17200 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 9:58am Subject: Brief Report on Wat Greensboro Ordination - Part 2 Hi, all - After arrival at Wat Greensboro on Thursday and meeting the head monk, Maha Somsak, I was shown my room in the main house, a very comfortable room with several chests, mirrors, and a hide-a-bed sofa, and with easy access to both the kitchen and two bathrooms. A hot water dispenser was also in that room, making tea and coffee easily available. This was already late afternoon, but the head monk cordially offered food to me which I respectfully declined. In the early evening, we left for the other main building which has the meditation hall, a kitchen, a sitting room in which meals are taken, and more. We went to the meditation hall - the head monk, other resident monks, several visiting monks (including Ven. Yanatharo), the two monks-to-be, David's mother, and me. There we engaged in about 45 minutes of chanting (I looked at Dhammarato's chant book) followed by a brief meditation - about 15 minutes. Subsequent meditation sittings, each morning and even, lasted for about the same time as the chanting, 45 minutes. The rest of that evening, until way past midnite was spent in pleasant, animated conversation - primarily Dhamma talk. On Friday a.m., Dhammarato gave a prearranged knock on my door around six a.m. At seven, we were back at the other building for chanting and meditation. Then, after a return to the main house for showering etc, we went over again to the other building for a fish-soup breakfast. Around 11:00 a.m. the main meal of the day was served (the last food for the monks with the exception of possible tea, coffee, or ice cream [an interpretation of ghee]. At the main meal, as was to be expected, the monks ate first, and the rest of us ate of the more-than-adequate food remaining after the monks finished. In the afternoon, we got into cars to drive about 30 miles to get to Wat Lexington, the Wat at which the ordination was to be held. (It was to be held there because at that Wat there was a ring of "sima stones" around the meditation hall, serving to consecrate the enclosed area.) Wat Lexington is another beautiful Wat with an exquisite tree-lined roadway onto the grounds which includes several small and lovely ponds. After parking, we made our way up a rather steep, leaf covered hill at the top of which was the meditation hall. When up there, some of us entered the hall for some purpose that I am unaware of, and outside we took turns clearing the area of leaves and suitably decorating the exterior. Upon return to Wat Greensboro, I took a brief nap, and the rest of the day then went much as the day before, with early-evening chanting and meditation (this time, I had the use of my own chanting sheets kindly photocopied by David), and then followed by pleasant conversation. I went to sleep a bit earlier that day, though, than the previous. (Oh, yes - also on Friday David and Dhammarato received their white robes [to be worn prior to the ceremony], their decorative fans, and their bowls. Oh, and, yes, one more thing happened on Friday: It turned out that Dhammarato's preceptor, who was to officiate at the ordination, had missed his plane, and instead took a bus to Charlotte. So, at midnite, Dhammarato left by car to Charlotte, over 2 hours away, to pick him up. They didn't get back until close to 5 a.m., and, so, neither had any sleep to speak of that night. ) Saturday morning we arose early to go over for chanting and meditation, then to leave at 8:30 for Wat Lexington. We arrived at Wat Lexington a bit late because of a traffic jam due to an accident. After arrival, we entered the meditation hall of one building where we greeted a quite elderly and very sweet monk, and Dhammarato and David donned their white robes. Dammarato gave me his video camera to film throughout the entire ordination and at the meal following. Then we made the trek up the hill, me filming as we went, to the sima-stone-encircled meditation hall. Not only was David's mother there, but so was Dhammarato's and also numerous friends and relatives of each. When a monk ordains, he must be given parental permission. This is done in a ceremonial way, but with both David and Dhammarato, this constituted the most beautiful and touching moments of all for me. The love manifest was so strong and truly moving! (BTW, the previous evening this approval ceremony was carried out as well, back at Wat Greensboro. It happens that Dhammarato's mother wasn't there at the time - so I was asked to stand in for her! ;-)) I had to "give permission", and Dhammarato had to ask me for forgiveness for having mistreated me in any way. He cleverly related this to our history on Dhamma-list!! ;-)) Prior to entering the hall for the ordination, David, Dhammarato, the monks, the family members, and some friends (including me) marched clockwise three times around the hall. I was honored in being allowed to hold one of the decorative fans while circumambulating the hall. After entering the hall, the ordination began. The amount of chanting and responses that the two monks-to-be were responsible for was impressive. More impressive was the aplomb with which they handled it. Dhammarato performed like the experienced monk that he had already been. But for me, David's "performance" was the most impressive. This was a first time for him, and I know he was nervous, but he was marvelous, chanting with a sureness that made others calm! There is so much more detail to provide, but my ignorance in this area is considerable, so I think it might be better to wait until at some point Ven. Dhammarato returns to posting, and we can get the details properly from one who understands them. I also hope at some point to post some photos. Right now, suffice it to say that participating in this wonderful event is something that was a highpoint for me and is an event I will long remember. The next day, Sunday, was the day I left. There was the usual morning chanting and meditation and meals and conversation, but the day was a bit more relaxed. At one point Ven Dhammarato and Ven Piyadhammo took several friends on a walking tour of the beautiful 10 acres of Wat Greensboro. Later on I packed my bags, did a bit more walking around on my own, practiced my t'ai chi form in the shade of a big tree outside the main house, and grabbed a 30-minute meditation. Around 3:30, Ven Yanatharo stopped over to the main house to visit with me before I left for the airport. Around 4:15 Ven Dhammarato and Ven Piyadhammo, and one of the visiting monks - a delightful young monk, Ven Milinda, from Connecticut, drove me to the airport. We exchanged very fond goodbyes, and then I went inside. A delightful dream had ended. 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) 17201 From: robmoult Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:06pm Subject: Re: Free Will (again) Hey, don't blame me for that last posting. Conditions arose, I had no choice. I had to write that message. It was predestined to happen. Your reply or lack of reply is also pre-destined. I have aversion to this way of thinking. I see that I did not choose to have this aversion; it arose because of conditions. Is there another option that is not "choice" and not "pre-destiny"? Please help. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > > I'll try and bring up the > > freewill issue. For now I can say that I believe that in direct > > proportion to the degree of acceptance/understanding of anatta > > ancilliary ideas such as 'freewill' also drop away. There are just > > conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing with no one anywhere. > Seeing > > this gradually leads away from the clinging to self and samsara. > > Last night, I met up with Jon, Sarah, Christine and Ajarn Paul. I > knew that it was going to be an interesting discussion when the > first question that Jon asked as I sat down was, "What do you mean > by free will?". We explored the topic and I think that there was > some progress, but "the light did not come on". > > I then raised the question of the role of meditation. After some > discussion, Jon asked me what my current mental states were. I > replied, "Confusion and restlessness". I then continued on thinking > aloud, "But confusion and restlessness are not vipaka. These are > javana. I did not choose to be confused. I did not choose to be > restless. These states arose naturally because of conditions, not > because of free will and choice." > > I feel that I am now at the edge of a cliff. It seems clear to me > now that there is no "choice" in the thought process. However, if I > say that all is pre-determined because there is no choice, then I > take away any sense of ethical responsibility and all that I have to > do is to "stay on the roller-coaster ride until the end". > > Rob K (or others), can you help pull me back from the edge of the > abyss? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17202 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Hi, Rob - In a message dated 11/26/02 5:55:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > >I'll try and bring up the > >freewill issue. For now I can say that I believe that in direct > >proportion to the degree of acceptance/understanding of anatta > >ancilliary ideas such as 'freewill' also drop away. There are just > >conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing with no one anywhere. > Seeing > >this gradually leads away from the clinging to self and samsara. > > Last night, I met up with Jon, Sarah, Christine and Ajarn Paul. I > knew that it was going to be an interesting discussion when the > first question that Jon asked as I sat down was, "What do you mean > by free will?". We explored the topic and I think that there was > some progress, but "the light did not come on". > > I then raised the question of the role of meditation. After some > discussion, Jon asked me what my current mental states were. I > replied, "Confusion and restlessness". I then continued on thinking > aloud, "But confusion and restlessness are not vipaka. These are > javana. I did not choose to be confused. I did not choose to be > restless. These states arose naturally because of conditions, not > because of free will and choice." > > I feel that I am now at the edge of a cliff. It seems clear to me > now that there is no "choice" in the thought process. However, if I > say that all is pre-determined because there is no choice, then I > take away any sense of ethical responsibility and all that I have to > do is to "stay on the roller-coaster ride until the end". > > Rob K (or others), can you help pull me back from the edge of the > abyss? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Free will or not, Rob, what would happen if you just *let go*?! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ===================== With metta (freely willed yet without effort ;-), 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) 17203 From: robmoult Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Free will or not, Rob, what would happen if you just *let go*?! ;-)) > ------------------------------------------------ > ===================== > With metta (freely willed yet without effort ;-), > Howard I sense that you are trying to help me and I really appreciate it. My mental state is agitated at this moment and I think that I need some time to reflect on last night's discussion and on your comment. Thank you. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Appreciate your posts on your trip. 17204 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:24am Subject: Another Approach Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi again, Rob - In a message dated 11/26/02 6:08:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hey, don't blame me for that last posting. Conditions arose, I had > no choice. I had to write that message. It was predestined to > happen. Your reply or lack of reply is also pre-destined. > > I have aversion to this way of thinking. I see that I did not choose > to have this aversion; it arose because of conditions. Is there > another option that is not "choice" and not "pre-destiny"? > > Please help. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ============================= It sounds to me like you are engaged in Zen koan practice. You have a red-hot ball stuck in your throat called "free will" that you can neither swallow nor spit up. Soon your whole world will consist of nothing but that undislodgeable object. You MUST get rid of it, but you CAN'T get rid of it!! It won't go down, it won't come up!! How to move the unmovable?? Ask: "WHO IS IT that must do this?" 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) 17205 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Hi, Rob - In a message dated 11/26/02 6:22:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > >Howard: > > Free will or not, Rob, what would happen if you just *let > go*?! ;-)) > >------------------------------------------------ > >===================== > >With metta (freely willed yet without effort ;-), > >Howard > > I sense that you are trying to help me and I really appreciate it. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you. (Yes, you sense correctly. :-) --------------------------------------------------- > > My mental state is agitated at this moment and I think that I need > some time to reflect on last night's discussion and on your comment. > > Thank you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > PS: Appreciate your posts on your trip. > > > =========================== 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) 17206 From: robmoult Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:46pm Subject: Another Approach Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================= > It sounds to me like you are engaged in Zen koan practice. You have a > red-hot ball stuck in your throat called "free will" that you can neither > swallow nor spit up. Soon your whole world will consist of nothing but that > undislodgeable object. You MUST get rid of it, but you CAN'T get rid of it!! > It won't go down, it won't come up!! How to move the unmovable?? Ask: "WHO > IS IT that must do this?" > I know that there is no self. There is no self in the citta, no self in any of the cetasikas and no self in the relations that link all these paramattha dhamma together. The realization that my confusion and restlessness arose only because of conditions, not because of any "free will" has dislodged the "free will" object. The object that is lodged in my throat is the idea that there is only one path that the universe is destined to follow. The fact that I do not have the ability to see this path is not a problem for me; the fact that it exists raises serious issues of accountability, responsibility and ethics. Last night, I asked if the Buddha could foresee with precision events that would unfold two thousand years in the future (such as the World Trade Centre bombing). I'm not sure, but I think that our two moderators had different opinions (gasp!). Here is my opinion. It was clear that the Buddha could anticipate things that would soon happen (i.e. when He intervened to stop Angulimalla from killing his mother). Seeing the past accumulations of each person would allow the Buddha to make reasonable conclusions regarding things that were just about to happen. The Buddha could also forsee general future trends as demonstrated in His analysis of the 16 dreams of King Pasendai. At this point, Ajarn Paul made the valid observation that the Buddha was not a fortune teller. Koans are good for you, if you give them time to work at multiple levels. Let me knaw on this one (pre-destiny) for a while. Metta, Rob M :-) 17207 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Hi Rob, There is clearly right and wrong choice. See Way 24: "The state of mind that is not clearly comprehending commits blunders of judgment in the business of choosing the right means and in avoiding the wrong. The state of mind which is inattentive -- the mental state of absence of mindfulness -- is incapable of laying hold of the right means and of rejecting the wrong means." L: There will be more on choice and sati sampajanna latter in the commentary. Another thing we have to consider though, is varying degrees of ultimacy. A higher ultimate truth than that indicated by this quotation would say there is no choice in citta process. On the other hand, we could say citta process is not an object of satipatthana because it cannot be directly perceived by someone on a mundane path. The really really really real is only nibbana, imo. Larry 17208 From: Uan Chih Liu Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 4:10pm Subject: Re: Another Approach Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Rob M, I have struggled with free will for the exact same reason, i.e. the inevitably issues of ethics and accountability, and this is what I have come to terms with. Hope it will helps and love to hear others' views. What we know as "free will" is actually "awareness" or "insight" of what's happening at the moment. When we make decisions (or at least we think we are making decisions), we are not making decisions, but we are rather "aware" of the thought process, "aware" of cittas arising and falling. So essentially we are not making decisions, but we are "conscious" of "decisions" being made. At the same time, depending on the degrees of "insight", we will be aware of the consequences of our actions. So one can say, since I have no control over what I do, I can do whatever I want. Yes, one "can" do whatever he/she wants, but more importantly, one will bear whatever consequences of his/her actions. That, is reality, and that natural consequences IS ethics. THAT is accountability, which happen naturally, regardless of "free will" or not. with metta, Wendy 17209 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:34am Subject: Re: Another Approach Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Rob - In a message dated 11/26/02 6:47:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > >============================= > > It sounds to me like you are engaged in Zen koan practice. > You have a > >red-hot ball stuck in your throat called "free will" that you can > neither > >swallow nor spit up. Soon your whole world will consist of nothing > but that > >undislodgeable object. You MUST get rid of it, but you CAN'T get > rid of it!! > >It won't go down, it won't come up!! How to move the > unmovable?? Ask: "WHO > >IS IT that must do this?" > > > > I know that there is no self. There is no self in the citta, no self > in any of the cetasikas and no self in the relations that link all > these paramattha dhamma together. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know that you "know" there is no self. I "know" that too. But do we KNOW it??? -------------------------------------------------- > > The realization that my confusion and restlessness arose only > because of conditions, not because of any "free will" has dislodged > the "free will" object. > > The object that is lodged in my throat is the idea that there is > only one path that the universe is destined to follow. The fact that > I do not have the ability to see this path is not a problem for me; > the fact that it exists raises serious issues of accountability, > responsibility and ethics. > > Last night, I asked if the Buddha could foresee with precision > events that would unfold two thousand years in the future (such as > the World Trade Centre bombing). I'm not sure, but I think that our > two moderators had different opinions (gasp!). > > Here is my opinion. It was clear that the Buddha could anticipate > things that would soon happen (i.e. when He intervened to stop > Angulimalla from killing his mother). Seeing the past accumulations > of each person would allow the Buddha to make reasonable conclusions > regarding things that were just about to happen. The Buddha could > also forsee general future trends as demonstrated in His analysis of > the 16 dreams of King Pasendai. > > At this point, Ajarn Paul made the valid observation that the Buddha > was not a fortune teller. > > Koans are good for you, if you give them time to work at multiple > levels. Let me knaw on this one (pre-destiny) for a while. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I think that koans can be very good for us. For the "free will" one, I think it may be useful to ask ourselves exactly what sort of thing free will would actually *be*. Leaving aside for the moment that the Dhamma sees nothing as arising independent of conditions, would will be free if it were random? Would we be willing freely if we could will something *for no reason whatsoever*? Would such "willing" be something to prize? And whatever willing there is, is it not just an impersonal event/operation? Our arm will not rise when not being lifted "externally" except by means of willing. And that is an "internal" lifting. But is it random, uncaused? Isn't the impulse to lift the arm conditioned by the desire to grasp something? The attachment to the object (upadana) conditions the impulse to reach for it and the reaching (bhava), itself, which in turn conditions our birth as the possessor of the object, a rebirth of "self". It's all impersonal, even the creation of the identity as possessor. It's all impersonal and all conditioned. Cetana is part of the process, and that cetana is conditioned by many things, but most especially by our desires. What do people really mean when they say that their will is free. I think they mean little more than that they will to do what they want to do. Well, that's true. What more is there to look for? Is random willing somehow better? I think it seems so to many of us, because we think that this somehow means greater autonomy for the "person". Not being able to accept willing as conditioned is, I believe, itself conditioned by the sense of self, the heart of avijja. -------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > 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) 17210 From: James Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:06pm Subject: Re: Brief Report on Wat Greensboro Ordination - Part 2 Howard, This is a beautiful and insightful rendition of the events as you encountered them. I also see the influences of kamma, forgiveness, humility, and service in your telling--which says as much about you as the events you experienced. I wish my brief `Going Forth' had been as illustrious and supported, but that also is kamma; and I am content and deeply happy to know that proper tradition has not completely vanished. Thank you for sharing so humbly and sincerely your experiences. I, for one, greatly appreciate it. Metta, James 17211 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:20pm Subject: Re: Free Will (again) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hey, don't blame me for that last posting. Conditions arose, I had > no choice. I had to write that message. It was predestined to > happen. Your reply or lack of reply is also pre-destined. > > I have aversion to this way of thinking. I see that I did not choose > to have this aversion; it arose because of conditions. Is there > another option that is not "choice" and not "pre-destiny"? > Please help. >_______________ Dear RobM, Glad to hear of your meeting with Paul and Sarah and Jon. Just got off the phone to Nina (VanG) who arrived in bangkok just this morning. I read over the conversations between you and Howard (and Wendy) and saw some very nice points. I think most of us have struggled with dilemmas related to anatta. It is the hardest part of the Dhamma and some even give up and decide that really there must be a self that can control somethings, somehow. But that is not the way. Both "freewill" and "predestiny/predetermination" are tied up with selfview. I'm just off for my daily swim so if I repast this old letter for now. I know you've read it before but it summarises several points so is worth another look: Someone wrote to me a while back who feels that no control is a dangerous idea.They wanted to stress control and volitional intention which is what they believe that Buddha really taught and they feel uncontrollabilty to be a pernicious belief leading to apathy. "I have a choice whether to get angry in the present moment." the writer said."this is new kamma". I replied: Yes, the processes of cittas during anger are new kamma. However, they are also conditioned. The Patthana, the last and most important book of the Abhidhamma, goes into enormous detail about the 24 paccaya (conditions). Some of which are past and some present. But even the present ones do not simply arise out of nothing. Nor do they arise because "I" want them to. The processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and there is no "person" who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even the cittas that are arising at this moment are conditioned by previous cittas as well as well as by other conditions that are present at the same time. They further wrote that "we are not just helpless automata acting out our old kamma - that is absurd. I hope the above helps overcome the despair that comes from the belief that we are a slave to our conditioning." I said "This sounds like the debates that western Philosophy used to have (and still does) about Free-will versus Determinism. The Buddha's analysis of the world is neither, it is the middle path. Thus the statement about "we being helpless automata acting out our old kamma" misses the point. There is no "we" to be anything. And kamma is not the only condition. Hearing the teachings of Buddhism - especially the deep teachings on anatta, are a condition for understanding. This understanding leads to energy: energy to hear more, and energy to carry on with the study and practice of vipassana. . And if understanding grows then there will be detachment from the idea of self and of control. Then there is no more despair about the path - because "I" have been taken out of the equation. The "I" that we love so much, the "I" that we want to be happy, get enlightened , whatever. Then, as the Visuddhimagga says, 'there is a path but no one on the path'." This round of births and deaths is beginningless. However, it is not random in any sense. Because of conditions birth occurs in one plane and because of different conditions birth occurs in another plane. Panna (wisdom) is a conditioned phenomena and it is itself conditioned. What are the conditions for panna to develop : hearing the Dhamma, considering it, applying it and also accumulations of merit from the infinite past (pubekata punnata). Why are we so interested in Dhamma? Why isn't the leader of the Taliban interested; surely he makes effort, surely he has the intention to do what is best? Why do some people hear Dhamma but find it unappealing while others can't get enough even after hearing it just once? Why are some initially not interested and then later they get interested and surpass in understanding those who studied much longer? It is clear that there must be reasons for all this; and the Dhamma explains it all. You wrote "that's where i get stuck...if all dhammas except nibbana > are > conditioned (i'm going on saddha with this, of course), then > thinking one > can develop anything seems like an exercise in > micchaditthi.... _________________ Good point. I think it depends on the thinking. If we have the idea of "I can do it", then we are likely to be caught in self view. Or we think we can manufacture sati by effort or good intention - self. But there can be wisdom - not us- that sees the danger in samasara and thus there is naturally effort that arises with that understanding. It is subtle: often we slip into self view; either towards the freewill end of the continuum or towrds the fatalistic end that thinks nothing can be done. ____________________________ > > can the path be developed? or do we just leave it up to (for > lack of a > better f-word) "fate"? "" __________________ Fate implies a preordained outcome. In that case whether we did this that or the other nothing would make a thread of difference. We could go out and kill and pillage and nothing would have any effect and we would all get enlightened or not get enlightened depending on our "fate". This is not what the Buddha taught. He explained in detail many different conditions. It is true that some are past conditions but there are also present ones thus it is not fatalism. Both the idea of fatalism and the idea of freewill are bound up in self view - a self who can control and a self who can't. The Dhamma is the middle way and is neither. Robert 17212 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Brief Report on Wat Greensboro Ordination - Part 2 Thank you, James! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/26/02 10:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Howard, > > This is a beautiful and insightful rendition of the events as you > encountered them. I also see the influences of kamma, forgiveness, > humility, and service in your telling--which says as much about you > as the events you experienced. I wish my brief `Going Forth' had > been as illustrious and supported, but that also is kamma; and I am > content and deeply happy to know that proper tradition has not > completely vanished. Thank you for sharing so humbly and sincerely > your experiences. I, for one, greatly appreciate it. > > Metta, James > /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) 17213 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:38pm Subject: Re: Free Will (again) ---Dear RobM, Still haven't gone for my swim. I thought you might like to read thisold letter from Dan: In dhammastudygroup@y..., dalthorp@o... wrote: Hello my dsg friends, It feels great to see you all again, but my stay this time must really be short. Although each moment is an opportunity for studying Dhamma, some livelihoods do not allow for much discussion. I would fit in under "They earn their living by accounting, computation, calculation,[etc.]