not mean to suggest anything to the contrary. His teaching was pitched to those who were his audience, so of course to that extent it reflected contemporary circumstances, values and beliefs. <> Well, as I was interested to learn recently, this apparently is not the case. One of Kom's (I think) posts referred to the fact that a Buddha (uniquely among all enlightened beings) retains no trace of personal idiosyncrasy. This is a result of the development of the perfections over an incalculable period of time, such that at final enlightenment all remaining accumulations of this kind are eradicated. <<... Just to be facetious for a moment, if the Buddha's tendencies and kamma were totally independent of the time and place in which he was born, why didn't he speak French? : )>> [One good reason would surely have been that no-one who was listening would have understood what was being said ;-)). One of the points you make earlier is that the teachings are delivered in a manner appropriate to the time and place of the Buddha's arising.] <<... If we do the research to understand what 'Yogic' audience might understanding by his terminology, then we are putting ourselves in the place his audience was in, and through which they understood his teachings.>> I am not saying that background reading cannot be helpful, but in my view the most thorough and complementary supplement to the suttas is the ancient commentaries, which deal extensively with both the doctrinal and temporal aspects of the suttas -- all the background, context and research material you could wish for. Jon 15794 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 6:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation and Satipatthana Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: <> Formal in what sense, Larry?. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of the need for any particular time, place posture or other circumstances. <> No, this doesn't sound like me ;-)) But I certainly don't see the Satipatthana Sutta as containing any suggestion of having to give anything up. In fact the passage seems to contemplate life going on pretty much as normal (same old kilesas, for example), except that there is more understanding of what's going on, less ignorance about it. Jon 15795 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness in Daily Life Rob M --- robmoult wrote: ... <> I think satipatthana is a terribly difficult subject to talk about to a group. In your position, I would probably play it safe and stick pretty much to actual suttas and commentaries. There are plenty of short but punchy suttas dealing with the essential aspects of the path. Try getting a few of these together, to show some of the basics (and difficulties). <> Well, I like to think that the whole focus of this list is on satipatthana/vipassana ;-)), but I can see that it doesn't all lend itself to classroom use. But in your situation I would certainly want to begin with the (potential) objects of awareness/understanding, and how these are in fact arising at this very moment. (This also has the advantage showing immediately the practical relevance of the Abhidhamma studies.) Hope this helps (and apologies for getting this off in time for your last class). Jon PS Enjoyed very much our discussion the other evening. Thanks for coming over. 15796 From: Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Episode II: Vedana [Howard] Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 9/19/02 2:17:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Howard, > I'm not sure I can put it any clearer, but perhaps by focusing on the > central > point, the possible hegemony of vision within the abhidhamma. Consider a > coin > on a table (not viewed perpendicularly). We can say (following Mundle) that > > it looks-ph elliptical (the phenomenological look, the careful description > of > appearance) or that it looks round, which is what someone would normally > say. > This distinction leads one to think that the former, look-ph, is something > in > itself, in contrast to the object. That the object needs to be, or is, > decomposed into looks-ph. So the object is a mental construction from our > concepts. This leads, further, to certain other conclusions, one of which > is > a postulation of an inner vision, a receiving subject (citta) and internal > object (cetasika). But this is dualism; the actual happening is non-dual, > just, say, the fact of satisfaction. This dualism, or contrast between > 'look-ph' and 'look' doesn't seem to exist for the other senses. (So seeing > a > tree is going to seem more dual than any non-visual experience, but this > isn't about pannatti. Not that there isn't, of course, processing going on, > > and more for round than elliptical.) A sour taste is just a sour taste; > nothing to be in contrast to; there's no taste-ph to contrast with taste. > It's the forcing of the visual sense onto the other senses and the mind > that > generates dualism. (And the contrast in the visual sense is misunderstood.) > > Sorta; this is something I'm thinking about. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I do understand you, and I agree that what you point out is at least part of the matter. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > But I don't understand this: > > "Howard: > > You are right that vedana is an evaluative aggregate. Individual > > instances of vedana are associated with, and conditioned by, particular > > objects of experience (arammana). I don't think that the dukkha feelings in > > > the vedana aggregate are the same as the "dukkha" the Buddha refers to when > > > he says that "Sabbe sankhata dukkha" (I suspect my spelling/syntax is off > > here). I believe that this latter usage, while related to the former, is > not > > the same, but, instead, is an adjective that indicates being inadequate, > > off-kilter, and unworthy of grasping at, and it applies to all conditioned > > dhammas, not just the unpleasant ones. Even pleasant feelings are dukkha in > > > that sense. They are imperfect in being impermanent, leading to craving and > > > grasping etc." > > The latter usage, being an adjective that indicates being inadequate... — a > > variety of negative *evaluations* follow —which is just what I suggested > vedana was (or, in the case of sukha, a positive evaluation). But not a > sensation as such, which is what hedonic tone is or seems to imply. So I'm > missing your point. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry I was unclear. The following may be no better, but I'll try. By dukkha vedana I mean any feeling of unpleasantness. I refer to the feeling, itself. But the Buddha's "dukkha" occurring in the second of the tilakkhana is not a feeling, but is a *characteristic* shared by all (conditioned) dhammas. It is the characteristic of imperfection or ultimate unworthiness, the *incapability* of ultimate adequacy (with respect to sentient beings). This dukkha is a characteristic the dhammas, not a feeling of the "observers" of the dhammas. It comes to be *discovered* by people by means of close observeation and evaluation, thinking, contemplation, and insight meditation. Without these, it is normally missed. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > metta, stephen ============================= 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) 15797 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meeting in Niagara Falls Dear Jim, may I butt in? There are three meanings of satipatthana: sati of the level of satipatthana, the four Applications which are the object of sati of satipatthana and the Way the Buddha and his disciples walked. Sati of satipatthana which is aware of nama and rupa in vipassana, is actually sati sampaja~n~na, and this is different from sati in dana or sati in sila. Sampaja~n~na is necessary in samatha and in vipassana. It is not of the theoretical or intellectual level at all. In samatha there has to be sati sampaja~n~na in order to know directly when the citta is kusala and when akusala, when there is true calm, and also the jhanafactors have to be directly known, and very precisely, such as vitakka and vicara which are different. Very keen sati and clear understanding are necessary here. Then in vipassana: sati sampaja~n~na has to be aware and understand directly the naama or ruupa appearing right now through one of the six doorways, thus again, this is not theoretical understanding. It is of the level of satipatthana, it is sati and pa~n~naa of satipatthana. See below: op 18-09-2002 17:23 schreef Jim Anderson op jimanderson_on@y...: >> --- Jim Anderson wrote: She agreed that >>> satipatthana and satisampaja~n~na (meaning a citta with sati + >>> pa~n~naa) were the same. Jim: I pointed out that according to the >>> Dhammasangani a dhammaaramma.na (which includes pannatti) can be > an >>> object of satisampaja~n~na. (snip) > Yes, it is my understanding that concepts are not included in > dhammadhaatu but in the description of the first kusala dhamma (Rhys > Davids transl. pp. 1-4) you will see terms like 'associated with > knowledge' (~naa.nasampayutta.m); 'and has as its object . . . a > [mental] state' (dhammaaramma.na.m), 'mindfulness' (sati) and > 'intelligence' (sampaja~n~na.m). The Atthasaalinii (p. 80) includes > pa~n~natti in the list of items for dhammaaramma.na (Expositor, > p.106). This shows that a citta with pa~n~naa (which I think always > has sati arising with it) can have a concept as object. N: It certainly can, there can be metta with pa~n~naa and this has a person, a being as object. In Samatha pa~n~naa also understands