--the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts" (DN 1, Brahmajala sutta). He was praised for this moral virtue regarding such "trifling and insignificant matters," but even this trifling virtue I lack. A quick comment about something Erik said: > paramattha sacca is an excellent medicine applied at > the right time (like when stubbing the toe) One problem is that when stubbing the toe, the "YEEEOWCH!" comes before there is time to think about applying any medicine. When satipatthana is viewed as a medicine to apply, something to do to remedy dosa after it arises, it is impossible to get beyond the sequence pain->aversion->applying medicine. To get beyond "YEEEOWCH", we must first get beyond the idea of satipatthana as a medicine to apply--it takes too long to "apply" anything and this remains true no matter how much one might practice to make it faster. The problem is that the medicine is applied in response to the aversion rather than the pain. It's easy to see aversion as something that needs a remedy, but when there is clear understanding of rupa as rupa and nama as nama, vedana as vedana and dosa as dosa, and no self in any of it, there is no thought of medicines or remedies or anything to apply or anyone to apply it. This is not to say that there is no benefit to thinking about "applying remedies" to unwholesome states of mind. There is great benefit, especially in comparison to the conventional alternative of NOT applying remedies or considering unwholesome states of mind as no different from wholesome ones. Applying remedies is a wonderful practice that can bring good results and should be encouraged. But if we would learn Dhamma, we must be careful to make a clear distinction between the conventional wisdom of "medicines" and the deeper wisdom of anatta, the realization that ultimately there is no one to apply any medicine, no medicine to apply. This doesn't mean that there is nothing to be done, that there is nothing we can do. On the contrary, there is much to be done at every moment, and it is vital that we do so -- every moment working, studying, observing, understanding. More concretely, one thing we can do is to understand that all we do in normal everyday life is run around trying to apply medicine in response to various sensations, mental and physical. "Paramattha sacca" is not just another medicine apply, another technique to assuage pain. The problem of suffering is not that there is this particular instance of suffering to deal with or that instance of suffering to deal with; instead, it is a general problem perpetuated by our eons-long habit of continually aiming a fire extinguisher at any fire that flares up and our view that this fire extinguisher, medicine approach can solve the problem. What mind arises right now? What are its characteristics? What is rupa? What is nama? What is vedana? Sañña? Sankhara? Viññana? What are kusala and akusala? When these questions are considered seriously, there is no thought of "medicine", a concept rooted in an the idea of an atta who directs. "This director usually makes the wrong decisions, so we just need to train him to make the right decisions. He's so powerful that once we get him trained right, voilá! Liberation." This atta can indeed be trained, and in the training, there is benefit. But liberation is effected by understanding anatta, and not by a well-trained atta. Dan --- End forwarded message --- 17214 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Free Will (again) Dear Rob, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > I then raised the question of the role of meditation. After some > discussion, Jon asked me what my current mental states were. I > replied, "Confusion and restlessness". I then continued on thinking > aloud, "But confusion and restlessness are not vipaka. These are > javana. I did not choose to be confused. I did not choose to be > restless. These states arose naturally because of conditions, not > because of free will and choice." > > I feel that I am now at the edge of a cliff. It seems clear to me > now that there is no "choice" in the thought process. However, if I > say that all is pre-determined because there is no choice, then I > take away any sense of ethical responsibility and all that I have to > do is to "stay on the roller-coaster ride until the end". > > Rob K (or others), can you help pull me back from the edge of the > abyss? That sounds like a pretty good example (to me) that, because of those conditions, this happens. All realities, including confusion, restlessness, and thoughts are conditioned by other realities (and non-realities). If you study patthana, then you can see that the conditioning of a reality is very complexed: it has too many variables that point to uncontrollability. Panna and fears also condition. By listening to the Buddha teachings, we begin to know it for ourselves, at all sort of levels, what's good and what's bad, and the causes and effects of things. Would you "choose" to do something if you think it isn't useful? When panna knows that kusala states are useful (and necessary to reach nibbana), then one begins to follow the path that is wholesome. When panna knows that akusala states are ugly, have many faults, then one avoids (or some of the time!!!) the path that is unwholesome. Panna has many different conditions: what has been accumulated in the past, the suitability of this life to accumulate panna, being associated with a wise person, listening to the true dhamma, skillful attention, etc. When panna leads, many different kusala states follow, but all because of conditions, not us, not you, and not me. kom 17215 From: James Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:54pm Subject: Free Willy!! :-) [was: Free Will (again)] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > > I'll try and bring up the > > freewill issue. For now I can say that I believe that in direct > > proportion to the degree of acceptance/understanding of anatta > > ancilliary ideas such as 'freewill' also drop away. There are just > > conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing with no one anywhere. > Seeing > > this gradually leads away from the clinging to self and samsara. > > Last night, I met up with Jon, Sarah, Christine and Ajarn Paul. I > knew that it was going to be an interesting discussion when the > first question that Jon asked as I sat down was, "What do you mean > by free will?". Rob M, Howard, Wendy, Larry, Kom, and All, Wow! I have read these posts with great interest. I must salute Rob M for his unflinching honesty about his spiritual dilemma concerning non-self and free will. That is a level of honesty I don't see too often and I highly respect it. Please allow me to throw my radical viewpoint to this fray…as usual :-). From my perspective, most of the `knowledgeable' Buddhists in the world are so attached to the teaching of `Non-Self' that they have created in their psyches a replacement self. I call it the: `Self- Non-Self'. It is a `self' that doesn't exist as `self', but does exist as `non-self'. It is a `Non-Self' that is just as much `Self' and the original `Self', but is viewed as `Non-Self'. Is such contradiction possible in the human psyche? YOU BET IT IS!!! Is this what the Buddha intended with his teaching of "Non-Self"? Heck No! He taught it so that people would abandon the sense of self (and the garbage attached) and then have nothing left. But that is not what most Buddhists have done. Many have replaced the original 'self' with a warped and twisted new concept of self. The inescapable result will be deep angst and confusion as one lives with a `Self-Non-Self' that most definitely exists in the psyche, but is not supposed to exist. Howard explained it the best I think, but unfortunately in a very choppy and disjointed way over several posts: Both `Self' and `Non- Self' should be dropped. Holding them is like having a hot ball (shot-putt?) stuck in the throat. They won't go up and they won't go down. My input: Anatta is a concept to be developed slowly through meditation…not a concept to be discussed over dinner in Bangkok. How does Free Will correspond with Anatta? Who cares??!! Enjoy Bangkok before your vacation is over already! The answers will come later…maybe at the pool with Dan. :-) My opinion. Metta, James 17216 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 9:54pm Subject: Re: Free Will (again) DearRobM, Back from my swim. Just off to Thai language class so only have time for one more repost. This was a letter to Christine almost exactly one year ago. BTW great to hear you met with her too in Hongkong - I'll be seeing her for the first time on Friday. _________ I really don't want to believe that > I am just a 'process' who seems to be a living puppet that > everything happens to, things (mental states) arise as an intrusion, > without permission, or without being intended or evoked....the problem is, of course, that I don't want it to be so.....anatta, and > no control. +++++++ Dear Christine, It is very nice that you can admit the difficulty you're having with 'getting' anatta. Sometimes we talk about about this most profound truth rather easily, and so it might seem that it should be like ABC. But is the deepest aspect of life and thus it is incomparably difficult to grasp let alone fathom. I like what you said about 'the living puppet', it reminds me of the Bhikkhuni-samyutta where Mara approaches the Bhikkhuni Sela "Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Sela, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse: "By whom has this puppet been created? Where is the maker of the puppet? Where has the puppet arisen? Where does the puppet cease?"[24] Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Sela: "Now who is this...? This is Mara the Evil One... desiring to make me fall away from concentration." Then the bhikkhuni Sela, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause, When the cause dissolves then it will cease."endquote Things do indeed, as you said, happen "without permission or without being intended or invoked". When I first started to see that this is really the way things are it scared me alot, and I wanted to turn away and try to believe that it was otherwise. But, you know, this is what dukkha really is. We can't stop seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, feeling, knowing, thinking; these dhammas are not ours and they arise by conditions. They oppress by continually arising and ceasing. The amazing thing is that the more we look into this, and the more obvious dukkha thus becomes, the happier we become. And paradoxically the more we see that there is no control the more freedom we have. The more we see that right effort is a conditioned phenomena the more vigor there is - because we are not wasting energy trying to have what can't yet be had. Other parami are needed too - patience and wisdom should develop together. Could I recommend yet another book - a short one - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment , which explains the ten parami (much easier than the patthana). You can read it at http://www.abhidhamma.org best wishes robert 17217 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:01pm Subject: RE: Another Approach Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Dear Rob, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Last night, I asked if the Buddha could foresee > with precision > events that would unfold two thousand years in > the future (such as > the World Trade Centre bombing). I'm not sure, > but I think that our > two moderators had different opinions (gasp!). > > Here is my opinion. It was clear that the Buddha > could anticipate > things that would soon happen (i.e. when He > intervened to stop > Angulimalla from killing his mother). Seeing the > past accumulations > of each person would allow the Buddha to make > reasonable conclusions > regarding things that were just about to happen. > The Buddha could > also forsee general future trends as demonstrated > in His analysis of > the 16 dreams of King Pasendai. How about predicting exactly another Buddha 4 aeons from now? That is way longer (incomparable) than a few thousand years... On the other hand, this Buddha is said to have made a resolution to become a Buddha by thought, and words, for 16 aeons (plus the next 4 aeons [by thought, words, and deeds] making 20 aeons and 100,000 kappas). This Buddha was predicted by 24 sammasam-buddha that appeared in the last 4 aeons. Why didn't the Buddhas before that? kom 17218 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Dear Rob, I think you replied in response to the discussions you had! kom > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:06 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) > > > Hey, don't blame me for that last posting. > Conditions arose, I had > no choice. I had to write that message. It was > predestined to > happen. Your reply or lack of reply is also pre-destined. 17219 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 11:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "what is awareness. Hi Stephen, It's very difficult to discuss the Dhamma if we can't agree on what the Dhamma is. The Abhidhamma and the Commentaries make it clear that the eight factors of the Ariyan Path are mental factors (cetasikas). In a moment when Nibbana is the object of consciousness, those eight mental factors arise as part of the five khandhas (part of the sankhara-khandhas). Likewise, it is made clear that whenever five or six of those factors (including one, at most, of the three abstinences), are present in their mundane forms, then that is a moment of satipatthana. You reject those texts and I think you reject that the eight Path factors are cetasikas; but perhaps you could say where, in the remainder of the Tipitaka, it is stated that they are "steps." Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello Ken > > >Since this `method' is, as the author rightly says, the > >Noble Eightfold Path, it is practised exclusively by the > >Noble Ones. > I'd say we all practice it, the Noble Ones have realized it. > >I wonder if the author agrees that the > >method that worldling disciples can follow is the > >five-fold way of mundane satipatthana. > That's Samma Sati. Add 7 other steps. > (Don't forget effort, which requires doing things/free choice, and samadhi, > defined as the four jhanas ;-) > metta, stephen 17220 From: Date: Tue Nov 26, 2002 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "what is awareness. Hello Ken, >It's very difficult to discuss the Dhamma if we can't >agree on what the Dhamma is. Yes. (The suttas are a sectarian compilation that incorporate much abhihamma; at this point there as good as we have — the agamas being equal — but they can't be regarded as the original teaching. We simply have to pick our best interpretation.) Perhaps the difference between us is that I'm open to many views. >You reject those texts and I think you reject that the >eight Path factors are cetasikas; but perhaps you could >say where, in the remainder of the Tipitaka, it is stated >that they are "steps." Analyzing the khandha of sankhara as 52 cetasikas isn't very plausible or useful to me; if it works for you, great. Using the word "steps" was a poor choice in the context of my original post. I should have simply said that there are 8 factors to be practiced. However, if it's steps you'd like ;-) try MN.iii 72 to 78, the Mahacattarisaka Sutta. metta, stephen 17221 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:43am Subject: Reply to ????? Dear James: Thank you for the letter you sent me. I know I waswrong to call you adults "guys", but it was just a sense of humor! I had learnt a lot about Buddhism from your letter,and I think it is my turn to answer your question. Being like a child means that we got to think like a child. We would have to believe in God because you believe in him, and because he is the creator. Child's thoughts are clean and honest, and we have to be like this to go to heaven. Are the Buddhas optimistic? Do you have any more advice? (I thought it was funny that you were like me!!!) Please write back! Yours sincerely, Philip 17222 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:47am Subject: Reply to Kom Dear Kom: Thank you for writing. After reading your letter, I have learnt a lot more about Buddhism. But there are one or two things I still don't understand, and I hope you can help me: 1. You said that Buddhas also teach us bad things,like killing, stealing, lying, saying bad things......But Buddhas are Gods, surely they won't teach us to do those things!?? Thanks again for writing. If you have any questions about Christianity, don't hestitate to tell me. Yours sincerely, Philip 17223 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:49am Subject: Surprise! I'm Sandy Dear Kiana, I'm Sandy! Are you a Buddhist? Do you know anything about Buddhism? Life and death- What happens after death? Can you find the people who are reborn in the future? Please reply to me. Sandy 17224 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:55am Subject: Buddhadhamma In The Buddha's Own Words Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my reply to the facinating thread regarding Stephen's post "Is Buddhadhamma pessimistic?". Coincidently, I have recently translated Section 49, Catunipaata Paali, Anguttarakikaayo. The statements of the Buddha in that Section 49 seem to be describing what Buddhadhamma really is in the Buddha's own words. When I read these statements of the Buddha, they support the understanding of Brian and Jack while they seem to contradict the views of Stephen, James, Beth and Joyce (due to her Maya quote). But, no big deal! Appreciation of the Buddha's teachings is a slow, gradual and (often painful) process. Now, I also sound pessimistic as I wrote "(often painful) process". As there are Pali scholars and students on this list, I also included the original Pali passages so that they can perform "Syntax Walk- through" on my translations and trace Pali terms and their counterparts in English. Please view the following literal translation. -------------------------------------------- VIPALLAASA SUTTAM "Cattaarome, bhikkhave, saññaavipallaasaa cittavipallaasaa di.t.thivipallaasaa. katame cattaaro? anicce, bhikkhave, niccanti saññaavipallaaso cittavipallaaso di.t.thivipallaaso; dukkhe, bhikkhave, sukhanti saññaavipallaaso cittavipallaaso di.t.thivipallaaso; anattani, bhikkhave, attaati saññaavipallaaso cittavipallaaso di.t.thivipallaaso; asubhe, bhikkhave, subhanti saññaavipallaaso cittavipallaaso di.t.thivipallaaso. ime kho, bhikkhave, cattaaro saññaavipallaasaa cittavipallaasaa di.t.thivipallaasaa. "Cattaarome, bhikkhave, nasaññaavipallaasaa nacittavipallaasaa nadi.t.thivipallaasaa. katame cattaaro? anicce, bhikkhave, aniccanti nasaññaavipallaaso nacittavipallaaso nadi.t.thivipallaaso; dukkhe, bhikkhave, dukkhanti nasaññaavipallaaso nacittavipallaaso nadi.t.thivipallaaso; anattani, bhikkhave, anattaati nasaññaavipallaaso nacittavipallaaso nadi.t.thivipallaaso; asubhe, bhikkhave, asubhanti nasaññaavipallaaso nacittavipallaaso nadi.t.thivipallaaso. ime kho, bhikkhave, cattaaro nasaññaavipallaasaa nacittavipallaasaa nadi.t.thivipallaasaa"ti. ABERRATIONS Monks, these four are aberrations of memory, aberrations of consciousness and aberrations of view. What are the four? Monks, taking permanence in impermanence is aberration of memory, aberration of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, taking pleasure in misery is aberration of memory, aberration of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, taking self in selflessness is aberration of memory, aberration of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, taking beauty in ugliness is aberration of memory, aberration of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, these four are aberrations of memory, aberrations of consciousness and aberrations of view. Monks, these four are sanities of memory, sanities of consciousness and sanities of view. What are the four? Monks, taking impermanence in impermanence is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, taking misery in misery is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, taking selflessness in selflessness is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, taking ugliness in ugliness is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, these four are sanities of memory, sanities of consciousness and sanities of view. The above Suttam is Section 49, Catunipaata Pali, Anguttaranikaayo. According to the VIPALLAASA SUTTAM, the Buddha did not mince his words. He called any views aberrant that deviate from four characteristics of body and mind (misery, impermanence, selflessness, and ugliness). If you regard the Buddha's description of real phenomena as misery, impermanence, selflessness, and ugliness - as pessimism, then you may perhaps need a lot of Buddhist psychotherapy to rid yourselves of aberrations (VIPALLAASAA). With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 17225 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:57am Subject: Hi. Dear Jan, Hi, Jan. My name is Ki Yong Kim and I am thirteen years old. I was born in Seoul, Korea. I go to West Island School in Hong Kong. My hobbies are playing computer games and playing football. I am a home alone kid, because my mom lives in Korea with my elder brother who has to go to university next year. Wish him luck, hehe. I know your brother well. Kane... Our lesson is boring without him. Hehe I read your letter Jan. Its really surprising when someone you know dies unexpectedly. If someone dies by disease or they get too old, you can just think thats the way he/she had to go, but if someone died by terrorist attacks, its really hard to understand. I never had that kind of experience before, but I still know how you'd feel. Bali Bombing killed a lot of people and it made a lot of harms to people. I can't believe Mr. Wash-till was one of the victims. Some tourist guides quit their jobs and many shops near the tourism places were closed. This world is such a mess. I don't why people kill each other. I hope there will be peace soon. In your letter I learnt that you had your own religion and Buddhism people belives in reincarnation. I have a different opinion Jan. Because I am Catholic, I belive in heaven and the under world also known as hell. I hope Mr Wash-till is having a peaceful life in heaven. I have some questions about Buddhism Jan. I am just wandering when do you have to go to the temple? In Catholic we go to church Saturday or Sunday. Can every monks do Shaolin? They are cool. Hehe... Hm... I think I have no more questions. Please excuse me if there are grammar mistakes. I am not really good at English because I don't try(??). Have a good time, and you don't have to reply me if you can't. See ya. Sincerly, Ki Yong KIM _ 17226 From: ajahn_paul Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:02am Subject: Re: Hi. Hi Kim, After reading your letter, i would like to share something, my own story! ^^ i'd been a vegetarian for 11 yrs, i know its not easy for u to know what had happened 13yrs ago, but i will try to let u know anyway! ^_~ in June of 1989, many many ppl got killed in China, and i started to think,,, why? why so many ppl got killed at the same time? what caused them to die at the same time? Kamma? if yes, how can so many ppl were having the same situation???? on 3 july 1989, i started to be a vegetarian, and everyday after work, i just keep reading books. no movies, no tv-program, no sport, everything stopped. i kept spending my spare time like that for 2 yrs. during that period, i found out that there r 2 kinds of kamma, one is individual, another one is common. [there should be a special term, but sorry, i dont know! :p] For example, from the early morning when u woke up, u brush ur teeth, having ur breakfast, get change, then go to school. althought all ur school-mates r doing the same, but u may not getting up at the same time, not having the same breakfast, no using the same transpotation to go to school, thats what i called the individual kamma. Then, all of u sitting in the same class, thats what i called the kamma in common. im not sure if any of u can understand what im trying to say, but since we have so many good dhamma friends here, i know they will help me to explain that! hehehee --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Star Kid wrote: > > Dear Jan, > > Hi, Jan. My name is Ki Yong Kim and I am thirteen > years old. I was born in Seoul, Korea. I go to West > Island School in Hong Kong. My hobbies are playing > computer games and playing football. I am a home alone > kid, because my mom lives in Korea with my elder > brother who has to go to university next year. Wish > him luck, hehe. I know your brother well. Kane... Our > lesson is boring without him. Hehe > > I read your letter Jan. Its really surprising when > someone you know dies unexpectedly. If someone dies by > disease or they get too old, you can just think thats > the way he/she had to go, but if someone died by > terrorist attacks, its really hard to understand. I > never had that kind of experience before, but I still > know how you'd feel. Bali Bombing killed a lot of > people and it made a lot of harms to people. I can't > believe Mr. Wash-till was one of the victims. Some > tourist guides quit their jobs and many shops near the > tourism places were closed. This world is such a mess. > I don't why people kill each other. I hope there will > be peace soon. > > In your letter I learnt that you had your own religion > and Buddhism people belives in reincarnation. I have a > different opinion Jan. Because I am Catholic, I belive > in heaven and the under world also known as hell. I > hope Mr Wash-till is having a peaceful life in heaven. > > I have some questions about Buddhism Jan. I am just > wandering when do you have to go to the temple? In > Catholic we go to church Saturday or Sunday. Can every > monks do Shaolin? They are cool. Hehe... Hm... I think > I have no more questions. > > Please excuse me if there are grammar mistakes. I am > not really good at English because I don't try(??). > Have a good time, and you don't have to reply me if > you can't. See ya. > > Sincerly, Ki Yong KIM 17227 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 5:46am Subject: RE: [dsg] Reply to Kom Dear Philip, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > > 1. You said that Buddhas also teach us bad things,like > killing, stealing, lying, saying bad things......But > Buddhas are Gods, surely they won't teach us to do > those things!?? That's very good, Philip. The Buddha teaches that doing bad things (bad kamma) bring bad results (results of kamma). Because of doing bad things, one might suffer lives in unhappy planes of existence, like being in hell, being a hungry ghost, being animals, or at the very least when being a human, suffers things that we don't like. A Buddha (according to my understanding) is not a god. He is a human who has accumulated wisdom and compassion for others for a very long period of time, over many lives. By knowing things that should be known (by wisdom), he has achieved true happiness, and by his compassion, he teaches what he knows so that other may also achieve true happiness as well. > > Thanks again for writing. If you have any questions > about Christianity, don't hestitate to tell me. Thanks for writing, and for the offer to explain about Christianity. I do not have any questions at the moment, and if I do, we will have to do this off-list. Many folks here are parts of this group to learn about what the Buddha teaches, so we don't normally discuss things that aren't related on the group. I hope you write again. kom 17228 From: James Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:04am Subject: Re: Buddhadhamma In The Buddha's Own Words --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" wrote: > ABERRATIONS > > Monks, these four are aberrations of memory, aberrations of > consciousness and aberrations of view. What are the four? Monks, > taking permanence in impermanence is aberration of memory, aberration > of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, taking pleasure in > misery is aberration of memory, aberration of consciousness and > aberration of view. Monks, taking self in selflessness is aberration > of memory, aberration of consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, > taking beauty in ugliness is aberration of memory, aberration of > consciousness and aberration of view. Monks, these four are > aberrations of memory, aberrations of consciousness and aberrations > of view. > > Monks, these four are sanities of memory, sanities of consciousness > and sanities of view. What are the four? Monks, taking impermanence > in impermanence is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and > sanity of view. Monks, taking misery in misery is sanity of memory, > sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, taking > selflessness in selflessness is sanity of memory, sanity of > consciousness and sanity of view. Monks, taking ugliness in ugliness > is sanity of memory, sanity of consciousness and sanity of view. > Monks, these four are sanities of memory, sanities of consciousness > and sanities of view. > > The above Suttam is Section 49, Catunipaata Pali, Anguttaranikaayo. > > > According to the VIPALLAASA SUTTAM, the Buddha did not mince his > words. He called any views aberrant that deviate from four > characteristics of body and mind (misery, impermanence, selflessness, > and ugliness). Dear Suan, How are you? With all due respect, I find your interpretation of this sutta lacking. Where is the Buddha saying that the four characteristics of body and mind are: misery, impermanence, selflessness, and ugliness? I don't see him saying that. I believe you have misunderstood his message. First, he is talking about aberrations of view, memory and consciousness, not "official" characteristics of mind and body. In other words, he is speaking about incorrect perception in regards to the mundane and the transcendent. Allow me to use an analogy to explain how I interpret this sutta: Let's say you are standing in front of a fun house mirror that radically distorts your image. Some people (the majority) will look at that image and think, "That is me." These are the people who take permanence for impermanence, pleasure for misery, etc. And a few wise people will look into the mirror and know, "That is not me." They are the ones who take impermanence for impermanence, misery for misery, selflessness for selflessness, etc. But, and this is the important thing, the 'you' being reflected, your Buddha Nature, is not the image in the mirror. Rejecting the fun house mirror of distorted view, consciousness, and memory isn't pessimistic...it is liberating and joyful. This is my interpretation and I could be mistaken while you are correct. Importantly, my interpretation and optimist outlook works for me...that's all that matters. Take care. Metta, James > > If you regard the Buddha's description of real phenomena as misery, > impermanence, selflessness, and ugliness - as pessimism, then you may > perhaps need a lot of Buddhist psychotherapy to rid yourselves of > aberrations (VIPALLAASAA). > > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 17229 From: nidive Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:40am Subject: Re: 3Fear of Rupas Hi James, Oh well whatever... I know that I am 'correct' and you know that you are 'correct'. For personal reasons, I know I am 'correct' that contemplation of rupas will lead to insight in conjunction with contemplation of nama. For personal reasons, I know that it is possible to know rupas as rupas are and namas as namas are. I don't take the view that rupas are to be disregarded since they can't be known exactly as they are (simply because I know that rupas can be known exactly as they are). With metta, NEO Swee Boon 17230 From: James Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:58am Subject: Re: Reply to ????? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James: > > Thank you for the letter you sent me. I know I > waswrong to call you adults "guys", but it was just a > sense of humor! > > I had learnt a lot about Buddhism from your letter,and > I think it is my turn to answer your question. Being > like a child means that we got to think like a child. > We would have to believe in God because you believe in > him, and because he is the creator. Child's thoughts > are clean and honest, and we have to be like this to > go to heaven. > > Are the Buddhas optimistic? > > Do you have any more advice? (I thought it was funny > that you were like me!!!) > > Please write back! > > Yours sincerely, > > Philip Hi Star Kid Philip! Thank you for the apology and admitting you went too far with your `sense of humor'. Yes, you and I are very similar. I also often go too far with my sense of humor. Will either of us be able to completely stop doing that? Should we? My answer to both questions is: no. Some things can't be completely changed. What we both need to do is to apologize freely and frequently. I am glad you have learned this already. I have business cards with "I'm sorry" printed on them that I often give out. Makes the process quicker! :-) Just kidding! Thank you for your answer about Christianity. I agree with you. We all must try to keep our thoughts `clean and honest'. It is funny that you ask about the optimism of Buddhas because I have had some discussion about that recently on the Internet. Philip, I believe you will get different answers depending on whom you ask and how they interpret the meaning of the word `optimist'. I believe that many misinterpret that word and think it means something that it doesn't mean. `Optimist' means someone who is hopeful, enthusiastic, and dedicated; but many people seem to think that `Optimist' means someone who is deliriously happy, silly, and foolhardy. With my interpretation of the word, I would have to say that I think any Buddha is 100% an Optimist. People view Buddhism, just as they view life, in different ways depending on their personalities. Are you familiar with the `Winnie The Pooh' stories? Well, in those stories you will see how the different animals represent different types of people in the world. Eeroy the donkey is a pessimist, Tigger is a happy-go-lucky fool, The Owl is an intellectual, Piglet is a paranoid, Kinga is motherly, and Winnie the Pooh is an optimist. I think Winnie the Pooh is the most like a Buddha. Winnie the Pooh always tries to help others, he doesn't judge, he doesn't do too much or too little, he knows and accepts his limitations, when he is tired he sleeps and when he is hungry he eats, and he has hope and the knowledge that everything will turn out just fine (even when it appears that things won't.) We should all try to be as much like Winnie the Pooh as possible. The only advice I can give you Philip is to do your best in school; try to understand where other people are coming from; and MOST IMPORTANTLY, don't let anyone tell you that you are not a good person and you should be someone else. Each star in the universe shines in a different way. You just keep shining Star Kid!! Love, James 17231 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:15am Subject: Re: Free Will (again) Robert, You are seeing yourself as nama-rupa. And since nama-rupa is conditioned, you conclude that there is no control. Seeing oneself as nama-rupa is a self-view, and the view "there is no control" is derived from the self-view of seeing oneself as nama-rupa. Metta, Victor > so is worth another look: > > Someone wrote to me a while back who > feels that no control is a dangerous idea.They wanted to stress > control and volitional intention > which is what they believe that Buddha really taught > and they feel uncontrollabilty to be a pernicious > belief leading to apathy. > > "I have a choice whether to get angry in the present > moment." the writer said."this is new kamma". > > I replied: > Yes, the processes of cittas during anger are new > kamma. However, they are > also conditioned. The Patthana, the last and most > important book of the > Abhidhamma, goes into enormous detail about the 24 > paccaya (conditions). > Some of which are past and some present. But even the > present ones do not > simply arise out of nothing. Nor do they arise because > "I" want them to. The > processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and > there is no "person" > who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even > the cittas that are > arising at this moment are conditioned by previous > cittas as well as well as > by other conditions that are present at the same time. > > They further wrote that "we are not just > helpless automata acting out our old kamma - that is > absurd. > I hope the above helps overcome the despair that comes > from the belief that we are a slave to our > conditioning." > > I said "This sounds like the debates that western > Philosophy used to have (and still > does) about Free-will versus Determinism. > The Buddha's analysis of the world is neither, it is > the middle path. Thus > the statement about "we being helpless automata acting > out our old kamma" > misses the point. There is no "we" to be anything. And > kamma is not the only > condition. > Hearing the teachings of Buddhism - especially the > deep teachings on anatta, > are a condition for understanding. This understanding > leads to energy: > energy to hear more, and energy to carry on with the > study and practice of > vipassana. . And if > understanding grows then there > will be detachment from the idea of self and of > control. Then there is no > more despair about the path - because "I" have been > taken out of the > equation. The "I" that we love so much, the "I" that > we want to be happy, > get enlightened , whatever. Then, as the > Visuddhimagga says, > 'there is a path but no one on the path'." > > This round of births and deaths is beginningless. However, it is > not random in any sense. Because of conditions birth occurs in > one plane and because of different conditions birth occurs in > another plane. Panna (wisdom) is a conditioned phenomena and it > is itself conditioned. > What are the conditions for panna to develop : hearing the > Dhamma, considering it, applying it and also accumulations of > merit from the infinite past (pubekata punnata). Why are we so > interested in Dhamma? Why isn't the leader of the Taliban > interested; surely he makes effort, surely he has the intention > to do what is best? Why do some people hear Dhamma but find it > unappealing while others can't get enough even after hearing it > just once? Why are some initially not interested and then later > they get interested and surpass in understanding those who > studied much longer? It is clear that there must be reasons for > all this; and the Dhamma explains it all. > > You wrote "that's where i get stuck...if all dhammas except > nibbana > > are > > conditioned (i'm going on saddha with this, of course), then > > thinking one > > can develop anything seems like an exercise in > > micchaditthi.... > > _________________ > Good point. I think it depends on the thinking. If we have the > idea of "I can do it", then we are likely to be caught in self > view. Or we think we can manufacture sati by effort or good > intention - self. But there can be wisdom - not us- that sees > the danger in samasara and thus there is naturally effort that > arises with that understanding. It is subtle: often we slip into > self view; either towards the freewill end of the continuum or > towrds the fatalistic end that thinks nothing can be done. > > ____________________________ > > > > > can the path be developed? or do we just leave it up to (for > > lack of a > > better f-word) "fate"? "" > __________________ > Fate implies a preordained outcome. In that case whether we did > this that or the other nothing would make a thread of > difference. We could go out and kill and pillage and nothing > would have any effect and we would all get enlightened or not > get enlightened depending on our "fate". This is not what the > Buddha taught. He explained in detail many different conditions. > It is true that some are past conditions but there are also > present ones thus it is not fatalism. Both the idea of fatalism > and the idea of freewill are bound up in self view - a self who > can control and a self who can't. The Dhamma is the middle way > and is neither. > Robert 17232 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Hi Kom, I think you are confusing conditionality with uncontrollability. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Rob, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > > > > I then raised the question of the role of meditation. After some > > discussion, Jon asked me what my current mental states were. I > > replied, "Confusion and restlessness". I then continued on thinking > > aloud, "But confusion and restlessness are not vipaka. These are > > javana. I did not choose to be confused. I did not choose to be > > restless. These states arose naturally because of conditions, not > > because of free will and choice." > > > > I feel that I am now at the edge of a cliff. It seems clear to me > > now that there is no "choice" in the thought process. However, if I > > say that all is pre-determined because there is no choice, then I > > take away any sense of ethical responsibility and all that I have to > > do is to "stay on the roller-coaster ride until the end". > > > > Rob K (or others), can you help pull me back from the edge of the > > abyss? > > That sounds like a pretty good example (to me) that, because of those > conditions, this happens. All realities, including confusion, restlessness, > and thoughts are conditioned by other realities (and non- realities). If you > study patthana, then you can see that the conditioning of a reality is very > complexed: it has too many variables that point to uncontrollability. > > Panna and fears also condition. By listening to the Buddha teachings, we > begin to know it for ourselves, at all sort of levels, what's good and > what's bad, and the causes and effects of things. Would you "choose" to do > something if you think it isn't useful? When panna knows that kusala states > are useful (and necessary to reach nibbana), then one begins to follow the > path that is wholesome. When panna knows that akusala states are ugly, have > many faults, then one avoids (or some of the time!!!) the path that is > unwholesome. > > Panna has many different conditions: what has been accumulated in the past, > the suitability of this life to accumulate panna, being associated with a > wise person, listening to the true dhamma, skillful attention, etc. When > panna leads, many different kusala states follow, but all because of > conditions, not us, not you, and not me. > > kom 17233 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/26/02 10:22:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Yes, the processes of cittas during anger are new > kamma. However, they are > also conditioned. The Patthana, the last and most > important book of the > Abhidhamma, goes into enormous detail about the 24 > paccaya (conditions). > Some of which are past and some present. But even the > present ones do not > simply arise out of nothing. Nor do they arise because > "I" want them to. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, there is no "I" to do *anything*. However, there *does* arise wanting, and wanting, in turn, conditions other activity. To the extent that wanting/willing is a condition for dhammas to arise there is what is misinterpreted as a self exerting control. ---------------------------------------------------- The> > processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and > there is no "person" > who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even > the cittas that are > arising at this moment are conditioned by previous > cittas as well as well as > by other conditions that are present at the same time. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There's that speed business again! ;-)) How did it add to the point of impersonality? ========================== 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) 17234 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard, There is no "I" to do "anything"? Did you write a post to DSG today? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 11/26/02 10:22:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > > Yes, the processes of cittas during anger are new > > kamma. However, they are > > also conditioned. The Patthana, the last and most > > important book of the > > Abhidhamma, goes into enormous detail about the 24 > > paccaya (conditions). > > Some of which are past and some present. But even the > > present ones do not > > simply arise out of nothing. Nor do they arise because > > "I" want them to. > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, there is no "I" to do *anything*. However, there *does* arise > wanting, and wanting, in turn, conditions other activity. To the extent that > wanting/willing is a condition for dhammas to arise there is what is > misinterpreted as a self exerting control. > ---------------------------------------------------- > The> > > processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and > > there is no "person" > > who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even > > the cittas that are > > arising at this moment are conditioned by previous > > cittas as well as well as > > by other conditions that are present at the same time. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There's that speed business again! ;-)) How did it add to the point of > impersonality? > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 17235 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/27/02 12:39:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > There is no "I" to do "anything"? Did you write a post to DSG today? > > Metta, > Victor > > ======================= That's a loaded question, Victor! ;-)) Conventionally speaking, of course I do things, and writing a post today was one of them. Conventionally speaking there are also such things as troubles and efforts and capacities. But I've never literally seen any of them. Victor, there are (at least) two ways to talk about things. Our ordinary speech is a mix of these two modes, literal and conventional. This is just fine so long as the mix doesn't take us in. The example of such conflation that I like is that of someone asking a farmer whether a sprout has the capacity to grow to a plant; when the farmer answers in the affirmative, the next question is where in the sprout can one find the capacity! The farmer, of course, looks at the questioner as if he were out of his mind - which he would be if he thought that speaking of capacities was to speak of "things". Conventional speech is *perfectly* useful, meaningful, and correct so long as it isn't conflated with literal speech. 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) 17236 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard, How should one understand what you mean by "there is no 'I' to do 'anything'", if there is anyone to understand it at all? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 11/27/02 12:39:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > There is no "I" to do "anything"? Did you write a post to DSG today? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > ======================= > That's a loaded question, Victor! ;-)) > Conventionally speaking, of course I do things, and writing a post > today was one of them. Conventionally speaking there are also such things as > troubles and efforts and capacities. But I've never literally seen any of > them. Victor, there are (at least) two ways to talk about things. Our > ordinary speech is a mix of these two modes, literal and conventional. This > is just fine so long as the mix doesn't take us in. The example of such > conflation that I like is that of someone asking a farmer whether a sprout > has the capacity to grow to a plant; when the farmer answers in the > affirmative, the next question is where in the sprout can one find the > capacity! The farmer, of course, looks at the questioner as if he were out of > his mind - which he would be if he thought that speaking of capacities was to > speak of "things". Conventional speech is *perfectly* useful, meaningful, and > correct so long as it isn't conflated with literal speech. > > With metta, > Howard 17237 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:12pm Subject: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Howard: > Yes, I know that you "know" there is no self. I "know" that too. But > do we KNOW it??? > -------------------------------------------------- Excellent point! Three days ago, I "knew" that there was no self and could argue the point from an academic perspective; "No self in any of the five aggregates, no self in conditions, therfore no self at all." Three days ago, I was trying to reconcile the idea of no-self with "free will". I clung to the concept of "free will" because I felt that "free will" was necessary as a foundation of responsibility, accountability and ethics. Two days ago, when Jon asked me (when discussing another issue) about my current mental state, I answered, "confusion and restlessness". This triggered one of those "ah-ha" moments and I realized that these states did not arise because of "free will" but could only have arisen because of conditions. This led me to understand that there could not be "free will", that there could not be a self in the thought process. I went from "I know that there is no self" to "I Know that there is no self". I went one step closer to "I KNOW that there is no self". Rather than taking an academic position on the issue, I could now argue with strong conviction and confidence that there could not be a self. I feel that this was one step towards an understanding of anatta. With "free will" in the dustbin (I will also be taking it out of my Class Notes), I was now stuck with the red hot ball of pre-destiny in my throat. Again, I felt that pre-destiny undermined the concepts of responsibility, accountability and ethics. I have now realized that responsibility and accountability lose their relevance if there is no self. I have no realized that, without a self, ethics becomes a sterile classification method (good or bad), nothing more. Moving from "I know that there is no self" to "I Know that there is no self" has allowed me to lessen my attachment to concepts of responsibility, accountability and ethics. Howard, you likened my dilemma to a koan. My first practice was Zen. I remembered the koan "does a dog have a Buddha-nature" and my answer of "it doesn't matter". With reduced clinging to responsibility, accountability and ethics, I can now swallow the ball of pre-destiny and wash it down with a helping of "it doesn't matter"; pre-destiny doesn't matter because it is beyond my ability to understand the workings of kamma. I now look around and start to see how ubiquitous and insidious this self-view is; it distorts almost everything. Perhaps with further reflection, I will be able to take the next step up to "I KNow that there there is no self". I now have the rather mundane concern of, "How am I going to explain this to my class?" I will probably just take a shot at it and go through the logic a first time. This will undoubtedly condition a lot of confusion and restlessness. I will then grasp the moment to ask them the source of their own confusion and restlessness. It helped me (thanks Jon, for being a condition :-) ), perhaps it will help some of them. I also want to thank all of you who have become engaged in this discussion (especially you, Howard) for helping me along. I really hope that I can return the wonderful favour some day. Lots of Metta, Rob M :-) 17238 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:20pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Robert, I am afraid that you are being misled, that you are not anywhere close to understanding what the Buddha taught on "anatta". Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > Howard: > > Yes, I know that you "know" there is no self. I "know" that > too. But > > do we KNOW it??? > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Excellent point! > > Three days ago, I "knew" that there was no self and could argue the > point from an academic perspective; "No self in any of the five > aggregates, no self in conditions, therfore no self at all." > > Three days ago, I was trying to reconcile the idea of no-self > with "free will". I clung to the concept of "free will" because I > felt that "free will" was necessary as a foundation of > responsibility, accountability and ethics. > > Two days ago, when Jon asked me (when discussing another issue) > about my current mental state, I answered, "confusion and > restlessness". This triggered one of those "ah-ha" moments and I > realized that these states did not arise because of "free will" but > could only have arisen because of conditions. This led me to > understand that there could not be "free will", that there could not > be a self in the thought process. I went from "I know that there is > no self" to "I Know that there is no self". I went one step closer > to "I KNOW that there is no self". Rather than taking an academic > position on the issue, I could now argue with strong conviction and > confidence that there could not be a self. I feel that this was one > step towards an understanding of anatta. > > With "free will" in the dustbin (I will also be taking it out of my > Class Notes), I was now stuck with the red hot ball of pre-destiny > in my throat. Again, I felt that pre-destiny undermined the concepts > of responsibility, accountability and ethics. > > I have now realized that responsibility and accountability lose > their relevance if there is no self. I have no realized that, > without a self, ethics becomes a sterile classification method (good > or bad), nothing more. Moving from "I know that there is no self" > to "I Know that there is no self" has allowed me to lessen my > attachment to concepts of responsibility, accountability and ethics. > > Howard, you likened my dilemma to a koan. My first practice was Zen. > I remembered the koan "does a dog have a Buddha-nature" and my > answer of "it doesn't matter". With reduced clinging to > responsibility, accountability and ethics, I can now swallow the > ball of pre-destiny and wash it down with a helping of "it doesn't > matter"; pre-destiny doesn't matter because it is beyond my ability > to understand the workings of kamma. > > I now look around and start to see how ubiquitous and insidious this > self-view is; it distorts almost everything. Perhaps with further > reflection, I will be able to take the next step up to "I KNow that > there there is no self". > > I now have the rather mundane concern of, "How am I going to explain > this to my class?" I will probably just take a shot at it and go > through the logic a first time. This will undoubtedly condition a > lot of confusion and restlessness. I will then grasp the moment to > ask them the source of their own confusion and restlessness. It > helped me (thanks Jon, for being a condition :-) ), perhaps it will > help some of them. > > I also want to thank all of you who have become engaged in this > discussion (especially you, Howard) for helping me along. I really > hope that I can return the wonderful favour some day. > > Lots of Metta, > Rob M :-) 17239 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:32pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > I am afraid that you are being misled, that you are not anywhere > close to understanding what the Buddha taught on "anatta". I agree that I am not anywhere close to understanding what the Buddha taught on "anatta". Please help me see that I am being misled. Metta, Rob M :-) 17240 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:17pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Robert, Robert, every action of yours will have a consequence, and whether you like it or not, you and only you are accountable for it. If one commited murder, he or she will always suffer its consequence. You are not going anywhere by moving from "I know that there is no self" to "I Know that there is no self". The idea that one is not responsible and accountable for his or her actions and consequences is a wishful, immature thinking. It leads to harm to self and to others. Regarding your concern, I would suggest that you don't mislead your class with your current understanding. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > > I am afraid that you are being misled, that you are not anywhere > > close to understanding what the Buddha taught on "anatta". > > I agree that I am not anywhere close to understanding what the > Buddha taught on "anatta". > > Please help me see that I am being misled. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17241 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:30pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Free Will (again) Dear Victor, I appreciate the response, although I disagree. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:25 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) > > > Hi Kom, > > I think you are confusing conditionality with uncontrollability. > > Metta, > Victor > 17242 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhadhamma In The Buddha's Own Words Hi Suan, Thanks for this translation. I was having trouble understanding the difference between sanna, citta, and ditthi, so I did some searching and found an article by Ledi Sayadaw in which he said these were like three degrees of deception by an ordinary person, a magician, and a demon, respectively. So I guess that means each of the four vipallasa has three levels of depth. Correct? Do you know where this simile came from? Ledi Sayadaw, or his translator, renders "citta" as "thought", so it seems to me that we should understand "ditthi" as something like "deep seated belief". Here is an interesting snippet I have a question on: "In this world all our mistaken ideas as to what comes within the field of our observation, are due to the action of the hallucination of thought which is deeper and more unfathomable than that of the perception, since it deludes us by making false things seem true. However, as it is not so firmly rooted as the latter, it can easily be removed by investigation or by searching into the causes and conditions of things." L: Do you, or anyone, know if there is a similar succinct 'fix' to sanna and ditthi vipallasa? Is "citta" the weakest link? How are sanna and ditthi eradicated? Obviously the 4 satipatthanas correspond to the 4 vipallasas but I was wondering if there were special instructions related to sanna and ditthi. What is meant by "sanna" and "ditthi" if "citta" is "thought"? thanks, Larry "Manual of Insight" by Ledi Sayadaw http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html 17243 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:52pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Robert, every action of yours will have a consequence, and whether > you like it or not, you and only you are accountable for it. If one > commited murder, he or she will always suffer its consequence. > > You are not going anywhere by moving from "I know that there is no > self" to "I Know that there is no self". The idea that one is not > responsible and accountable for his or her actions and consequences > is a wishful, immature thinking. It leads to harm to self and to > others. > > Regarding your concern, I would suggest that you don't mislead your > class with your current understanding. > I see your line of reasoning. The way that I see it, starting with the conventional concepts of "responsibility" and "accountability" and deducting the concept of self, leaves behind the natural law of kamma. In other words, the appreciation of the law of kamma is strengthened, not weakened, by the elimination of the self-view. Above, you wrote, "The idea that one is not responsible and accountable for his or her actions and consequences is a wishful, immature thinking. It leads to harm to self and to others." I see a lot of "self-view" in these statements. How would these statements be re-written without any reference to self? I am now having second thoughts about presenting this idea to my class. There are many in my class with an extraordinarly strong attachment to self-view and they could easily misinterpret what I was saying as a denial of the law of kamma rather than a reinforcement of the law of kamma. To use Howard's imagery, I want to move from "know" to "KNOW". As mentioned below, I feel that I have taken a first step and perhaps I can capitalize the first letter; I have moved to "Know". I notice that the remaining letters to be capitalized spell out another word, "now". Somehow I feel that there is something symbolic in this, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe this is pointing to the fact that there is nothing but the now to know. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 17244 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta No now Rob. I think you have gone from know to gnough. The first concept to get the ax is progress. Larry :)) 17245 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > No now Rob. I think you have gone from know to gnough. The first concept > to get the ax is progress. > > Larry :)) Here is one way of visualizing my path "progressing": - know: taking the self out of the 5 aggregates / conditions - now: taking the self out of the thought process / perception - no: taking the self out of the understanding of kamma - o: taking the self out of the concept of progress - : understanding anatta Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 17246 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/27/2002 2:14:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > How should one understand what you mean by "there is no 'I' > to > do 'anything'", if there is anyone to understand it at all? > > Metta, > Victor ======================= Victor, I'd like you to know that my grandmother would have exclaimed "Oy, vey!!" ;-)) Understanding occurs, Victor. That's it. An event occurs. With metta, Howard 17247 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob, It occured to me that this "knowing" question probably has something to do with the three levels (?) of vipallasa: sanna, citta, & ditthi. Do you know anything about this? Larry ps: also there is the Path of Purification formula which includes various insight knowledges I know nothing about; but Purification of View is understanding of nama and rupa and concomitant (I think) with understanding (realizing ?) anatta. 17248 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:55pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Robert, I don't think you really understand what a self-view is. Reference to self in a statement does not necessarily imply self-view. Likewise, statements without reference to self does not necessarily imply it is free of self-view. Instead of teaching your class Abhidhamma, why not teach your class the verses in Dhammapada 12? I think they will benefit more from your teaching if you teach them those verses. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > > Robert, every action of yours will have a consequence, and whether > > you like it or not, you and only you are accountable for it. If > one > > commited murder, he or she will always suffer its consequence. > > > > You are not going anywhere by moving from "I know that there is no > > self" to "I Know that there is no self". The idea that one is not > > responsible and accountable for his or her actions and > consequences > > is a wishful, immature thinking. It leads to harm to self and to > > others. > > > > Regarding your concern, I would suggest that you don't mislead > your > > class with your current understanding. > > > > I see your line of reasoning. > > The way that I see it, starting with the conventional concepts > of "responsibility" and "accountability" and deducting the concept > of self, leaves behind the natural law of kamma. In other words, the > appreciation of the law of kamma is strengthened, not weakened, by > the elimination of the self-view. > > Above, you wrote, "The idea that one is not responsible and > accountable for his or her actions and consequences is a wishful, > immature thinking. It leads to harm to self and to others." I see a > lot of "self-view" in these statements. How would these statements > be re-written without any reference to self? > > I am now having second thoughts about presenting this idea to my > class. There are many in my class with an extraordinarly strong > attachment to self-view and they could easily misinterpret what I > was saying as a denial of the law of kamma rather than a > reinforcement of the law of kamma. > > To use Howard's imagery, I want to move from "know" to "KNOW". As > mentioned below, I feel that I have taken a first step and perhaps I > can capitalize the first letter; I have moved to "Know". > > I notice that the remaining letters to be capitalized spell out > another word, "now". > > Somehow I feel that there is something symbolic in this, but I can't > quite put my finger on it. > > Maybe this is pointing to the fact that there is nothing but the now > to know. > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17249 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:22pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- Dear RobM, Thanks so much for showing us your contemplations over the last few days. As you see increasing acceptance of anatta and conditionality doesn't suddenly lead to wanton behaviour. In fact because kamma is one of the main conditions it has to be understood- to the degree that this is possible- and understanding kamma properly strenghtens understanding of anatta, while also refining the understanding of what sila really is. Mike made some comments a while back :"This is such a fine and crucial point. I think that it's relatively easy to embrace anatta on a conceptual level, because, with a little understanding, it's easy to see how much unhappiness springs from the illusion of self (among other reasons). So we can reject atta out of plain old dosa... The idea of 'freedom'--meaning 'freedom of choice'--is MUCH harder to relinquish--especially (ironically) among those of us for whom 'liberation' is the central issue. I think this line of thinking usually goes something like this: "If 'I' can't choose patipada over pariyatti, or pariyatti over panyatti, If 'I' can't choose vipassana- over samatha-bhavana, If 'I' can't choose to investigate dhammas rather than to ignore them, to hear buddhadhamma rather than not to hear it, If 'I' can't choose to think, speak and act* in a wholesome way, then 'I' can never cultivate the eightfold path and attain liberation. So, 'I' don't mind giving up the idea of self, just so long as 'I'm' allowed to choose to do so (and receive the credit)...! Whether pariyatti or patipada or panyatti arises, whether samatha or vipassana bhavana is cultivated, whether dhammas are investigated or not, or buddhadhamma listened to or ignored, even whether kusala or akusala kamma is committed, NO ONE IS THERE in the arising, or the cultivation, or the investigation, listening, ignoring, thinking, speaking or acting. If there is no chooser, how can there be, or have been, a choice? Just wisdom or ignorance, in any possible situation, tipping the scale one way or the other depending on how much of each has accumulated. So it really doesn't make much sense to argue about whether we'll meditate or not, or study abhidhamma or not, or contemplate our breath rather than aggregates or bases or elements. 'We' will do what conditions, internal and external, allow us to do, and not otherwise--ever. If sufficient wisdom has accumulated for us to think, say and do intelligent things, and not to think, say or do stupid things, that's just wisdom at work--not 'us'."" Mike Robert I went one step closer > to "I KNOW that there is no self". Rather than taking an academic > position on the issue, I could now argue with strong conviction and > confidence that there could not be a self. I feel that this was one > step towards an understanding of anatta. > > With "free will" in the dustbin (I will also be taking it out of my > Class Notes), I was now stuck with the red hot ball of pre-destiny > in my throat. Again, I felt that pre-destiny undermined the concepts > of responsibility, accountability and ethics. > > I have now realized that responsibility and accountability lose > their relevance if there is no self. I have no realized that, > without a self, ethics becomes a sterile classification method (good > or bad), nothing more. Moving from "I know that there is no self" > to "I Know that there is no self" has allowed me to lessen my > attachment to concepts of responsibility, accountability and ethics. > >> I now look around and start to see how ubiquitous and insidious this > self-view is; it distorts almost everything. Perhaps with further > reflection, I will be able to take the next step up to "I KNow that > there there is no self". > > 17250 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Victor - Well, I guess that settles that!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/27/02 4:22:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Robert, > > I am afraid that you are being misled, that you are not anywhere > close to understanding what the Buddha taught on "anatta". > > Metta, > Victor > /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) 17251 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 2:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Rob - In a message dated 11/27/02 6:25:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Larry, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > >No now Rob. I think you have gone from know to gnough. The first > concept > >to get the ax is progress. > > > >Larry :)) > > Here is one way of visualizing my path "progressing": > - know: taking the self out of the 5 aggregates / conditions > - now: taking the self out of the thought process / perception > - no: taking the self out of the understanding of kamma > - o: taking the self out of the concept of progress > - : understanding anatta > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ============================ I'm not sure that trying to gauge one's "progress" is a very useful activity. Until we really know what's going on we'd probably be mistaken anyway! ;-) Thinking over things is definitely useful, but is only a little piece of the practice. Lots of guarding the senses - as consistently as posssible, regular formal meditation, and ongoing mindfulness, all carried out in a manner as consistent with the Buddha's teaching as possible, constitute the core of the practice as I see it. And we should try to engage in this with as little anticipation or expectation of "progress" as possible, for that is just a craving-trap. No doubt others here will se this matter quite differently from me, but this is my take on it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17252 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:02pm Subject: Re: 2Getting closer to Anatta --- Dear RobM and all, As you have noted one of dilemmas that occur (Wendy brought this up too) when learning about anatta is that of choice and decisions and ethics. Jon wrote this letter to a friend back in 1976 Dear Friends, '......I got the impression you may be worried about making the right decision, or doing the right thing. In fact, of course, there is no 'right' decision or thing to do, nor in any absolute sense is there a 'better' decision or thing to do. Decisions are made according to our accumulations. We can, however, appreciate the importance of having kusala citta at any moment and of developing sati at any moment. Worry is akusala, so is fear, regret and all shades of uncertainty and unease. No doubt you have in mind that you would like to be sure that what you do will be the best for your study and practice of Dhamma (as well as suiting/satisfying other less noble purposes). But how do you know what circumstances may eventuate? How can you make that situation happen? We cannot foresee the long-term course of events that our past kamma will condition as result. In fact we cannot even know the more immediate plans that our kamma has for us. In ignorance we wonder about what will be the result if...? Not realizing that next month's or next year's vipaka is the result of action already performed, not the result of today's decisions. We forget the importance of developing understanding of the realities of the present moment. How valuable it is to have just a moment of sati, to see just for a moment a little more clearly one of the realities of this moment. Do you remember the sutta when the Buddha talks about a fingersnap of awareness? We spend a lot of time wondering about what we should be doing, or thinking about what we would like to do, or worrying about what we are not doing, but we have no understanding of what is actually happening at the present moment....seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and a lot of mind-door activity. The decisions we make are just another moment of thinking, conditioned by our accumulations to do many other things too. Then we may act, but this is quite another moment, with a different moment of intention, and different realities appearing.' (end quote) 17253 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > It occured to me that this "knowing" question probably has something to > do with the three levels (?) of vipallasa: sanna, citta, & ditthi. Do > you know anything about this? > My understanding is that the Suttas talk of two types of knowledge (can't remember the reference); mundane knowledge and bright knowledge. Mundane knowledge is intellectual understanding and bright knowledge comes from direct experience. As an analogy, if I am standing by the side of the river wondering if I could jump across and I see another person accomplish the task, I have mundane knowledge that it can be done. Once I have jumped over the stream myself, I can look back with bright knowledge that it can be done. I believe that vipallasa has to do with "perversions" or "distortions" that are uprooted (not merely surpressed) by attainment of maggas. The difference between uprooting and supressing is important. Imagine a pot of boiling water. Forcing a lid on the pot will supress the steam being produced. Turning off the steam (no more conditions for the steam to arise) is analgous to uprooting. If an akusala accumulation is supressed, it can continue to exist as a latent defilement; it is always possible that it can arise in the future. Attaining a magga allows the uprooting of defilements so that they can never arise again. The four vipallasa are: - To regard what is impermanent as permanent (anicca) - To regard what is unsatisfactory as hapiness-producing (dukkha) - To regard what is without a self as a self (anatta) - To regard what is unpure as beautiful (akusala / kusala) They talk of four "types" of vipallasa (citta / sanna / ditthi). I'm not sure if "level" is the best term, but I am also not sure that "types" is a better term. For this discussion, let's call them C-type, S-type and D-type. The first magga (becoming a sotapanna) uproots: - To regard what is impermanent as permanent (anicca) [C-type, S- type and D-type] - To regard what is unsatisfactory as hapiness-producing (dukkha) [D- type only] - To regard what is without a self as a self (anatta) [C-type, S- type and D-type] - To regard what is unpure as beautiful (akusala / kusala) [D-type only] The third magga (becoming an anagami) uproots: - To regard what is unsatisfactory as hapiness-producing (dukkha) [C- type and S-type] The fourth magga (becoming an arahant) uproots: - To regard what is unpure as beautiful (akusala / kusala) [C-type and S-type] The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 3-5) explains the difference between sanna, citta and panna by way of a simile. Sanna is like the mere perception of a coin by a child who does not know its value. Citta is like the villager who knows its value. Panna is like the money- changer who penetrates its true characteristics. This simile uses panna because it is from a kusala perspective. Vipallasa are akusala, so therefore it is probably valid to substitute ditthi (which is usually taken taken to mean "wrong view" unless written as samma-ditthi) for sanna. Does this help? Metta, Rob M :-) 17254 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------- > The> > > processes of mind are happening at enormous speed and > > there is no "person" > > who can do anything to stop them or change them. Even > > the cittas that are > > arising at this moment are conditioned by previous > > cittas as well as well as > > by other conditions that are present at the same time. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There's that speed business again! ;-)) How did it add to the point of > impersonality? > ========================== >Dear Howard, The three characteristics are related to each other in various ways. With regard to aniccum (impermanence) this is far deeper than the impermance that everyone witnesses in daily life. The anicca of the tilakkhana is the rise and fall of nama and rupa and that is happening so fast. You see we think it is the same me that decided to walk over to get a glass of water. But even while that thought (to have a drink)was in its incipient stage, just some slight urge building, countless number of cittas have arisen and fallen away. All of these are conditioned. How could any of them be controlled . To relate this to anatta this is one of my favourite quotes: The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his preface to the DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) xxvii writes about this: "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions" . Robert 17255 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 8:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) > impermance that everyone witnesses in daily life. The anicca of the > tilakkhana is the rise and fall of nama and rupa and that is happening so > fast. Speed is irrelevant. 17256 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "what is awareness. Hello Stephen, You wrote: > Perhaps the difference between us is that I'm open to many views. > That could be it. I don't see how two conflicting views could both be right; the only understanding of the Dhamma worth having is the right one. How to find the right one? Well, there is the oldest recorded version, the Pali Canon. Admittedly, it can be interpreted in many ways but, I think very few ways could be consistent with it in its entirety. The ancient commentators have a version that is totally consistent, why look any further? Why prefer any other version over theirs? Whatever we do, let's not prefer our own, instinctive versions. By definition, we worldlings have wrong views -- let's not read them into the Buddhadhamma(!). I can't pretend to have a definitive understanding of the sutta you cited (the Mahacattarisaka-sutta), but may I ask you to read it again? This time, try to see it as a description of the supramundane mental factors. They are cetasikas that accompany moments of Path-consciousness and therefore, they are exclusive to the ariyans (referred to in the sutta as learners and arahats). They are the culmination of the ultimately real form of the Buddha's teaching (satipatthana), and they arise all together, not as single steps. Kind regards Ken H 17257 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:51pm Subject: Re: 2Getting closer to Anatta Wow! Jon has been this clever for more than 25 years! Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Dear Mods, I know that I should snip this post, but I was really impressed by it's content. Please forgive me. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- Dear RobM and all, > As you have noted one of dilemmas that occur (Wendy brought this up > too) when learning about anatta is that of choice and decisions and > ethics. Jon wrote this letter to a friend back in 1976 > Dear Friends, > > '......I got the impression you may be worried about > making the right decision, or doing the right thing. > In fact, of course, there is no 'right' decision or > thing to do, nor in any absolute sense is there a > 'better' decision or thing to do. Decisions are made > according to our accumulations. We can, however, > appreciate the importance of having kusala citta at > any moment and of developing sati at any moment. > Worry is akusala, so is fear, regret and all shades of > uncertainty and unease. > > No doubt you have in mind that you would like to be > sure that what you do will be the best for your study > and practice of Dhamma (as well as suiting/satisfying > other less noble purposes). But how do you know what > circumstances may eventuate? How can you make that > situation happen? We cannot foresee the long-term > course of events that our past kamma will condition as > result. > > In fact we cannot even know the more immediate plans > that our kamma has for us. In ignorance we wonder > about what will be the result if...? Not realizing > that next month's or next year's vipaka is the result > of action already performed, not the result of today's > decisions. We forget the importance of developing > understanding of the realities of the present moment. > How valuable it is to have just a moment of sati, to > see just for a moment a little more clearly one of the > realities of this moment. > > Do you remember the sutta when the Buddha talks about > a fingersnap of awareness? We spend a lot of time > wondering about what we should be doing, or thinking > about what we would like to do, or worrying about what > we are not doing, but we have no understanding of what > is actually happening at the present moment....seeing, > hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and a lot of > mind-door activity. > > The decisions we make are just another moment of > thinking, conditioned by our accumulations to do many > other things too. Then we may act, but this is quite > another moment, with a different moment of intention, > and different realities appearing.' (end quote) 17258 From: robmoult Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 9:57pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, Perhaps you can help my understanding. Can you explain kamma / rebirth works without a self. Thanks. Metta, Rob M :-) 17259 From: Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob, You are right that the complete eradication of vipallasa only occurs during a path moment, and, as such, eradication of self view is only the beginning. However, what I was really interested in was the 3 manifestations: sanna, citta, ditthi, and Ledi Sayadaw's comment that citta was easier to penetrate than sanna because it was just a matter of investigation. This implies to me that sanna and ditthi require more than satipatthana. Is that right? If so, can you fill in the blanks? Alternately, "investigation" might mean something other than (less than) satipatthana or only one aspect of satipatthana. I'm waiting to hear from Suan on this. If you missed that email, here's the link to Ledi Sayadaw's comment: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html I would be interested in what you have to say on this. Do you think penetration of sanna, citta, and ditthi could be considered as progress of insight? If panna is the antidote for ditthi, what is the antidote for sanna? What would be an example of self view manifested as sanna, as citta, and as ditthi? It looks like we might be drifting toward sila, samadhi, panna as a solution, but I don't see how sila would work here and samadhi as "investigation" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe there is something in the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary that would relate to these 3 manifestations. How about body, speech, and mind? Larry 17260 From: James Date: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:20pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Perhaps you can help my understanding. > > Can you explain kamma / rebirth works without a self. > > Thanks. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Rob M. Well, I am not Victor, but I would like to answer this question. First, as I have written many times on the Internet and tried to explain to fellow Buddhists, often to no avail, but I will try again: I, you, Howard, Kom, etc., everyone on this list and everyone in the world (probably), has a 'self'. The only person who doesn't have a 'self', who has anatta or non-self instead, would be a Buddha . What is the difference? We all have the desire for existence/non- existence, but a Buddha doesn't. Desire for existence or non- existence is what creates the 'self', and that created 'self' is what experiences kamma and rebirth. A Buddha will not experience kamma or rebirth because the desire for existence has been removed, therefore the false sense of a permanent self has been removed , and therefore there is nothing to experience kamma or rebirth. The Buddha taught that ultimate reality for humans is `non-self', but he accepted that a `false sense of self' is very real in all of us non-Buddhas. Why is figuring out anatta so difficult? Because we don't have it yet. How can you know non-self when you have a `self` blocking your insight? When non-arahants go around talking about how they have `no-self', and tell other people that they have `no-self', they are being quite silly. I do have a self that will be reborn and experience kamma. It isn't until I destroy the last five fetters, of which the desire for existence/non-existence is one, that I will finally lose that pesky `self'. Intellectualizing the teaching of anatta won't get me there, and I shouldn't pretend I am there already. I have a self, but when I abandon that self and achieve anatta, only then will I say I have no-self. I hope this explanation answers your question. Take care. Metta, James 17261 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:15am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi James, Thanks for your message. Something to think about. I just called up my recent message to Larry on vipallasa which said that the first magga (becoming a sotapanna) uproots the perversion / distortion that regards what is without a self as a self (anatta). This works at all levels (citta level, the sanna level and ditthi level). The other vipallasa to be uprooted (at the anagami and arahant stage) have nothing to do with anatta. Please help me reconcile your message with this information which was taken from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary of Terms and Concepts. Metta, Rob M :-) 17262 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > What I was really interested in was the 3 > manifestations: sanna, citta, ditthi, and Ledi Sayadaw's comment that > citta was easier to penetrate than sanna because it was just a matter of > investigation. This implies to me that sanna and ditthi require more > than satipatthana. Is that right? If so, can you fill in the blanks? > Alternately, "investigation" might mean something other than (less than) > satipatthana or only one aspect of satipatthana. Let me give it a shot. I start by considering the nature of citta, sanna and ditthi. Citta ===== Citta is awareness; it is "on the surface". It arises because of the presence of an object. Ledi Sayadaw used the analogy of mistaking a tree-stump to be a person at night as an example of citta. He makes the point that simple investigation is enough to dispel the illusion. I believe that he was using the term "investigation" in a very conventional sense in this context, not in a "satipatthana sense". I suspect that uprooting citta manifestation of vipallasa requires mindfulness (yoniso manasikara). The development of yoniso manasikara is done though satipatthana. Sanna ===== Sanna is recall; it is "just below the surface". It arises because of previous "marking". Ledi Sayadaw used the analogy of the deer and the scarecrow to illustrate the superficial nature of sanna. Vis. XIV 130 uses the analogy of the blind men touching an elephant to illustrate the superficial nature of sanna. In my earlier message, it was clear that citta manifestation of vipallasa and sanna manifestation of vipallasa are grouped together. This leads me to suspect that yoniso manasikara (satipatthana) is also what is requried to uproot sanna manifestation of vipallasa. Ditthi ====== Ditthi is a wrong view; it can be deeply embedded. It arises because of accumulations. Ledi Sayadaw makes the point that wrong views (ditthi) are deeper and more firmly established than citta manifestation. It is clear that uprooting ditthi requires more than yoniso manasikara (satipatthana), it requires sotapanna-magga. In my earlier message, I noted that a sotapanna only uproots the ditthi manifestations of dukkha and akusala / kusala. It takes a higher level of sainthood to uproot the citta and sanna manifestations of these vipallasa. Uprooting the ditthi manifestation is a necessary pre-condition to uprooting the sanna and citta manifestations. Likewise, the citta manifestation can only be targetted once the sanna manifestation has been uprooted. Citta is easier to penetrate than sanna, but you have to penetrate sanna first before getting an opportunity to penetrate citta. For example, the last step over my doorstep is the easiest part of my journey home, but I have to go through h*ll to get into a position to be able to take that last step. > Do you think penetration of sanna, citta, and ditthi could be considered as progress > of insight? Uprooting ditthi comes from sotapanna-magga. Once this has been done, satipatthana can work on uprooting citta and sanna manifestations of the remaining vipallasa. In other words, I suspect that the satipatthana of a sotapanna is required. I'm not sure that I would call this "progress of insight". > If panna is the antidote for ditthi, what is the antidote > for sanna? Sanna is ethically variable and therefore can arise in both akusala and kusala states. Not sure that it needs an "antidote". > What would be an example of self view manifested as sanna, as > citta, and as ditthi? Self-view manifested as ditthi might be the belief that there is a "self" who percieves and thinks. Self-view manifested as sanna might be linking a name (a label / concept) with a person. Self-view manifested as a citta might be cittas #1, #2, #5 and #6 (all lobha- mula). Does this make sense? I gotta admit that I am making most of this up as I go along, so I hope that somebody (Suan?) can correct my mistakes. Metta, Rob M :-) 17263 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will (again) Rob M, Paul (and Christine & Sarah) --- robmoult wrote: ... ... > Last night, I met up with Jon, Sarah, Christine and Ajarn Paul. I > knew that it was going to be an interesting discussion when the > first question that Jon asked as I sat down was, "What do you mean > by free will?". It was indeed and interesting discussion, and a lively one too, with plently of views being challenged or put to the test all round. Thanks to both of you for making the effort to come, and especially to you, Rob, for providing the necessary stimulus for the discussion. Do feel free to contact Sarah and me whenever you can make time during a stop in Hong Kong. Paul, we hope you will join us again next time. Jon 17264 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:15am Subject: Re: Buddhadhamma In The Buddha's Own Words: To Larry and Pali Enthusiats Dear Larry You wrote: "I was having trouble understanding the difference between sanna, citta, and ditthi." The following is my answer. "Saññaa and di.t.thi are mental associates (cetasikas). Citta is a mental event (cittupaada). Citta, mano and viññaa.nam are synonyms. I mentioned these because I want to uphold my translations of those terms as memory (saññaa), view (di.t.thi) and consciousness (cittam). Many Pali scholars translate saññaa as perception by looking up Pali- English dictionaries. Pali-English dictionaries are very useful, but are aslo very out of date. They were compiled while Pali scholarship was in its infancy. So the compilers of dictionaries, while experts in linguistics, may not have adequate time to do research in technical terms like saññaa. So they must have prematurely rendered it as perception. I do not agree with them because perception belongs to viññaa.nakkhandhaa, not to saññakkandhaa. This is in line with the use of the term "perception" in the textbooks on psychology. Translating saññaa as perception amounts to equating a cetasika with cittam. That is a serious example of disciplinary oversight at best and disciplinary ignorance at worst, I am afraid. I said this with due respect to international Sayadaws who have to rely on the available but out-of-date Pali-English dictionaries when they translate Pali texts. Similarly, cittam should be translated as mind or consciousness because we should translate cakkhuviviññaa.nam as visual consciousness, not visual thought. Now, I translate saññaa as memory in line with definitions of saññaa given by Buddhaghosa in A.t.thasaalinii and Visuddhimaggo. The more I read different Pali texts including other commentaries, sub- commentaries and Pali grammar texts, the more I am convinced that the closest technical term in English to the term "saññaa" would be memory. As an example, a traditional Pali grammar has a beginning chapter called Saññaavidhaana. I translate this term as Treatment On Terminology. But, a literal translation of Saññaavidhaana would be "Committing To Memory Specially", or "Special Holding In Memory" by looking at vi + dhaa. In fact, Saññaavidhaana is exactly those literal meanings because this chapter contains things we must memorise first before we move on to the next and later chapters. The counterpart of Saññaavidhaana of Pali grammar texts is Samjñaaprakara.nam in Sanskrit grammar texts. Samjñaaprakara.nam literally means a book for memorising or a chapter for memorising. This is because traditional Pali and Sanskrit grammar texts work like a textbook of Euclidean geometry. A student needs to calculate how the form of a term is derived from pre-memorised rules. Burmese Sayadaws and novice monks call this process "Ruupa calculation". I will write more to answer your other questions later. For now, please kindly check if my translations of saññaa as memory, di.t.thi as view and cittam as consciousness help. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org 17265 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "what is awareness. Stephen --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > > BTW, Jon, the desire to escape from existence is samsara. Nibbana > is > awareness, here and now. Well, I think we disagree ;-) Desire to escape from existence/samsara does not lead to the breaking of the fetters that bind us to existence/samsara, but awareness (at the level of satipatthana) does. Sorry to disappoint you, Stephen, but I think we agree.;-)) Jon 17266 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:18am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob M, Let me rephrase what your question as "How does kamma / rebirth work without a self?" This question is to be put aside. Why? Because this question comes with an implicit assumption that self is something, and this very assumption is self-view, which is what gets you stuck. People who assert "there is a self" or "there is no self" or "I have a self" or "I have no self" also implicitly assume self as something. Many people think that "there is no self anywhere" is what the Buddha taught without realizing that it is their implicit assumption that leads to those conclusions. The first step to get close to understand the Buddha's teaching of anatta is to understand the meaning of the word "atta", how it is normally used without metaphysical meaning attached to it. Cutting off the metaphysical meaning attached to the word "self" is not an easy thing to do. Are you considering teaching Dhammapada 12 to your class? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Perhaps you can help my understanding. > > Can you explain kamma / rebirth works without a self. > > Thanks. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17267 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Robert - Okay, I believe I get your point. As I see it, it is not the speed, per se, of the microscopic flow of phenomena, but the typical invisibility of phenomena at that level which is germane, so that our not seeing arising and falling at the finest level fools us into imagining a false higher-level homogeneity and permanence. (A comparison might be made with the static example of the difference in seeing the individual cells of tissue under a microscope versus the apparently solid mass seen with the bare eye.) With the "progress of insight" the finer levels of impermanence become manifest (i.e., no longer "missed"), leading to the direct and full insight into aniccataa. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/27/02 11:30:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Howard: > > There's that speed business again! ;-)) How did it add to the > point of > >impersonality? > >========================== > >Dear Howard, > The three characteristics are related to each other in various ways. With > regard to aniccum (impermanence) this is far deeper than the > impermance that everyone witnesses in daily life. The anicca of the > tilakkhana is the rise and fall of nama and rupa and that is happening so > fast. > You see we think it is the same me that decided to walk over to get a > glass of water. But even while that thought (to have a drink)was in its > incipient stage, just some slight urge building, countless number of cittas > > have arisen and fallen away. All of these are conditioned. How could any > of them be controlled . To relate this to anatta this is one of my > favourite quotes: The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his > preface to the > DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) > xxvii writes about this: "Because the > functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a > deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has > to be taken while the deed is being performed to its > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four > imaginary characteristic functions of being have > bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > But the elements have not the time or span of duration > to carry out such functions" . > > Robert > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17268 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/27/02 11:51:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > >impermance that everyone witnesses in daily life. The anicca of > the > >tilakkhana is the rise and fall of nama and rupa and that is > happening so > >fast. > > > > Speed is irrelevant. > > =========================== As you may have seen in recent posts of mine, I agree with this. However, I think that the "speed business" is an imperfect expressing of an issue (microscopic vs macroscopic) which *is* relevant. 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) 17269 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard and Robert, Have you both already got tired of this decaying body? What more insight do you need? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > Okay, I believe I get your point. As I see it, it is not the speed, > per se, of the microscopic flow of phenomena, but the typical invisibility of > phenomena at that level which is germane, so that our not seeing arising and > falling at the finest level fools us into imagining a false higher- level > homogeneity and permanence. (A comparison might be made with the static > example of the difference in seeing the individual cells of tissue under a > microscope versus the apparently solid mass seen with the bare eye.) With the > "progress of insight" the finer levels of impermanence become manifest (i.e., > no longer "missed"), leading to the direct and full insight into aniccataa. > > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 11/27/02 11:30:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: > > > Howard: > > > There's that speed business again! ;-)) How did it add to the > > point of > > >impersonality? > > >========================== > > >Dear Howard, > > The three characteristics are related to each other in various ways. With > > regard to aniccum (impermanence) this is far deeper than the > > impermance that everyone witnesses in daily life. The anicca of the > > tilakkhana is the rise and fall of nama and rupa and that is happening so > > fast. > > You see we think it is the same me that decided to walk over to get a > > glass of water. But even while that thought (to have a drink)was in its > > incipient stage, just some slight urge building, countless number of cittas > > > > have arisen and fallen away. All of these are conditioned. How could any > > of them be controlled . To relate this to anatta this is one of my > > favourite quotes: The burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun in his > > preface to the > > DhatuKathu (Pali Text Society) > > xxvii writes about this: "Because the > > functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a > > deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has > > to be taken while the deed is being performed to its > > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > > 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four > > imaginary characteristic functions of being have > > bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > > But the elements have not the time or span of duration > > to carry out such functions" . > > > > Robert 17270 From: ajahn_paul Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:41am Subject: regarding the free will ^_^ hi all, i would like to use my limited english to tell my thinking on the free will issue. ^_~ A got punched by B accidentally, if we take that as a kamma from our previous lives caused the punch, it may be as what rob said, predestiny. but,,,, now it comes A's free will, he could 1)punch B back, 2)kill B, or 3)just walk away. if we beleive in kamma.... the story will go on like 1) A may get another punch from B in next life, 2) A may get killed by B in next life, or 3) the kamma on this issue stop. i think free will and predestiny is not the main point, the main point is how u react on any matters, and what u do is making a differnt future. ^__^ 17271 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) --- I think this is indeed the main point, Howard. I was going to add some more but I think you've summed it nicely already Best Robert > Hi, Robert - > > Okay, I believe I get your point. As I see it, it is not the speed, > per se, of the microscopic flow of phenomena, but the typical invisibility of > phenomena at that level which is germane, so that our not seeing arising and > falling at the finest level fools us into imagining a false higher- level > homogeneity and permanence. (A comparison might be made with the static > example of the difference in seeing the individual cells of tissue under a > microscope versus the apparently solid mass seen with the bare eye.) With the > "progress of insight" the finer levels of impermanence become manifest (i.e., > no longer "missed"), leading to the direct and full insight into aniccataa. > 17272 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Rob - In a message dated 11/28/02 12:58:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Victor, > > Perhaps you can help my understanding. > > Can you explain kamma / rebirth works without a self. > > Thanks. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > =========================== Could you explain how kamma / rebirth works *with* a self? ;-) What is self is permanent, unchanging, fixed. 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) 17273 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/28/02 8:42:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and Robert, > > Have you both already got tired of this decaying body? What more > insight do you need? > > Metta, > Victor > ======================== When there is liberation, I will know that the insight is sufficient. 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) 17274 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard, What insight? Don't expect liberation if you haven't got tired of the body. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 11/28/02 8:42:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard and Robert, > > > > Have you both already got tired of this decaying body? What more > > insight do you need? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ======================== > When there is liberation, I will know that the insight is sufficient. > > With metta, > Howard 17275 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/28/02 9:07:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > What insight? Don't expect liberation if you haven't got tired of > the body. > > Metta, > Victor > ========================== Why do you presume that I am enamored of that which ages, decays, and finally ceases? 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) 17276 From: James Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:44am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your message. Something to think about. > > I just called up my recent message to Larry on vipallasa which said > that the first magga (becoming a sotapanna) uproots the perversion / > distortion that regards what is without a self as a self (anatta). > This works at all levels (citta level, the sanna level and ditthi > level). The other vipallasa to be uprooted (at the anagami and > arahant stage) have nothing to do with anatta. > > Please help me reconcile your message with this information which > was taken from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary of Terms and > Concepts. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Stephen, Through some research, I can only conclude that the dictionary you are referring to is giving erroneous information. Amazingly, it does admit this in the preface to the first addition (see end of this post). The editor, or the sources, have confused `belief in a permanent individuality' (sakkaya) and `desire for existence' (asava). The destruction of the fetter of sakkaya does occur at the first 'stage', Sotapatti (Entering the Stream), but the destruction of the three asavas, of which desire for existence is one, occurs at the last stage, Arahatship (Enlightened) . The difference between this two is very crucial to understanding: the first is concerning belief and the second is concerning desire. At the Stream Entry level, the person no longer believes that he/she has a permanent self, or a soul that will last for eternity. He or She has lost the belief in that idea/view. However, that doesn't mean 'a false self' is then no longer present, it still present to experience kamma and rebirth. The Stream Enterer just knows that it is false, but can't do much about it. It isn't until the final stage that 'the desire for existence' is eradicated, along with lust and ignorance, that this `false self' is no longer generated., anatta is truly reached (not just understood), and kamma and rebirth ends. Allow me to quote the source I am using for this information. It is `The History of Buddhist Thought' by Edward J. Thomas. It was first published in 1951 in England. I will conclude with why I believe this source is more authoritative than the dictionary you are referencing: "They who have cast off the three fetters of belief in a permanent individuality (sakkaya), doubt, and belief in mere morality and rites are those who have reached the first stage of Entering the stream (sotapatti). They are not liable to be reborn in an unhappy existence, and are destined to enlightenment. They who have cast off the three fetters and weakened the bonds of passion, hatred, and stupidity have reached the second stage of the Once-returner (sakadagamin). They will return once to this world before making an end of pain. They who have cast off the five lower fetters (the three above with sensual passion and malice), and who arise by apparitional birth [footnote: There are four kinds of birth-oviparous, viviparous, birth from moisture (as insects), and apparitional birth, which takes place in the higher planes of existence without any physiological process, and the individual reborn (as a god or still higher being) simply appears there.] in a higher stage of existence, and there attain Nirvana, without returning to this world, have reached the third stage of the Non-returner (anagamin). Those who are arahats have destroyed the asavas (lust, desire for existence, ignorance), they have completed what was to be done, they have laid down the burden, obtained their end, and with the destruction of the fetter of desire for existence are liberated with complete knowledge. Their course cannot be pointed out (Thomas, 117- 118)." Okay, about Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by NYANATILOKA. This dictionary is very much influenced by the Abhidhamma and attempts to reconcile the incongruities in the Abhidhamma and even later commentaries with the original teachings of the Buddha. The result is a lot of unavoidable misinterpretation, which the author freely admits in the preface. Allow me to quote what is written in the preface of the first edition, published in 1952, England http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic1-titel.htm: "As already pointed out by the author in the preface to his Guide through the Abhidhamma-Pitaka (Colombo 1938), there are found in the Abhidhamma Canon numerous technical terms not met with in the Sutta Canon; and again other terms are found only in the Commentaries and not in Sutta and Abhidhamma. The author therefore has made a first attempt - without, however, laying any claim to absolute reliability or completeness in this by no means easy undertaking - to indicate in the Appendix all the terms that in the oldest Sutta texts are either not found at all, or at least not in the same form or meaning, and to set forth how far these are deviations from the older texts, or further developments. In this connection, the author wishes to state that the often quoted Patisambhidá-Magga, as well as Niddesa, Buddhavamsa and Cariyapitaka, though included in the Khuddaka Nikáya of the Sutta Pitaka, nevertheless bear throughout the character of Commentaries, and though apparently older than the Sutta Commentaries handed down to us in Buddhaghosa's version, must doubtless belong to a later period of origin than the Abhidhamma Canon. In rendering the terms into English, I often had to differ considerably from the interpretation of Western scholars, and to introduce quite new words. A great number of such earlier translations must be considered partly as totally incorrect, partly as misleading, or at the very least ambiguous. Incorrect are, for instance, the English renderings of náma-rúpa by 'name and form'; javana (impulsion, i.e. the karmic impulsive moments) by 'apperception', etc. The expositions concerning the true nature of the 8-fold Path, the 4 Noble Truths, the paticca-samuppáda and the 5 groups of existence - doctrines which, with regard to their true nature, have been often misunderstood by Western authors - are sure to come to many as a revelation. On the doctrine of anattá, or 'egolessness', i.e. the impersonality and emptiness of all phenomena of existence, the author repeatedly felt the necessity of throwing light from every possible point of view, for it is exactly this doctrine which, together with the doctrine of the conditionality of all phenomena of existence, constitutes the very essence of the whole Teaching of the Buddha without which it will be by no means possible to understand it in its true light. Thus the doctrine of impersonality runs like a red thread right through the whole book." The source I quoted, Edward J. Thomas, predominately used the original texts translated into English by the Pali-Text society, not other sources. He didn't try to reconcile the suttas, Abhidhamma, and commentaries into his analysis. He treats them as each different and distinct. I believe my source is far more authoritative than than the Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by NYANATILOKA. Metta, James 17277 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob, The only mistake I spotted is that sanna, citta, and ditthi manifestations of self view are all eradicated at the sotapanna path moment. See Vism. XXII 68. I think we could work with vipallasa on a mundane path, hence their relationship to the 4 satipatthanas. I do agree with your basic assessment of sanna, citta, and ditthi. I would put it this way: Sanna is the recognition of identity or wholeness. When I see a washing machine, I recognize it as a washing machine or at least some kind of single whole contraption rather than a list of parts, how they fit together, and what they do. The way to work through this desception in satipatthana is to recognize the parts and what they are doing or not doing. The same goes for recognizing a person or myself. Citta is the various ideas we have about identity. I'm a little uncertain about the difference between citta and ditthi. At this point I'm inclined to say citta is emotional (lobha, dosa) and ditthi is conceptual (moha). This is based on my understanding of what is going on in cittanupassana and dhammanupassana. If this is valid, the way to relate in satipatthana to citta manifestation is to recognize the impermanence of attitudes about identity and the way to relate to ditthi manifestation of self view is through ultimate analysis, in other words, looking for the object. This does seem a little doubtful to me, especially as I have only studied a small part of the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary. If you, or anyone, has alternate views on characterizing sanna, citta, and ditthi manifestations of self view and corresponding treatments in satipatthana, I would be interested. Larry 17278 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi Howard, What more insight do you need to realize that which ages, decays, and finally ceases is not to be enamored? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 11/28/02 9:07:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > What insight? Don't expect liberation if you haven't got tired of > > the body. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ========================== > Why do you presume that I am enamored of that which ages, decays, and > finally ceases? > > With metta, > Howard 17279 From: nidive Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:48am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Rob M, I think you are making progress in your contemplation! Terms such as 'free will' and 'predestiny' all implicitly implies the existence of a self. As you have correctly contemplated, there is no such thing as 'free will'. Responsibility, accountability and ethics are caused. They are not uncaused. Nevertheless, this does not mean that responsibility, accountability and ethics are abandoned. What is abandoned is the attachment of a self with regards to responsibility, accountability and ethics. This will then be in accordance with the Middle Path. We do not cling to one extreme of a self (or eternalism), but neither do we ignore cause and effect such that we cling to the other extreme, nihilism. Avoiding these two extremes, we see the Middle Path of cause and effect. Regarding the red-hot ball of 'predestiny' in your throat... Let's call 'predestiny' as 'the fruition of latent (or past) kamma'. If you could see kamma as impermanent, sufferable and not-self, then you would see that the fruition of latent kamma is without a self centering around it. You would see that there is only cause and EFFECT. If wisdom were to arise, you would see that you, as a being, are merely just the fruition of latent kamma. NEO Swee Boon 17280 From: nidive Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:15am Subject: Re: Free Will (again) Rob M, If this is what you actually meant by 'predestiny' (I interpreted it wrongly in my last post), then you have a problem of holding to either extreme views. To say that there is "choice", you are holding to eternalist view. To say that there is "predestiny", you are holding to nihilist view. Yes, there is another option that is neither: The Middle Path, of Cause and Effect. Both concepts of "choice" and "predestiny" can only arise out of the preoccupation with a self and doubts about a self. Correct understanding of the Middle Path will pull you out of the edge of the abyss of two extremes. NEO Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hey, don't blame me for that last posting. Conditions arose, I had > no choice. I had to write that message. It was predestined to > happen. Your reply or lack of reply is also pre-destined. > > I have aversion to this way of thinking. I see that I did not choose > to have this aversion; it arose because of conditions. Is there > another option that is not "choice" and not "pre-destiny"? > > Please help. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob K, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > I'll try and bring up the > > > freewill issue. For now I can say that I believe that in direct > > > proportion to the degree of acceptance/understanding of anatta > > > ancilliary ideas such as 'freewill' also drop away. There are > just > > > conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing with no one anywhere. > > Seeing > > > this gradually leads away from the clinging to self and samsara. > > > > Last night, I met up with Jon, Sarah, Christine and Ajarn Paul. I > > knew that it was going to be an interesting discussion when the > > first question that Jon asked as I sat down was, "What do you mean > > by free will?". We explored the topic and I think that there was > > some progress, but "the light did not come on". > > > > I then raised the question of the role of meditation. After some > > discussion, Jon asked me what my current mental states were. I > > replied, "Confusion and restlessness". I then continued on > thinking > > aloud, "But confusion and restlessness are not vipaka. These are > > javana. I did not choose to be confused. I did not choose to be > > restless. These states arose naturally because of conditions, not > > because of free will and choice." > > > > I feel that I am now at the edge of a cliff. It seems clear to me > > now that there is no "choice" in the thought process. However, if > I > > say that all is pre-determined because there is no choice, then I > > take away any sense of ethical responsibility and all that I have > to > > do is to "stay on the roller-coaster ride until the end". > > > > Rob K (or others), can you help pull me back from the edge of the > > abyss? > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) 17281 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Howard, Your delineation of self is that it is permanent, unchanging, fixed. That is the self-view you are holding onto. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 11/28/02 12:58:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > Hi Victor, > > > > Perhaps you can help my understanding. > > > > Can you explain kamma / rebirth works without a self. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > =========================== > Could you explain how kamma / rebirth works *with* a self? ;- ) What is > self is permanent, unchanging, fixed. > > With metta, > Howard 17282 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will (again) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/28/02 11:46:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > What more insight do you need to realize that which ages, decays, and > finally ceases is not to be enamored? > > Metta, > Victor > ======================== Victor, there are levels and degrees of realization. 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) 17283 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhadhamma In The Buddha's Own Words: To Larry and Pali Enthusiats Dear Suan, Thank you for your excellent reply. I basically agree with your translation of sanna as memory. It gives an accounting for the function of memory which otherwise we don't have, plus Buddaghosa seems clear on this. But I am a little unclear on its meaning in this context. Is there, by any chance, a commentary on the passage you translated? Larry 17284 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/28/02 12:19:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Your delineation of self is that it is permanent, unchanging, fixed. > That is the self-view you are holding onto. > > Metta, > Victor > ========================== First of all, that was not a *definition* of 'self', but just a listing of some of what is included in that notion. Secondly, if we are to have no idea of what a term is supposed to mean, then we have no basis for even discussing it. As far as I understand it, 'atta ditthi' refers to a view which associates an alleged self/core with the khandhas, either as one of them or a combination of some of them or underlying some or all of them or as existing outside of them. But a definition of what is *meant* by the term 'self' is not self-view. Suppose that someone claimed that there is a car which runs on water, and someone else denies this. To look into the matter at all, it is necessary to know what is *meant* by the term 'car'. Suppose someone claims that gazingies exist, and someone else denies this. How shall we look for gazingies when we don't know what 'gazingy' is intended to mean? 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) 17285 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:45am Subject: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" Hi "Lurkers", I am going to use Ajahn Paul's post as an opportunity to try and get you more involved. At the same time, I may be rasing some potentially controversial perspectives. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ajahn_paul" wrote: > hi all, > > i would like to use my limited english to tell my thinking on the > free will issue. ^_~ > > A got punched by B accidentally, if we take that as a kamma from our > previous lives caused the punch, it may be as what rob said, > predestiny. > > but,,,, now it comes A's free will, he could 1)punch B back, 2) kill > B, or 3)just walk away. if we beleive in kamma.... the story will go > on like 1) A may get another punch from B in next life, 2) A may get > killed by B in next life, or 3) the kamma on this issue stop. > > i think free will and predestiny is not the main point, the main > point is how u react on any matters, and what u do is making a > differnt future. ^__^ Anything that happens to us is vipaka (the passive effect of an past active consciousness). It arises because of conditions. One of the conditions that cause the vipaka to arise is some past javana (active consciousness). Let me draw an analogy. We throw a handful of mango-seeds on the ground. A complex combination of conditions (wind, rain, sun, soil, etc.) may allow one or more of these mango-seeds to develop and a mango-tree will arise. The tree that arises will definitely be a mango tree, but there are many other factors which will decide which seed will develop. In this analogy, the mango seeds are the kamma from past actions. Each has the potential to develop but the actual development will depend on other conditons. Those other conditions can support or supress the development, but they cannot cause a mango seed to develop into an apple tree. Let us look at "A" (the one getting punched). Getting punched was the vipaka of "A". At some time in the past (perhaps in a past life), "A" did something bad. I am going to assume that getting punched is a result of a bad action in the past, not a good action in the past. The bad thing that "A" did in the past caused a "seed" to be created. That "seed" had been waiting for a long time (perhaps many lifetimes) for the right conditions to arise which would allow the "seed" to develop. Considering that there are millions of these seeds created in the blink of an eye, and that some seeds can last for many lifetimes, there are always lots and lots of seeds waiting to develop. At the particular instant, the conditions allowed the "getting punched" seed to develop and it happened. Was it pre-destined that "A" would get punched? My answer is, "it doesn't matter". Consider an apple orchard covering the entire world. Each tree is covered with apples. You are told that one of these apples will form the next tree. Could you pick out the "chosen" apple? In a sense, the chosen apple is "pre-destined", but there is no way by looking only at the apples that one could tell which one was the "chosen" apple. Perhaps if you could look at all the apples and had a way of seeing how the other conditions (sun, rain, clouds, wind, soil, etc.) would develop, one could determine the "chosen" apple. But in reality, it just doesn't matter. Let me draw another analogy. Is your current physical appearance "pre-destined"? Your current physical appearance is dependent on many conditions including: - The DNA of the sperm and egg that created you - Your past actions (the scar you got by falling off your bike as a kid) - Your recent actions (you decided to get you hair cut yesterday) We don't normally think about our current physical appearance as being "pre-destined", but in a sense, it is pre-destined; in the same way, "A" getting punched was pre-destined. Could anybody less than a Buddha have predicted (i.e. it was pre-destined) that "A" would get punched? Definitely not. If nobody (other than a Buddha perhaps) can know what the future holds, can we say that the future is pre-destined? As Ajahn Paul pointed out in HK, "The Buddha was not a fortune teller". Now the punch lands on "A". The first thought process in "A" to be aware of the punch will be a sense door process. In the mind of "A", the mental stream which was previously dormant (bhavanga) recieves a "vibration" that something has happened at the body-sense door. The stream of dormant mind-states is "cut off". Following that is a mind-moment when the mind turns toward the external object (the sensation of painful bodily feeling from being punched). This mind- moment is functional, not linked to kamma or vipaka. The next mind- moment is called "sense door consciousness". In this case, the sense door consciousness will arise with upleasant physical feeling. The sensation is received into the mind at the next mind moment. The nature of the sensation is investigated to learn its nature. The sense door consciousness, the receiving and the investigating are all vipaka cittas; they arise as results of a previous kammic action. THe mind now determines what it will "do" with this sensation. This determining consciousness is functional (independent of kamma), it is not vipaka. Some of the outcomes which may result from this determining consciousness are: - Liking the pain (lobha-rooted "active" consciousness will arise at the next moment) - Disliking the pain (dosa-rooted "active" consciousness will arise at the next moment) - Indifferent to the pain (moha-rooted "active" consciousness will arise at the next moment) - Wise attention to the pain (seeing the situation as it truly is will cause a good "active" consciousness to arise at the next moment) Which of these four outcomes will arise? Firstly, our nature will limit the options available. This is called carita. Secondly, we have many accumulations (past active consciousness moments create kamma, but they also create accumulations). Carita and accumulations are really the same thing, but carita is more "deep-seated". So our accumulations (and carita), act as conditions which allow one of the four options to arise. There is no self with a "free-will" to choose which of the four will arise. The arising happens because of conditions, not because of choice. The response to the stimulus arose because of condition, not because of a choice was made. There is no free will. Is this pre-destiny? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter because nobody (exept perhaps a Buddha) could have anticipated what would happen. Conditioned by the determining consciousness, a series of seven "active" consciousnesses will arise (lobha-rooted, moha- rooted, dosa-rooted or kusala). These seven "active" consciousnesses will create seven "seeds". The first seed created is the weakest; if it does not find conditions to allow it to develop in the current lifetime, it will become defunct. The second through the sixth seed are strong; they can develop any time from the next lifetime onwards. The seventh seed is also weak (but not as weak as the first); if the seventh seed does not develop in the next lifetime, it will become defunct. In any case, any kamma created during a sense door process is exceptionally weak. The stength of the kamma depends on the amount of volition (cetana) in the mental state. The volition in the active mental states of a sense door process is very weak because the impression is too new. As we will see, in subsequent mental processes, the volition will increase in strength and the kamma created will be proportionally stronger. Because this has been a significant event for the mind, the object (sensation or tangible object) is "registered" so that it can be passed along to the next thought process that occurs. Some dormant mental states (bhavanga) will follow the sense door process and then a mind door process will arise. The physical contact is over. What is left is a mental image. The mental image is what is created by the sense door process and what is passed along (because it was registered, it is passed along) to the first mind door thought process. The mind door process is purely internal. There are multiple mind door processes. The first few mind door processes "clarify" the pain (this pain is in my arm, this pain is sharp, etc.) and label the pain (this is pain from a punch, etc.). So far the kamma created is still quite weak because the mind is "spreading out to but a boundary or a definition around the pain". Once the pain is named and defined, the mind starts adding layers on top of the mental image of the pain. Now the voiltion is starting to feed itself and increase in strength (and the kammic impact is also increasing). This is called the stage of papanca (conceptual proliferation). The object of the mind door thought processes is no longer the original mental image of the pain. It is now aversion to the mental image of the pain which conditions the arising of anger over the aversion to the mental image of the pain. The anger feeds on itself as layer upon layer of thought processes arise, each condtioned by the previous ones. The cittas build up in strength until they condition the creation of a rupa called "body intimation" which causes the hand to move to respond to the punch. Each of the thought processes (sense door and mind door) create more kamma conditioned by what happens at the determining consciousness. What happens at the determining consciousness (called the mind-door adverting in the mind door process) depends on carita and accumulations. There is no self directing the thought process. It is an empty process that rolls along with no self to "control" it. If "A" ends up punching "B" back, killing "B" or just walking away, these events arise because conditions caused them to arise. There was no choice, no free will. Were the actions of "A" pre-destined? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter because nobody (except perhaps a Buddha), including "A" himself, could predict what would happen. Will the actions of "A" have a future impact? Absolutely. The law of kamma is just as absolute as the law of gravity. If the response to being punched was pre-destined, what about the responsibility and accountability of "A"? The concepts of responsibility and accountability depend on a self view. There is no self to which to attach the responsibility and accountability. "Resonsibility" and "accountability" are concepts that are just as empty as the concept of "free will". Understanding that there is no free will takes the "self" out of the thought process (there is no choice). If we take the "self" out of kamma, the concepts of responsibility and accountability become meaningless. I decided to give an extremely detailed answer to a short message. I have done this because I am hoping that this will help the "lurkers" better understand the Abhidhamma and give them an opportunity to clarify points by asking questions. There are subtle points made in this message which others on the DSG may disagree with (and there may be some minor areas where I am wrong), but don't let the dialogue that this message will inevitably create be a distraction for you. Start by focusing on and understanding the areas that nobody disagrees with (should be most of it) and please feel free to ask questions. Again, I went to a lot of effort, hoping that the "lurkers" would ask questions. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Ajahn Paul, I really respect your efforts to learn the Dhamma (and Abhidhamma) in a language in which you are not fluent. I have already sent an email to try and track down a Chinese verion of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". 17286 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 9:59am Subject: Re: Free Will (again) Hi Swee Boon, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "nidive" wrote: > Rob M, > > If this is what you actually meant by 'predestiny' (I interpreted it > wrongly in my last post), then you have a problem of holding to > either extreme views. > > To say that there is "choice", you are holding to eternalist view. > To say that there is "predestiny", you are holding to nihilist view. > > Yes, there is another option that is neither: The Middle Path, of > Cause and Effect. > > Both concepts of "choice" and "predestiny" can only arise out of the > preoccupation with a self and doubts about a self. > > Correct understanding of the Middle Path will pull you out of the > edge of the abyss of two extremes. > > NEO Swee Boon I would be interested in your comments on my recent post addressed to DSG Lurkers. Metta, Rob M :-) 17287 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:05am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, Thanks for your comments; lots to consider. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > Let me rephrase what your question as "How does kamma / rebirth work > without a self?" > > This question is to be put aside. Why? Because this question comes > with an implicit assumption that self is something, and this very > assumption is self-view, which is what gets you stuck. > > People who assert "there is a self" or "there is no self" or "I have > a self" or "I have no self" also implicitly assume self as > something. Many people think that "there is no self anywhere" is > what the Buddha taught without realizing that it is their implicit > assumption that leads to those conclusions. > > The first step to get close to understand the Buddha's teaching of > anatta is to understand the meaning of the word "atta", how it is > normally used without metaphysical meaning attached to it. > > Cutting off the metaphysical meaning attached to the word "self" is > not an easy thing to do. > > Are you considering teaching Dhammapada 12 to your class? > I only have one more class in 2002 and I have to finish off Paticcasamuppada. In January, I start with a new class. I read over Dhammapada 12 and I need to see if I could work it into next year's syllabus. Thanks for the suggestion. Metta, Rob M :-) 17288 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > =========================== > Could you explain how kamma / rebirth works *with* a self? ;-) What is > self is permanent, unchanging, fixed. In this case, self is seen as the stream of kamma. In a conventional sense, the water in the stream keeps changing, but it is still has an identity as a stream. At this moment, I create kamma. The vipaka from that kamma will impact what? Answer: My stream, not your stream. It is easy to associate the stream of kamma with a self. Intellectually, I feel that this is wrong view, but I haven't had the "ah-ha" moment that allows me to proceed with an anatta perspective. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect two "ah-ha" moments in the same week :-). Metta, Rob M :-) 17289 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 10:28am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Thanks for your message. Something to think about. > > > > I just called up my recent message to Larry on vipallasa which said > > that the first magga (becoming a sotapanna) uproots the > perversion / > > distortion that regards what is without a self as a self (anatta). > > This works at all levels (citta level, the sanna level and ditthi > > level). The other vipallasa to be uprooted (at the anagami and > > arahant stage) have nothing to do with anatta. > > > > Please help me reconcile your message with this information which > > was taken from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary of Terms and > > Concepts. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > Stephen, > > Through some research, I can only conclude that the dictionary you > are referring to is giving erroneous information. > > I believe my source is far more authoritative than > than the Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by NYANATILOKA. Sorry to mislead you. On this point, Nyanatiloka was quoting directly from Ledi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html Comments? Thanks, Rob M :-) 17290 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 11:29am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Howard, I think you are entangled in your own self-view "what is self is permanent, unchanging, fixed." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 11/28/02 12:19:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Your delineation of self is that it is permanent, unchanging, fixed. > > That is the self-view you are holding onto. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ========================== > First of all, that was not a *definition* of 'self', but just a > listing of some of what is included in that notion. Secondly, if we are to > have no idea of what a term is supposed to mean, then we have no basis for > even discussing it. As far as I understand it, 'atta ditthi' refers to a view > which associates an alleged self/core with the khandhas, either as one of > them or a combination of some of them or underlying some or all of them or as > existing outside of them. But a definition of what is *meant* by the term > 'self' is not self-view. > Suppose that someone claimed that there is a car which runs on water, > and someone else denies this. To look into the matter at all, it is necessary > to know what is *meant* by the term 'car'. > Suppose someone claims that gazingies exist, and someone else denies > this. How shall we look for gazingies when we don't know what 'gazingy' is > intended to mean? > > With metta, > Howard 17291 From: James Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 0:31pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > > Hi James, > > > > > > Thanks for your message. Something to think about. > > > > > > I just called up my recent message to Larry on vipallasa which > said > > > that the first magga (becoming a sotapanna) uproots the > > perversion / > > > distortion that regards what is without a self as a self > (anatta). > > > This works at all levels (citta level, the sanna level and > ditthi > > > level). The other vipallasa to be uprooted (at the anagami and > > > arahant stage) have nothing to do with anatta. > > > > > > Please help me reconcile your message with this information > which > > > was taken from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary of Terms and > > > Concepts. > > > > > > Metta, > > > Rob M :-) > > > > Stephen, > > > > Through some research, I can only conclude that the dictionary you > > are referring to is giving erroneous information. > > > > I believe my source is far more authoritative than > > than the Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by NYANATILOKA. > > Sorry to mislead you. On this point, Nyanatiloka was quoting > directly from Ledi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) Rob M, Oh, so this is Ledi Sayadaw's interpretation. I thought we were discussing interpretations of Lord Buddha's teachings. Yes, you should have said this earlier. In that case, let me return your question. Are you going to trust more the teachings of Lord Buddha or the teachings of Ledi Sayadaw? My vote goes with Lord Buddha. Metta, James 17292 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 1:26pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Are you going to trust more the teachings of Lord Buddha > or the teachings of Ledi Sayadaw? My vote goes with Lord Buddha. I'm with you 100%. Please help me out with a Sutta reference. Metta, Rob M :-) 17293 From: James Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:13pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > Sorry to mislead you. On this point, Nyanatiloka was quoting > directly from Ledi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Rob M :-) Rob, I have been reading `The Manual of Insight'. I am very disappointed in the poor scholarship of this work. I am not sure how it is representing the teachings of the Abhidhamma, but it seems a little off even for the Abhidhamma; but I am pretty sure he is misrepresenting the suttas. He writes about the Chiggala Sutta, The Hole, which he calls the Kanakacchapa-Sutta, which is about the blind sea turtle and the floating yoke and how becoming a human is a very rare thing. This is one of my favorite suttas. However, Sayadaw REWRITES the sutta (or combines it with another sutta), adding an odd section that isn't in the original sutta! *gasp* Then he follows with an interpretation of the sutta that is completely contrary to the meaning of the original. *gasp* Allow me to quote an abbreviated section of this misrepresentation: "At one time, the Buddha addressed the disciples thus: 'There is, O Bhikkhus, in the ocean a turtle, both of whose eyes are blind. He plunges into the water of the unfathomable ocean and swims about incessantly Then the Buddha said, 'O Bhikkhus, the occurence of such a strange thing is not to be counted a difficult one; for there is still a greater…more difficult than this lying hidden from your knowledge. And what is this? It is, O Bhikkhus, the obtaining of the opportunity of becoming a man again by a man who has expired and is reborn once in any of the four realms of misery. The occurrence of the yoking of the blind tortoise is not worth thinking of as a difficult occurrence in comparison therewith. Because those who perform good deeds and abstain from doing bad alone can obtain the existence of men and Devas. The beings in the four miserable worlds cannot discern what is virtuous and what vicious, what good and what bad, what moral and what immoral, what meritorious and what demeritorious, and consequently they live a life of immorality and demerit, tormenting one another with all their power. Those creatures of the Niraya and Peta abode in particular, live a very miserable life on account of punishments and torments which they experience with sorrow, pain and distress. Therefore, O Bhikkhus, the opportunity of being reborn in the abode of men is a hundred times, a thousand times harder to obtain than the encountering of the blind turtle with the yoke." James: This second section isn't in the original sutta. First, the original doesn't have that odd 'O Bhikkhus' repeated over and over again (and I don`t know of a single sutta where the Buddha says that so many times). The original doesn't have 'O Bhikkhus' at all The only thing similar is the last sentence. Now, when reading this last sentence, and reading Sayadaw's interpretation, I am very puzzled. This is how he interprets this sutta: "According to this Sutta, why those creatures who are born in the miserable planes are far from human existence is because they never look up but always look down. And what is meant by looking down? The ignorance in them by degrees becomes greater and stronger from one existence to another; and as the water of a river always flows down to the lower plains, so also they are always tending towards the lower existences; for the ways towards the higher existences are closed to them, while those towards the lower existences are freely open. This is the meaning of "looking down". Hence, from this story of the blind turtle, the wise apprehend how great, how fearful, how terribly perilous are the evils of the -- Puthujjana-gati, i.e. "the dispersion of existence." ` Huh? This interpretation is contrary to the original, to the first section, and to the last line. I don't hold this work in high regard. Metta, James 17294 From: James Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:29pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > > Are you going to trust more the teachings of Lord Buddha > > or the teachings of Ledi Sayadaw? My vote goes with Lord Buddha. > > I'm with you 100%. Please help me out with a Sutta reference. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Rob M, Sure, Check out the Majjhima Nikaya; The Middle Length Discourses: M,i,141. (The welcome to this group said not to quote entire suttas, only sections). Metta, James 17295 From: robmoult Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 2:49pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Sure, Check out the Majjhima Nikaya; The Middle Length Discourses: > M,i,141. (The welcome to this group said not to quote entire suttas, > only sections). I don't think that it is on-line and I have to wait until I fly home to pull out my hard copy. Metta, Rob M :-) 17296 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > > Through some research, I can only conclude that the dictionary you are referring to is giving erroneous information. Amazingly, it does admit this in the preface to the first addition (see end of this post). The editor, or the sources, have confused `belief in a permanent individuality' (sakkaya) and `desire for existence' (asava). The destruction of the fetter of sakkaya does occur at the first 'stage', Sotapatti (Entering the Stream), but the destruction of the three asavas, of which desire for existence is one, occurs at the last stage, Arahatship (Enlightened) . The difference between this two is very crucial to understanding: the first is concerning belief and the second is concerning desire. At the Stream Entry level, the person no longer believes that he/she has a permanent self, or a soul that will last for eternity. He or She has lost the belief in that idea/view. However, that doesn't mean 'a false self' is then no longer present, it still present to experience kamma and rebirth. I don't think it is quite correct to say that some false self is present and that this false self experiences kamma and rebirth. Rather it is the desire for becoming, the subtle attachment to the idea ' I am' that is still present. A very good Sutta on this is SM XXII.89, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-089.html . Here is the part that relates to this..... "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." 17297 From: James Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: A very good Sutta on this is SM XXII.89, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-089.html . Here is the > part that relates to this..... > > "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, > he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering > residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a > later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with > regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such > its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are > fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its > disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these > five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' > desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated." Dear Ray, Thanks for the sutta! It is funny because I have argued this issue for months on the Internet, even got private e-mails blasting me for being 'attached to atta', and this is the first time that my position is being considered without overreaction. I agree with you, my term 'false self' is probably not the best term to use; and I knew it wasn't when I used it, but I wanted to keep my description simple. The 'I am that I am' of Selfhood sounds a bit too Biblical ;-) But I guess it will work. I just want to disagree on one minor point, the "I am that I am" of Selfhood is what propels existence into life after life, where kamma is a natural law of that conditioned existence. The sutta that you quote doesn't say otherwise. I am not sure how you came to your conclusion that rebirth and kamma aren't related/linked. Again, I really like the sutta. Thanks for sharing :-) Metta, James 17298 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Oh I think that rebirth and kamma are indeed linked, but there is nothing in that linking that can be called self, at least as the term is normally used. Ray is not reborn, James is not reborn and yet there is rebirth. Even that most basic craving for being is without self, is dependently arisen and ceases when the conditions for its arising cease. > > I agree with you, my term 'false self' is probably not the best term > to use; and I knew it wasn't when I used it, but I wanted to keep my > description simple. The 'I am that I am' of Selfhood sounds a bit too > Biblical ;-) But I guess it will work. > > I just want to disagree on one minor point, the "I am that I am" of > Selfhood is what propels existence into life after life, where kamma > is a natural law of that conditioned existence. The sutta that you > quote doesn't say otherwise. I am not sure how you came to your > conclusion that rebirth and kamma aren't related/linked. > > Again, I really like the sutta. Thanks for sharing :-) > > Metta, James 17299 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 8:53pm Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Dear Rob M, I'd like to second what Robert K wrote; "Thanks so much for showing us your contemplations over the last few days." There have been some excellent posts on this thread including some reposted from the past. Aside from the humour, I thought Mike's comment was very deep: "'I' don't mind giving up the idea of self, just so long as 'I'm' allowed to choose to do so (and receive the credit)...!" As you know, the answer to these conundrums is simply to understand the namas and rupas of the present moment. Where, after all, is the *need* to understand (to KNOW)? -- which paramattha dhamma is that? It's nowhere, there is no such thing; it's just like the past and the future -- non-existent. Kind regards, Ken H 17300 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi, Victor - In a message dated 11/28/02 2:30:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think you are entangled in your own self-view "what is self is > permanent, unchanging, fixed." > > Metta, > Victor > > ======================= These are standard features of an alleged self. In any case, if you think I am entangled, it's fine with me that you think so. 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) 17301 From: Date: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:55pm Subject: Away Until Sunday Night Hi, all - I'm leaving by plane in the morning for the Chicago area, to return Sunday night. I will reply after I get back to any mail directed to me. Have a good weekend, all. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 17302 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:12am Subject: Rebirth-Immediate? Hi, Is rebirth immediate? SN 4.400 At that time, Vaccha, when a being has laid down this body, and that being (satto) has not yet taken up another (annataram) body (kayam) in rebirth (anupapanno); therein I declare [that beings] fuel to be thirstfulness (tanhupadanam). At that time, Vaccha, I declare [the beings] fuel to be thirstfulness. This sutta seems to suggest that it is not. 17303 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Ray and all, How is the term "self" normally used? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Oh I think that rebirth and kamma are indeed linked, but there is nothing > in that linking that can be called self, at least as the term is normally > used. Ray is not reborn, James is not reborn and yet there is rebirth. > Even that most basic craving for being is without self, is dependently > arisen and ceases when the conditions for its arising cease. > > > > I agree with you, my term 'false self' is probably not the best term > > to use; and I knew it wasn't when I used it, but I wanted to keep my > > description simple. The 'I am that I am' of Selfhood sounds a bit too > > Biblical ;-) But I guess it will work. > > > > I just want to disagree on one minor point, the "I am that I am" of > > Selfhood is what propels existence into life after life, where kamma > > is a natural law of that conditioned existence. The sutta that you > > quote doesn't say otherwise. I am not sure how you came to your > > conclusion that rebirth and kamma aren't related/linked. > > > > Again, I really like the sutta. Thanks for sharing :-) > > > > Metta, James 17304 From: nidive Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" Hi robmoult, You said: Anything that happens to us is vipaka (the passive effect of an past active consciousness). But how does that fit into what the Buddha said below ? ... "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... an abusive speaker... an idle chatterer... covetous... malevolent... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative... [AN III.61] NEO Swee Boon 17305 From: ajahn_paul Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 7:07am Subject: Re: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" > > PS: Ajahn Paul, I really respect your efforts to learn the Dhamma > (and Abhidhamma) in a language in which you are not fluent. I have > already sent an email to try and track down a Chinese verion of > Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". Thanks Rob! i will study hard! ^_~ 17306 From: James Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 9:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Oh I think that rebirth and kamma are indeed linked, but there is nothing > in that linking that can be called self, at least as the term is normally > used. Ray is not reborn, James is not reborn and yet there is rebirth. > Even that most basic craving for being is without self, is dependently > arisen and ceases when the conditions for its arising cease. Ray, I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you please clarify? If 'I am that I am' of Selfhood isn't at the center of kamma or rebirth, what is? What is the catalyst and the receiver of kamma and rebirth? I am not following you. Perhaps you are defining 'self' in a way unfamiliar to me. Please explain in as many ways as you can. This is a slippery subject and I need more to go on. Thanks. Metta, James 17307 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Victor, I think the term is normally used as some sort of identity which has some type of control over the body, thoughts, feelings, etc and can possess other items, such has bravely, material possessions, etc. Usually this identification is with some aspect of mental formations or consciousness, but it can also be with the body. Thus you hear statements like 'I am smart.' I am sensitive.' I am strong.' etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "yu_zhonghao" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 4:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > Hi Ray and all, > > How is the term "self" normally used? > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > Oh I think that rebirth and kamma are indeed linked, but there is > nothing > > in that linking that can be called self, at least as the term is > normally > > used. Ray is not reborn, James is not reborn and yet there is > rebirth. > > Even that most basic craving for being is without self, is > dependently > > arisen and ceases when the conditions for its arising cease. > > > > > > I agree with you, my term 'false self' is probably not the best > term > > > to use; and I knew it wasn't when I used it, but I wanted to keep > my > > > description simple. The 'I am that I am' of Selfhood sounds a bit > too > > > Biblical ;-) But I guess it will work. > > > > > > I just want to disagree on one minor point, the "I am that I am" > of > > > Selfhood is what propels existence into life after life, where > kamma > > > is a natural law of that conditioned existence. The sutta that > you > > > quote doesn't say otherwise. I am not sure how you came to your > > > conclusion that rebirth and kamma aren't related/linked. > > > > > > Again, I really like the sutta. Thanks for sharing :-) > > > > > > Metta, James 17308 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 11:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Considering the nature of this group, I wish I could put things into Abhidhamma terms, but I will do the best I can and hope others could expand or detract within the framework of the Abhidhamma. I do not see any notion of 'I am' at the center of kamma or rebirth. I see something much more fundamental, a subtle basic desire or thirst for becoming. Not necessarily becoming any self, just becoming. Let me give some examples....if you have never had an experience which you felt was life threatening there can arise a very fundamental, basic desire to live. This sensation or feeling that arises is not the desire for Ray to live, but just a basic fear of death and a longing for life. After this comes the notion of I may not live, my family needs me, etc. But before that I have felt just a overwhelming desire for life that was not related to self per say. I think this is something of the nature of the thirst for being. As for something receiving karma, I don't see it that way. Take the example of a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. Probably most of what the caterpillar ate and perhaps some of what was experienced, will go into what will become the butterfly. But the butterfly does not really receive this, that is putting the cart in front of the horse, but rather develops from it. Thus I would not say that the caterpillar becomes the butterfly, the butterfly is not the caterpillar with wings, but rather the caterpillar becomes the cause for the development of the butterfly. They are not two separate beings, nor are they one. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:49 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > Oh I think that rebirth and kamma are indeed linked, but there > is nothing > > in that linking that can be called self, at least as the term is > normally > > used. Ray is not reborn, James is not reborn and yet there is > rebirth. > > Even that most basic craving for being is without self, is > dependently > > arisen and ceases when the conditions for its arising cease. > > Ray, > > I don't understand what you are saying here. Could you please > clarify? If 'I am that I am' of Selfhood isn't at the center of > kamma or rebirth, what is? What is the catalyst and the receiver of > kamma and rebirth? I am not following you. Perhaps you are > defining 'self' in a way unfamiliar to me. Please explain in as > many ways as you can. This is a slippery subject and I need more to > go on. Thanks. > > Metta, James 17309 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 0:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Ray, Ray, you are trying to explain how the term "self" is used by delineating what self is. You presented your self-view even though I didn't ask for it. What are the definitions of the word "self" in the dictionary? In what way do people normally use it? In what way did the Buddha and his disciples use it as recorded in the Pali Canon? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi Victor, I think the term is normally used as some sort of identity which > has some type of control over the body, thoughts, feelings, etc and can > possess other items, such has bravely, material possessions, etc. Usually > this identification is with some aspect of mental formations or > consciousness, but it can also be with the body. Thus you hear statements > like 'I am smart.' I am sensitive.' I am strong.' etc. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "yu_zhonghao" > To: > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 4:24 AM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > > > > Hi Ray and all, > > > > How is the term "self" normally used? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > 17310 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta What I gave you is what I think folks mean by the word. When you asked me how is the term normally used, I gave you what I think folks mean by the term. The dictionary says "1.A person or thing referred to with respect to complete individually, 'ones own self.' ....4. the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc." (Random House Dictionary) I think the tem is used similarly within the Pali Canon, esp. number 4 with regards to discussions about non-self. It is definition number 4 that is being refuted, that there is a "self" that knows, etc. There is knowing but no knower. ----- Original Message ----- From: "yu_zhonghao" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:56 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > Hi Ray, > > Ray, you are trying to explain how the term "self" is used by > delineating what self is. You presented your self-view even though I > didn't ask for it. > > What are the definitions of the word "self" in the dictionary? In > what way do people normally use it? In what way did the Buddha and > his disciples use it as recorded in the Pali Canon? > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, I think the term is normally used as some sort of > identity which > > has some type of control over the body, thoughts, feelings, etc and > can > > possess other items, such has bravely, material possessions, etc. > Usually > > this identification is with some aspect of mental formations or > > consciousness, but it can also be with the body. Thus you hear > statements > > like 'I am smart.' I am sensitive.' I am strong.' etc. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "yu_zhonghao" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 4:24 AM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > > > > > > > Hi Ray and all, > > > > > > How is the term "self" normally used? > > > > > > Metta, > > > Victor > > > > 17311 From: robmoult Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 2:03pm Subject: Re: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" Hi Swee Boon, You raise an excellent point. Forgive me for "going back to basics" and bringing up stuff that you probably already know in my reply, but my stated intention is to bring more "lurkers out of the woodwork". Consciousness (citta) is grouped into four classifications according to jati (birth): - Kusala: active "good" states (generates kamma) - Akusala: active "bad" states (generates kamma) - Vipaka: passive result of past kusala or akusala (result of kamma) - Kiriya: functional states, not associated with kamma You may see vipaka classified as being "akusala vipaka" or "kusala vipaka", but don't get confused. Vipaka is not inherently good or bad; "akusala vipaka" has a past akusala action as its seed. That past akusala was "bad" because it was lobha-mula (greed rooted), dosa-mula (hatred rooted) or dosa-mula (delusion rooted). The vipaka that arises because of that past akusala action is not inherently bad (it has no roots); the use of the term "akusala" in "akusala vipaka" is simply to indicate the source in the past, not to assign any moral value to the vipaka citta. With these definitions in mind, let's look at the cittas in a sense door thought process: - Bhavanga: Vipaka (the result of the last thought moment of your last existence) - Adverting: Kiriya (directs the thought process to take up the new object) - Sense door consciousness / Receiving / Investigating: Vipaka (this is what "happens to us"; it is the result of some past kamma. What happens to us is not inherently good or bad) - Determining: Kiriya (this is the crux of the issue. The mental state that directs the thought process to the active states is functional, it is outside the workings of kamma) - Javana: Akusla or Kusala (the active states that create more kamma) - Registration: Vipaka (same as Sense door consciousness / Receiving / Investigating) The key point here is that the critical determining citta is functional; free from kamma. In other words, our past determines what happens to us (our current situation), but does not determine what we do with our current situation (or action). In other words, our actions are not determined by kamma. I think that the problem is that the Sutta says, "Whatever a person experiences... all that is caused by past action" is a wrong view. The answer lies in the examples given by the Buddha; "killer, thief, liar, etc.". These are examples of things that a person *DOES*; these are not examples of a person's current situation. If the Buddha had given examples of "rich, poor, clever, etc.", then I would be perplexed. I am hoping that there is a Pali scholar out there who can look at the Pali word that was translated as "experiences" and confirm that it might be better translated as "does" or "becomes". In any case, the examples given by the Buddha make his meaning clear. Swee Boon, did I answer your question? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "nidive" wrote: > Hi robmoult, > > You said: > Anything that happens to us is vipaka (the passive effect of an past > active consciousness). > > But how does that fit into what the Buddha said below ? ... > > "Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... > whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in > the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... > whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in > the past?' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to > them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings > because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... > unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... an abusive speaker... an > idle chatterer... covetous... malevolent... a holder of wrong views > because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what > was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, > no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be > done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & > shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot > righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative... > > [AN III.61] > > NEO Swee Boon 17312 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 3:10pm Subject: RE: [dsg] question Dear Ranil, If we think of situations as really no situations, but think of them as dhammas or about some relevant situations as presented in the tipitakas, a lot (and all, if one is really wise ;-) ) of situations can provide many useful learning experiences. The most beneficial attention would be the attention toward the appearing dhamma at the moment. one can see for oneself, that even right then, there is only nama and rupa. There is no person, no beings, and only thinking causes us to complicate things that is already past. This applies to all situations: if mindfulness arises, then one is already learning about the "situation" (or really, the no-situation). But besides learning about the dhamma directly or by contemplation of the dhammas, we can learn by situations too... For example, if we notice the behavior of the bodhisattas, the monks, and even the laymen, about being detailed about a situation, then we can learn why it benefits to be one ourselves. There is a story about maha kaccana(???). The monk was in his hut, while there were young brahmins outside who made loud noises and said things to mock the monks. The monk went out and gave them a comparison of an arahat and those who hasn't heard of the Buddha's teachings. The young brahmins went back and told their teacher that the monk had made disparage comments about brahmins. The teacher got angry, but when he arrived at the monk's residence, he queried the monk (instead of being accusory) as to what really happened. The monk then repeated what he told the young brahmins to the teacher. At the end of the teaching, the teacher took refuge in the triple gems. We can see in this story that, despite being angry, but because of being wise, the teacher is detailed in finding out from the direct participant of an event what happened. Because of that, hearing the true teaching is possible for him. This is a great benefit indeed. When I hear/see something that is obviously akusala, I sometimes think that I myself haven't be ridden of these unbeneficial states, and should work toward ridding those unbeneficial states (at foremost, permanently, and for now, temporarily). Akusala states should be "let go", and kusala states can be developed. When I hear/see something that is obviously kusala, the opposite thought sometimes occur. Besides Anumoddhana, I sometimes think, I, too, should develop these beneficial states. One is inclined to think about things however one has accumulated. I don't think how a person thinks of things will work for everybody. This is why it is nice to read the Tipitakas, and read about how all these wise people learned from situations in their daily life. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: ranil gunawardena [mailto:dearranil@h...] > > > if another person misunderstands us, > on the misunderstanding builds more and scolds us, > how should we handle the situation? > what thoughts should we have towards that person? > 17313 From: nidive Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 4:38pm Subject: Re: ATTENTION: DSG "LURKERS" Hi robmoult, You said: Consciousness (citta) is grouped into four classifications according to jati (birth): - Kusala: active "good" states (generates kamma) - Akusala: active "bad" states (generates kamma) - Vipaka: passive result of past kusala or akusala (result of kamma) - Kiriya: functional states, not associated with kamma How does that fit into SN XXXVI.21 ? ... Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said: "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither- pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans." When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!...May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts." ----------------------------------------------- Other Questions: If I am hurrying home and the rain started to pour halfway through and I got all drenched, is 'being drenched by the rain' vipaka? What is the cause of 'being drenched by the rain'? Need there be a cause for it? It 'being drenched by the rain' necessarily vipaka even though it is unpleasant? I am repairing a car. While I was repairing, I accidentally poked my hand with the screwdriver. Blood oozed out from my hand and it was painful bodily. Is this vipaka? What is the cause for it? NEO Swee Boon 17314 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 5:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi Ray, Do you know that the word "self" is also a pronoun? I believe most dictionaries have that definition. Other definitions for the word "self" are mostly on what self is. The definition you mentioned "the ego; that which knows, remembers, desireds, suffers, etc." is one of them. When it comes to understand the word "self", most people either think in terms of what self is or assume it implicitly. They are entangled in one self-view or another. When I asked you how the term "self" is normally used, I did not ask you to define what self is. Instead, I was trying to get you see how the word "self" is used as pronoun. If you examine the Pali Canon closely, you will see that is how the Buddha and his disciples used it as well. Do you see how the dictionary define the word "self" as pronoun? Instead of giving definition of what self is, it gives example to show how the word "self" is used. The Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are entangling. One would never get close to understand the Buddha's teaching if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > What I gave you is what I think folks mean by the word. When you asked me > how is the term normally used, I gave you what I think folks mean by the > term. The dictionary says "1.A person or thing referred to with respect to > complete individually, 'ones own self.' ....4. the ego; that which knows, > remembers, desires, suffers, etc." (Random House Dictionary) I think the > tem is used similarly within the Pali Canon, esp. number 4 with regards to > discussions about non-self. It is definition number 4 that is being > refuted, that there is a "self" that knows, etc. There is knowing but no > knower. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "yu_zhonghao" > To: > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:56 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > > > > Hi Ray, > > > > Ray, you are trying to explain how the term "self" is used by > > delineating what self is. You presented your self-view even though I > > didn't ask for it. > > > > What are the definitions of the word "self" in the dictionary? In > > what way do people normally use it? In what way did the Buddha and > > his disciples use it as recorded in the Pali Canon? > > > > Metta, > > Victor 17315 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Nov 29, 2002 6:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Yes Victor I agree that the term self is most often used in the Pali Canon as a pronoun. Often those who find quotes to try to show the Buddha taught about some eternal self take the term self, used as a pronoun, and assume that it is some statement about an eternal self. For example this use of self as a pronoun is demonstrated in the Dhammapada #12. ----- Original Message ----- From: "yu_zhonghao" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 5:38 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > Hi Ray, > When I asked you how the term "self" is normally used, I did not ask > you to define what self is. Instead, I was trying to get you see how > the word "self" is used as pronoun. If you examine the Pali Canon > closely, you will see that is how the Buddha and his disciples used > it as well. > > Do you see how the dictionary define the word "self" as pronoun? > Instead of giving definition of what self is, it gives example to > show how the word "self" is used. > > The Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a > simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are > entangling. One would never get close to understand the Buddha's > teaching if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view. > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > What I gave you is what I think folks mean by the word. When you > asked me > > how is the term normally used, I gave you what I think folks mean > by the > > term. The dictionary says "1.A person or thing referred to with > respect to > > complete individually, 'ones own self.' ....4. the ego; that which > knows, > > remembers, desires, suffers, etc." (Random House Dictionary) I > think the > > tem is used similarly within the Pali Canon, esp. number 4 with > regards to > > discussions about non-self. It is definition number 4 that is being > > refuted, that there is a "self" that knows, etc. There is knowing > but no > > knower. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "yu_zhonghao" > > To: > > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:56 PM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta > > > > > > > Hi Ray, > > > > > > Ray, you are trying to explain how the term "self" is used by > > > delineating what self is. You presented your self-view even > though I > > > didn't ask for it. > > > > > > What are the definitions of the word "self" in the dictionary? In > > > what way do people normally use it? In what way did the Buddha > and > > > his disciples use it as recorded in the Pali Canon? > > > > > > Metta, > > > Victor > 17316 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 3:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] question Thank you very much dear Kom, Pin to you, with meththa ranil >But besides learning about the dhamma directly or by >contemplation of the dhammas, we can learn by situations >too... This is why it is nice to read the >Tipitakas, and read about how all these wise people learned >from situations in their daily life. > > if another person misunderstands us, > > on the misunderstanding builds more and scolds us, > > how should we handle the situation? > > what thoughts should we have towards that person? 17317 From: James Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 7:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Considering the nature of this group, I wish I could put things into > Abhidhamma terms, but I will do the best I can and hope others could expand > or detract within the framework of the Abhidhamma. I do not see any notion > of 'I am' at the center of kamma or rebirth. I see something much more > fundamental, a subtle basic desire or thirst for becoming. Not necessarily > becoming any self, just becoming. Let me give some examples....if you have > never had an experience which you felt was life threatening there can arise > a very fundamental, basic desire to live. This sensation or feeling that > arises is not the desire for Ray to live, but just a basic fear of death and > a longing for life. After this comes the notion of I may not live, my > family needs me, etc. But before that I have felt just a overwhelming > desire for life that was not related to self per say. I think this is > something of the nature of the thirst for being. > As for something receiving karma, I don't see it that way. Take the > example of a caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. Probably most of > what the caterpillar ate and perhaps some of what was experienced, will go > into what will become the butterfly. But the butterfly does not really > receive this, that is putting the cart in front of the horse, but rather > develops from it. Thus I would not say that the caterpillar becomes the > butterfly, the butterfly is not the caterpillar with wings, but rather the > caterpillar becomes the cause for the development of the butterfly. They are > not two separate beings, nor are they one. Ray, Okay, now I think I understand where you are coming from. You are, to borrow a phrase, "Towing the Buddhist party line." You are looking at what the Buddha stated in various suttas about anatta, applying modern understanding to his statements, and forming a conclusion. However, though what you state sounds profound and esoteric, I find what you state lacking 'the big picture'. You don't seem to include the context in which the Buddha taught the reality of non-self, why he taught it, and where it was supposed to lead. Let's go back to before the Buddha came on the scene, in ancient India. (If I repeat anything you already know, please don't take offense. I have to give some background to lead to my point.) The Vedic belief in atman (self) was that atman was a physical entity, about the size of a thumb, which resided in the heart. This atman was eternal, was reincarnated into body after body, held all of the memories, consciousness, and desires of the body, had created the body and had control over it. Along those lines, the spiritual goal was to have the atman leave the body through the top of the head, join with the `Head God' Brahma, and exist for eternity as `self', with all the memories, characteristics, etc. Later, the Hindu belief, into which the Buddha was born, took this original thinking and applied some elaborations of many atmans existing in the body to join with Brahma and that everything was Brahma so that atman was everything-but still individual self. No one could come to a definitive answer, but many were rushing to find it, therefore ascetics, cults, and religions abounded in the Buddha's time. The Buddha discovered that everyone was `barking up the wrong tree', that atman (atta in Pali) did not exist. Human life was not caused by an atman (self/soul) which created it, it came about due to this/that conditionality (dependent origination). And just as it came about due to causation, that causation could be ceased or halted. The Buddha compared this process to a fire. Ignorance, desire for existence, and craving are the things that fuel the fire, and when those things are removed the fire goes out (nirvana). When the last glowing embers finally die, meaning the body dies, the fire is no more (parinibbana). Okay, along these lines, when the Buddha said that ultimate reality was non-self, what he was saying is that atta (atman) doesn't exist. There isn't a `builder of the house', except the ego (lust, desire for existence, and ignorance… rolled up into one). Does ego exist? Well, yes and no. It obviously exists to fuel the fire, but it doesn't exist as something that is eternal. Ego is also impermanent. So `self' does exist, but as something that is impermanent, not something that is eternal…or has control over existence. Our difficulty lies in the fact that the mind tells us `existence' equals `permanence'. The Buddha learned and taught otherwise. I hope this is an adequate response to our differences in understanding of 'self'. Take care. Metta, James 17318 From: nidive Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 8:28am Subject: Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi robmoult, Is this stream something which is reality (dhamma) according to the Abhidhamma? Or is it merely a concept? Is this stream citta, cetasika or rupa? Or is this stream neither citta, nor cetasika, nor rupa? If this stream is merely a concept that does not mirror what is reality RIGHT NOW, then this stream doesn't exist and is purely imagination, with time and memory as parameters feeding into it. Don't you agree? NEO Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > > =========================== > > Could you explain how kamma / rebirth works *with* a > self? ;-) What is > > self is permanent, unchanging, fixed. > > In this case, self is seen as the stream of kamma. > > In a conventional sense, the water in the stream keeps changing, but > it is still has an identity as a stream. > > At this moment, I create kamma. The vipaka from that kamma will > impact what? Answer: My stream, not your stream. It is easy to > associate the stream of kamma with a self. Intellectually, I feel > that this is wrong view, but I haven't had the "ah-ha" moment that > allows me to proceed with an anatta perspective. > > Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect two "ah-ha" moments in the same > week :-). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 17319 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 9:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Towing the Buddhist party line seems like a big chore, if fact I do not think there is such a thing. There are certainly more than one Buddhist party :) The majority of Buddhist I have talked to online agree with your view of a temporary self. Probably not a majority who use this email group, but in general I have found it a popular approach. I do not think the primary reason the Buddha taught non-self was to deny a eternal/permanent self. Certainly that was part of it, as it is directly stated within some Suttas. But I think the main reason he taught it was to help others develop disenchanted with the aggregates, and through such disenchantment one would develop dispassion towards the aggregates and with dispassion comes release. Here is what I am talking about from the Samyutaa Nikaya: ""[He reflects:] ''I am now being chewed up by feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. But in the past I was also chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness. And if I delight in future consciousness, then in the future I will be chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past consciousness, does not delight in future consciousness, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present consciousness. "What do you think, monks -- Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" ..... ......."Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" You can read the full Sutta at this link. In fact that whole section is about the aggregates and an excellent section to read. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html When Victor wrote back to me, after I tried to explain what folks normally mean by the term self, that I was just giving him my self-view, I was ready to pull out the quotes and do dhamma battle. Luckily I did not take that road. In the next message Victor wrote this..... "The Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are entangling. One would never get close to understand the Buddha's teaching if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view." I think Victor makes a good point here. There is a big difference between debating self-views and looking at our feelings, thoughts, body, etc and seeing what is there. For me this is the main value of the Abhidhamma, to help us break down what is happening in the moment. Thus we start to get to the point the Buddha is talking about above. Thanks for your response I think we have a fair understanding of how we differ :) Gassho >>>>> >>>Ray, Okay, now I think I understand where you are coming from. You are, to borrow a phrase, "Towing the Buddhist party line." You are looking at what the Buddha stated in various suttas about anatta, applying modern understanding to his statements, and forming a conclusion. However, though what you state sounds profound and esoteric, I find what you state lacking 'the big picture'. You don't seem to include the context in which the Buddha taught the reality of non-self, why he taught it, and where it was supposed to lead. Let's go back to before the Buddha came on the scene, in ancient India. (If I repeat anything you already know, please don't take offense. I have to give some background to lead to my point.) The Vedic belief in atman (self) was that atman was a physical entity, about the size of a thumb, which resided in the heart. This atman was eternal, was reincarnated into body after body, held all of the memories, consciousness, and desires of the body, had created the body and had control over it. Along those lines, the spiritual goal was to have the atman leave the body through the top of the head, join with the `Head God' Brahma, and exist for eternity as `self', with all the memories, characteristics, etc. Later, the Hindu belief, into which the Buddha was born, took this original thinking and applied some elaborations of many atmans existing in the body to join with Brahma and that everything was Brahma so that atman was everything-but still individual self. No one could come to a definitive answer, but many were rushing to find it, therefore ascetics, cults, and religions abounded in the Buddha's time. The Buddha discovered that everyone was `barking up the wrong tree', that atman (atta in Pali) did not exist. Human life was not caused by an atman (self/soul) which created it, it came about due to this/that conditionality (dependent origination). And just as it came about due to causation, that causation could be ceased or halted. The Buddha compared this process to a fire. Ignorance, desire for existence, and craving are the things that fuel the fire, and when those things are removed the fire goes out (nirvana). When the last glowing embers finally die, meaning the body dies, the fire is no more (parinibbana). Okay, along these lines, when the Buddha said that ultimate reality was non-self, what he was saying is that atta (atman) doesn't exist. There isn't a `builder of the house', except the ego (lust, desire for existence, and ignorance. rolled up into one). Does ego exist? Well, yes and no. It obviously exists to fuel the fire, but it doesn't exist as something that is eternal. Ego is also impermanent. So `self' does exist, but as something that is impermanent, not something that is eternal.or has control over existence. Our difficulty lies in the fact that the mind tells us `existence' equals `permanence'. The Buddha learned and taught otherwise. I hope this is an adequate response to our differences in understanding of 'self'. Take care. Metta, James 17320 From: James Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 10:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Towing the Buddhist party line seems like a big chore, if fact I do not > think there is such a thing. There are certainly more than one Buddhist > party :) The majority of Buddhist I have talked to online agree with your > view of a temporary self. (I have yet to speak to any Buddhists who embrace the possibility of a temporary self. Most I encounter say that there is no self, temporary or otherwise. Actually, that is what you stated in the post that inspired this post. Now I am confused as to where you stand.) Probably not a majority who use this email group, > but in general I have found it a popular approach. (Has a survey been conducted of the members of this group as to their beliefs in anatta, dukkha, Abhiddhamma and karma? There are 260 some odd members and we only hear from a handful; I have no idea what most are thinking. How can you be so sure? Has there been a survey I don't know about? If not, maybe one would be a good idea. This group does have a 'Polls' feature.) > I do not think the primary reason the Buddha taught non-self was to deny a > eternal/permanent self. Certainly that was part of it, as it is directly > stated within some Suttas. But I think the main reason he taught it was to > help others develop disenchanted with the aggregates, and through such > disenchantment one would develop dispassion towards the aggregates and with > dispassion comes release. (First, I am not going to assume the motivations of Lord Buddha for what he taught. He taught differently to different people at different times. Good illustration of impermanence. :-) Additionally, I don't see a difference between teaching the impermanence of self and the unsatisfactoriness of self. They go hand-in-hand in my mind. I hope I didn't imply otherwise with my post.) Here is what I am talking about from the Samyutaa > Nikaya: > > ""[He reflects:] ''I am now being chewed up by feeling... perception... > fabrications... consciousness. But in the past I was also chewed up by > consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present > consciousness. And if I delight in future consciousness, then in the future > I will be chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed > up by present consciousness.