concepts. When we see in the lists dhammaaramma.na, it does not mean that the concept included in it is the object of satipatthana. The ultimate realities included in it are objects of satipatthana, they have the three characteristics, they arise and fall away. Jim: I may be using the term 'satisampaja~n~na' in a way that is not found > in the texts. To me it is simply a shorthand expression for the sati > and sampaja~n~na found listed next to each other in the description of > the first citta noted above. One problem with using an expression like > 'the object of satipatthana' is that 'satipatthana' itself is not > listed as an ultimate reality in Dhs. Nina: it is, namely, when we take into account the meaning of sati of satipatthana. Jim: (snip) ... satisampaja~n~na as a possible equivalent which K. Sujin > agreed with and even went so far as to say that a concept can be the > object of satisampaja~n~na (according to Kom's notes) but definitely > not of satipatthana. Nina: see above. J: I suppose that satipatthana here is referring to > higher levels of understanding beyond concepts. N; Yes, it is not theoretical. J: However, I still think > that concepts can be objects of satipatthana as is quite clear to me > when I consider the Satipatthana Sutta. N: We had here already many discussions on this. In the Co, tr by Ven Soma, we find the explanations of what should be known: elements, no self, the three characteristics. There are no characteristics of concepts. When we read about walking: no self is walking: . The Parts of the Body: see Co. the Illustrator of ultimate Meaning, under Parts of the body, Ch III: clearly explained as elements, devoid of self: < But if they establish their appearance through analysis (resolution) of the (apparently) compact (into elements) or through (that of the apparent) mass into the octad with nutritive essense as eighth...> and the verse: (I particularly love the grass and sticks!) Also breath: can be an object of samatha and of vipassana: what is there: it is rupa produced by citta: only hardness, softness, cold, heat, motion and pressure. Only elements, and so it is with all sections of the Applications of Mindfulness. Each of the Applications of Mindfulness is a means of bringing us back to the present reality: nama or rupa. J: > the 4 sampaja~n~nas which have conceptual objects like purpose or > suitability. I guess it all depends on how you define satipatthana. N: This is indeed a certain aspect, you just consider whether something is purposeful or suitable. It is a kind of pa~n~naa to realize these things. Especially the fourth sampaja~n~na, non-delusion is important: non-delusion as to the object of satipatthana. Best wishes from Nina. 15798 From: robmoult Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 2:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness in Daily Life Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott wrote: > But in your situation I would certainly want to begin > with the (potential) objects of awareness/understanding, and how these are > in fact arising at this very moment. (This also has the advantage showing > immediately the practical relevance of the Abhidhamma studies.) I am again going to revisit the topic of mindfulness of the present moment at the beginning of this week's class. I will take your good advice and focus on identifying the proper object (i.e. a paramattha). Thanks for the help and I too enjoyed our chat. Thanks, Rob M :-) 15799 From: robmoult Date: Thu Sep 19, 2002 3:18pm Subject: Re: Meeting up with Rob M <2> Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Even more precious than any of the texts is the work that Rob M has done > to make a full back-up of the entire archives of DSG to date. He will also > continue to back up new archives. This means that in addition to escribe, > there is now a complete back-up with the same numbering for posts > (relevant for Useful Post references for example) > and we no longer need to live in fear of any yahoo or other calamity > losing all these. Rob, himself, is now able to use his back-up system with > a search function on the road without internet access as I understand. I use all these files on my PC (more than 1000 files, each with 15 messages) as reading material on long flights. I started with post #1 (Tue, Dec 28 1999 8:15pm) "Welcome to Dhamma Study Group" and have been reading sequentially. I've learned a lot and gained an appreciation of areas in which I have a lot more to learn. It is also fun to watch the interplay of personalities. This is really a win-win situation, thanks to the moderators and the posters (frequent and "lurkers" included). Sarah and Jon, your efforts have touched a lot of people. Many of them (such as the people in my class), you do not even know. Thanks, Rob M :-)