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes > indifferent to past consciousness, does not delight in future consciousness, > and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation > with regard to present consciousness. (This was a 'meditation exercise' and 'alternative viewpoint' to self. Obviously the Buddha encouraged this viewpoint because there was a 'self' in his monks keeping them attached to rebirth and karma. If they couldn't get rid of it with direct knowledge, he suggested they could see it as 'chewing' them up. Could be effective for some, but not reality. For example, an eye can't chew itself, it needs something from the outside to chew...so a 'self' can't 'itself'. [obviously this metaphorical outlook/exercise couldn't work for me...I'm too literal. ;-)])> > "What do you think, monks -- Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, > lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, > lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject > to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" ..... (The Buddha is asking the monks to evaluate their current 'selves' and to reject that notion because it is stressful, dukkha, not because it doesn't exist. The self does exist as an attachement to that which is impermanent.) > > ......."Seeing thus, (Notice this important phrase. The Buddha is talking about changing perception, not about a reality of non-self. If the Buddha was talking about an ultimate reality, he would have said, 'Seeing this reality', or 'With this knowledge'. The Buddha is encouraging an artifical viewpoint to change perception. Nothing negative, but it should be seen for what it really is or one is likely to go crazy taking unreality for reality.) > > When Victor wrote back to me, after I tried to explain what folks normally > mean by the term self, that I was just giving him my self-view, I was ready > to pull out the quotes and do dhamma battle. (I hope you don't view this as dhamma battle. I view this as constructive dialogue to reach higher understanding. Right or wrong doesn't matter really...the truth will eventually be found by us each as individuals. It is the asking of questions that leads to further insight.) Luckily I did not take that > road. In the next message Victor wrote this..... "The Buddha's teaching on > each and every aggregate being not self is a simple yet profound and > liberating teaching. Self-views are entangling. One would never get close > to understand the Buddha's > teaching if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view." I think > Victor makes a good point here. (I think only a Buddha is able to view anything seperate from self- view. If you and Victor have this ability, you are Buddhas) There is a big difference between debating > self-views and looking at our feelings, thoughts, body, etc and seeing what > is there. (It is through dialogue that we will do this more readily. Learning in a vacuum is very difficult, and not recommended by Lord Buddha.) For me this is the main value of the Abhidhamma, to help us break > down what is happening in the moment. Thus we start to get to the point the > Buddha is talking about above. (For some yes, for some no. I see the Abhidhamma as overkill, but to each their own.) > Thanks for your response I think we have a fair understanding of how we > differ :) (I would rather have an understanding of how we relate) Metta, James Gassho 17321 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sat Nov 30, 2002 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta James says:. > > (I have yet to speak to any Buddhists who embrace the possibility of > a temporary self. Most I encounter say that there is no self, > temporary or otherwise. Actually, that is what you stated in the > post that inspired this post. Now I am confused as to where you > stand.) > > Probably not a majority who use this email group, > > but in general I have found it a popular approach. > > (Has a survey been conducted of the members of this group as to their > beliefs in anatta, dukkha, Abhiddhamma and karma? There are 260 some > odd members and we only hear from a handful; I have no idea what most > are thinking. How can you be so sure? Has there been a survey I > don't know about? If not, maybe one would be a good idea. This > group does have a 'Polls' feature.) > I am not aware of any survey. My comment about other Buddhist I have talked to online is based on my experience of chatting with folks in various Buddhist Chats, I help organize Buddhist Chats on AOL. My comment about this group is based on an assumption that those who study the Abhidhamma would be less prone to such a view. You are correct about my view of self, i.e.. no self temporary or otherwise. 17322 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 3:19am Subject: Emptiness? Hello All, During my sutta studies (BTW, I have been searching for the sutta where Ananda attains arahantship. I haven't read it directly, only parts. Can anyone help?) I have come across a sutta that is perplexing to me. Let me quote the sutta, since it is very short, and then address my confusion: Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.85 Suñña Sutta Empty Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is void?" "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye- consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. "The ear is empty... "The nose is empty... "The tongue is empty... "The body is empty... "The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty." First, I had stated in an earlier post that the suttas don't state anything like `eye-consciousness' etc, this sutta obviously does so I was mistaken about that assumption (I still don't know what it is…but then again, I don't know what any consciousness is either, not really ;-) But, to get to the point of this post, I don't understand the use of `emptiness' in this sutta. Could anatta be considered emptiness? The Buddha goes so far as to state that `contact' is empty of self. Would anyone assume otherwise? What is intellect- contact? What could an intellect possibly contact? Is the Buddha saying the world is empty and void because it is anatta? Is he saying that nothing really exists? Can anyone help my understanding of this profound sutta? Lots of questions I know. Thanks. Metta, James ps. The Buddha states this information about the world like it should be easily seen and understood. The Abhidhamma also does this. Am I missing something here? I don't easily see or understand this. Just as the Abhidhamma states, like it is simply common knowledge or something, that all dhammas are non-self, dukkha, and impermanent, and then takes off from there. Excuse me. For example, if I didn't even know what a number was, how could I then be expected to understand advanced Calculus? 17323 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 5:40am Subject: Re: Emptiness? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Is the Buddha > saying the world is empty and void because it is anatta? Is he > saying that nothing really exists? Can anyone help my understanding > of this profound sutta? Lots of questions I know. Thanks. ____________ Dear James, Yes, anatta and sunnata are the same. The world is utterly void (sunnatta) of self according to the Theravada: "Void is the world ... because it is void of a self and anything belonging to a self" (suññam attena vá attaniyena vá; S. XXXV, 85); See also M. 43, M. 106. Visuddhimagga . XXI, 55): "Eye ... mind, visual objects ... mind-objects, visual consciousness ... mind- consciousness, corporeality ... consciousness, etc., are void of self and anything belonging to a self; void of permanency and of anything lasting, eternal or immutable.. They are coreless: without a core of permanency, or core of happiness or core of self." __________________ James: The Buddha states this information about the world like it[anatta and sunnata] should > be easily seen and understood. The Abhidhamma also does this. Am I missing something here? I don't easily see or understand this. ______________ Could you point out the references in Abhidhamma or suttas where the Buddha indicated it should be easy to understand? As I understand it it is very difficult; because for so long the mind has run among concepts. Moha (ignorance) obscures the truth. Sammohavinodani: "The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, dificult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known. The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Englightened Ones; ......But those five aggregates are no-self because of the words "what is painful is no-self" (S iv 1). Why? Because there is no exercising power over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over them is the characteristic of no-self." Robert > > Metta, James > ps. 17324 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 9:22am Subject: Re: Emptiness? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: Robert, Thank you for the explanation. I believe there is more for me to explore here. I am going to post on another matter. I would appreciate your input if you would like. Thanks. Metta, James ps. I didn't mean that the suttas state that emptiness, void, and non-self are easy to understand, they just state it as if it is easy to understand. Much like Jon using a few words to describe a matter I would need to write pages about ;-) As far as the Abhidhamma, for example, Nina's book The Abhidhamma in Everyday Life, the first chapter describes that all dhammas are non-self, dukkha, impermanent. Doesn't explain these things, just states them. Then the second chapter starts to describe the classifications of rupa. I was thinking, at the time, and what brought me to this group, and has yet to be answered, "Whoa there! Put on the brakes! I cannot possibly understand anything after this point if I don't understand what you are saying. If we don't have a common frame of reference for the characteristics of all dhammas, it is useless to even discuss the matter." Could you imagine trying to solve the equation: 2x + 4= 14 for x, when you and I are not in agreement what 2 equals or what 4 equals?!! It would be impossible. And it is not feasible to say, well, work on the problem anyway, even if you don't know the meanings of the components, and eventually you may figure it out. Is this new math, dharma, or mental torture? ;-) 17325 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 9:54am Subject: Renunciation? Hello All, Sorry to keep `getting back to the basics', but I believe it is important. During my sutta studies, I also came across this sutta, which I found very fascinating. It isn't that long so I will quote it in its entirety: Anguttara Nikaya IV.170 Yuganaddha Sutta In Tandem On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!" "Yes, friend," the monks responded. Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four? "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. "Whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths." The find this sutta fascinating for two reasons: First, it is Ananada describing how one achieves Nibbana; Second, his methodology is far more simple than the process described by the Lord Buddha. On the first matter, it is important to see how Ananada describes the process to Nibbana for `followers of the Lord Buddha's teaching'. You see, the Buddha had to discover the dharma on his own, so his path would naturally be a bit more complicated. Ananada has the perspective of seeing those achieve Nibbana who had the path laid out for them at the onset and the encouragement to follow it, so one would assume their methodology would be simpler. The second matter is what Ananda stresses as important as compared to what Lord Buddha stressed as important. Ananda stresses the practice of tranquility as crucial; the Buddha stressed the practice of renunciation as crucial. Which is correct? Perhaps, from this sutta, one could assume that if the teachings are available, renunciation isn't crucial anymore. In other words, the Buddha encouraged renunciation so that they could receive the teachings from him (and other reasons I assume), but if the teachings are available for the layperson, perhaps renunciation isn't necessary anymore. Perhaps being a monk isn't necessary, cultivating tranquility is the key. I know in my personal life, it is stress and chaos that pulls me away from the dharma more than the fact that I own a car and sleep on a high bed. Something interesting to consider and I am just thinking out loud. If anyone wants to comment, I would welcome insights. Are monks a tradition of the past and unnecessary to follow the Buddha's path to fruition in today's world? Metta, James 17326 From: Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness? Hi James, Here's something I was reading recently: Udana 4.1, Ireland trans.: ... the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am'. For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self the removal of the conceit 'I am' is accomplished, (and one attains) Nibbana here and now. L: I take this to mean we can't hold on to anything. The trick is to see what we are trying to hold. I usually start with what I like and dislike, and go from there. As you can see, no one really "gets it" until the end game, but it's good to know where the field of play is: anicca, dukkha, anatta. Many interesting philosophical thoughts about the nature of existence can be extrapolated from the basic insight into impermanence but they are only useful if they can prompt you to let go of something. Larry 17327 From: Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 10:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Renunciation? Hi again James, You are a veritable gold mine of interesting questions today. As to the relationship between renunciation and tranquility, in my own experience I would say renunciation precedes tranquility and tranquility deepens renunciation. Before I can practice tranquility I have to give up all sorts of activities and, once engaged in a tranquility practice, I have to let go of any 'interests' that may arise. Beyond that, there seems to be a logical progression of relinquishment based on insight in jhana practice, but I haven't really gotten into that. Larry 17328 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 11:31am Subject: Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi again James, > > You are a veritable gold mine of interesting questions today. As to the > relationship between renunciation and tranquility, in my own experience > I would say renunciation precedes tranquility and tranquility deepens > renunciation. Hi Larry, Well, I am long on questions, but short on answers ;-) Thank you for the two posts. They gave me additional food for thought. I do see the value of renunciation, but I also see that there is a specific difference between mental renunciation and actual renunciation. I was wondering about the amount of each needed for tranquility to grow and flourish. It seems to me, from this one sutta, that Ananda and Lord Buddha were different in their approach; however, I am unsure of the translation and what may have been lost in word meaning. But, one would assume, that this should be an extremely accurate statement of Ananda's position since he stated it, and the words of Lord Buddha are second-hand. Of course the extrapolation could be reached that Ananda didn't stress renunciation because he was addressing monks and nuns…those already in a position of renouncement. However, that never stopped the Lord Buddha from preaching renunciation to monks and nuns quite frequently. He was always aware that actual renunciation doesn't equal mental renunciation. Hmmmm…things to ponder. I hope you had a nice holiday weekend. I hope you enjoy what's left...but hope you don't get too attached! ;-) Metta, James 17329 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 3:32pm Subject: Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Hello All, -snip- > Something interesting to consider and I am just > thinking out loud. If anyone wants to comment, I would welcome > insights. Are monks a tradition of the past and unnecessary to > follow the Buddha's path to fruition in today's world? > > Metta, James Hi James Even at the time of the Buddha, the Bhikkhu life was seen as an advantage rather than a necessity. The Good Lord did teach the Sattipathana Sutta for the benefit of layfolk after all! In todays world this still holds true, with the special role of preserving the Dhamma for the next and future generations. Bhikkhus have an advantage that is quite hard for lay people to duplicate. Cheers Peter 17330 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 5:40pm Subject: Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "peterdac4298" wrote: > Hi James > > Even at the time of the Buddha, the Bhikkhu life was seen as an > advantage rather than a necessity. The Good Lord did teach the > Sattipathana Sutta for the benefit of layfolk after all! > > In todays world this still holds true, with the special role of > preserving the Dhamma for the next and future generations. Bhikkhus > have an advantage that is quite hard for lay people to duplicate. > > Cheers > Peter Hi Peter, I would agree with you, and have always held that position as well, I was just wondering why Ven. Ananda didn't state as much. This sutta is a very strong statement of major importance. I don't think I have seen a teaching of Ananda where he states his own position, rather than restating a teaching of the Buddha, like he does in this sutta. It is significant and I think it should be considered carefully, from many different angles. I think Ananda, through whom we get most of the Buddha's teachings, is an under-recongnized figure in Buddhism. That was why I was looking for the sutta regarding his enlightenment. It occurred after much concentrated effort where he was unsuccessful, and it wasn't until he 'gave up' that he did reached enlightenment. I would like to know the details. I feel there is much to learn from the life, perspective, and teachings of Ananda. Metta, James 17331 From: James Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 5:55pm Subject: 'Reason's Traces' Rob M, I have begun to read a book titled Reason's Traces: Identity and Interpretation in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist Thought by Matthew T. Kapstein, Widsom Publications, 2001. I was wondering if you, or anyone else in this group has read it. What did you (they) think? I will do a post on my findings/interpretations when I have finished the book. I would also like to know of other books or articles related to these issues of anatta and ultimate reality that might be of benefit in my studies. Here is a bit about this book: Professor Jay L. Garfield, Smith College "Kapstein brings great precision, insight and masterful scholarship to a range of important issues in Indian and Tibetan philosophy." Book Description Reason's Traces is a collection of essays by one of the foremost authorities on Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Kapstein, who is also a scholar of the Western philosophical tradition, sheds light on the theoretical foundations of Buddhist thought. He examines aspects of Buddhist philosophy in India and Tibet, in particular, the questions of personal identity and ultimate reality, and the interpretation of Tantrism. About the Author Matthew Kapstein is Associate Professor, Divinity School, University of Chicago. Metta, James 17332 From: azita gill Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Kang Krajan experience > hello dsg'ers and esp. Nina, lodewick, Jon, sarah, Sukin, Jaran,Num, Christine, Robert, Betty, Ell[the fast walker] such a delight to meet with all of you and have the opportunity to discuss the Dhamma with Khun Sujin. And to rejoice in Khun Duangdern's amazing generosity - Anumordana, Khun D. we arrived at Kang Krajan country club early afternoon and after a delicious lunch, a short recover-from-the-trip and time to breathe the fresh,clean air [a relief from BKK], we gathered together for discussion time at Khun D's house, or rather in the garden. here are some excerts from our talks over the next day and a bit: touching appears many times a day, but not yet experienced by satisampajanna [spelling?]. We will know when there is satisampajanna, it will be differrent to now, it will know the characteristic of touching as just touching, no me in there. we cannot escape from nama and rupa. Nama and rupa is all there is - citta, cetasika and rupa - all impermanent, too short to be object of pleasure, therefore Dukkha; and no 'me' only the arising and falling away[rapidly] of citta, cetasika and rupa. nothing else - no thing other than arise of citta, cetasika and rupa and then the falling away. more later. patience, courage and good cheer, and lots of sati Azita. > > > > 17333 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 9:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Renunciation? I think the key here is in how one develops tranquility. I think by tranquility here is meant the development of the jhanas, not just a general peace of mind. Thus we get from Ubhatobhaga Sutta IX.45 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-045.html#ananda . "[Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. " You will notice that the Sutta starts with whoever -- monk or nun -- declares..... Thus I would say that what this Sutta is talking about is the development of liberation with concentration proceeded by insight or insight preceded by concentration, etc. This is a restatement of comments the Buddha makes in other Suttas within the Canon about the different emphasis of practice. I think that in the Sutta that renunciation is assumed, and is considered the forerunner to the development of concentration/tranquility. So it is assumed the monk has withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James" Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 9:54 AM Subject: [dsg] Renunciation? > Hello All, > > Sorry to keep `getting back to the basics', but I believe it is > important. During my sutta studies, I also came across this sutta, > which I found very fascinating. It isn't that long so I will quote > it in its entirety: > > Anguttara Nikaya IV.170 > Yuganaddha Sutta > In Tandem > On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's > monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!" > > "Yes, friend," the monks responded. > > Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the > attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of > one or another of four paths. Which four? > > "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by > tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the > path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he > follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are > abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity > preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, > the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As > he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are > abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. > > "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in > tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with > insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues > it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his > fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. > > "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness > concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under > control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, > settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is > born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows > the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, > his obsessions destroyed. > > "Whoever -- monk or nun -- declares the attainment of arahantship in > my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four > paths." > > The find this sutta fascinating for two reasons: First, it is > Ananada describing how one achieves Nibbana; Second, his methodology > is far more simple than the process described by the Lord Buddha. On > the first matter, it is important to see how Ananada describes the > process to Nibbana for `followers of the Lord Buddha's teaching'. > You see, the Buddha had to discover the dharma on his own, so his > path would naturally be a bit more complicated. Ananada has the > perspective of seeing those achieve Nibbana who had the path laid out > for them at the onset and the encouragement to follow it, so one > would assume their methodology would be simpler. > > The second matter is what Ananda stresses as important as compared to > what Lord Buddha stressed as important. Ananda stresses the practice > of tranquility as crucial; the Buddha stressed the practice of > renunciation as crucial. Which is correct? Perhaps, from this > sutta, one could assume that if the teachings are available, > renunciation isn't crucial anymore. In other words, the Buddha > encouraged renunciation so that they could receive the teachings from > him (and other reasons I assume), but if the teachings are available > for the layperson, perhaps renunciation isn't necessary anymore. > Perhaps being a monk isn't necessary, cultivating tranquility is the > key. I know in my personal life, it is stress and chaos that pulls > me away from the dharma more than the fact that I own a car and sleep > on a high bed. Something interesting to consider and I am just > thinking out loud. If anyone wants to comment, I would welcome > insights. Are monks a tradition of the past and unnecessary to > follow the Buddha's path to fruition in today's world? > > Metta, James > > > 17334 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 9:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bare mindfulness Dear Larry, I am sorry not to respond sooner. It is the nature of my current schedule that i can only participate to a limited extent. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Nice to see you again. Sorry, but I can't discuss this with you until > you have read the commentary (and maybe some of our discussions) up to > as far as we have studied. Why is that? I'm not a part of the study group, but I am a member of dsg. I think that anyone on dsg can engage in discussion. so why the extra stipulation? Is there a separate private discussion taking place on these boards that is for study group members only? If so it should not be put into a public forum that includes members who are not committed to the reading. If you think I have misapprehensions in anything I say, why not deal with them directly? Of course you are free to make any conditions you want to, but I think it goes against the spirit of free and open discussion to make demands on members to study x, y or z before you will talk to them. After all, we are not each other's teachers here to give out homework assignments and to judge or grade each other's sources or knowledge in that sense. We are here as free participants. If I want to have another source of knowledge for my remarks rather than the Sutta and its commentary, I think I should be free to do so. if you think my remarks are ignorant, i would rather you say so, rather than tell me what i have to read in order to talk to you. If you want to have a study group list only for those who are willing to read the same assignments together, you ought to do so on a separate list, not tell dsg members that they are required to read your assignment before participating. I am interested in the sutta and its commentary in all of its specifics, some of which I have already read and re-read, but my schedule prohibits me from accepting such a prerequisite before i can read your posts or express my views in response. And it is certainly not a requirement of the guidelines of this group. Regards, Robert ====================== We have just touched on the first > "covetousness and grief" in the sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > best wishes, Larry 17335 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bare mindfulness Dear Sarah, Thanks for your responses to my points, and also to your always warm invitation to express my 'views', as deluded as they may be. I am glad when something potentially useful comes out of it, even if it is to just be properly criticized. It takes me too long to get back to posts and I apologize for the disruption. I am going on the theory that if I can post from time to time it is better than not posting at all. I at least am very glad to be able to drop in when I can. It feels at this point like visiting good friends -- not that there's any attachment there..... The theme in several of your comments, that the idea of self and desire for a result can easily creep in to one's concept of the path and the attempt to discern realities as well, is very well taken. It is easy to want to jump to the conclusion and feel the 'security' of a method that seems to guarantee enlightenment. All of this must be a denial of the current work of relaxing the clinging mind and submitting to the reality now, whether it seems like it's leading somewhere or not. A friend recently had the insight that all the things that occur in samsara really don't lead anywhere, all the causes and effects lead to just more causes and effects. i thought it was interesting. It removed the whole idea that one can 'get somewhere' by interacting with samsara in this or that way. Only discernment and progress in relation to wisdom does anything, and this only comes by cultivating the right conditions. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm happy to hear your reminders about the subtle idea of self. And thanks for letting me take part in this interesting discussion. Best, Robert Ep. ================================= --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > 7. Rob, I appreciate your comments about the rotten food, aversion and > non-reacting. > > Rob: "but I would think there has to be some interference, at least of the > intention to discern what is happening, in order for mindfulness attention > and insight upon its heels to take place." > > Again, I think the idea of self and the wishing for a result creeps in > very craftily. Only sati can be aware of the mind-states at these times. > > 8. Rob: "All of these seem to be developed > gradually by using all expedient means according to one's predisposition > and what works for an individual." > ..... > I agree about the value of seeing the benefit in all kinds of kusala and > thereby they are `developed gradually.' You raise many interesting and > helpful points. As I was discussing with James, seeing the cancer of > desire and ignorance of it at these times is the key, I think. > ***** > Thanks for the many helpful points in both your posts. I apologise if I'm > stepping on any bare toes with these comments. Look forward to hearing > more from you both or others. > > Sarah > ==== 17336 From: Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness? The Suttas were delivered to all sorts of individuals or groups with all sorts of different levels of understanding. I believe the best way to try to understand individual suttas is to read all of the suttas over and over. If that is done and they are seriously contemplated, the "puzzle" starts fitting together. As far as this particular sutta is concerned...emptiness does exactly mean -- "empty of self." Empty of self simply means that conditioned phenomena (all phenomena except for Nibbana) arise due to conditions, alter due to conditions, and cease due to conditions. There is nothing that is "self made" or "self generated." When emptiness (no-self) is seen, objects and experiences are not seen as "things with their own identity," but rather they can be seen as -- "selfless formations that are continuously altering/mutating into different formations due to causal forces." TG 17337 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sun Dec 1, 2002 10:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? James I don't know if the material you are looking for is online. It comes from the Vinaya, Vin.2:284 ff. As noted in the book "Great Disciples of the Buddha" by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker. I think it has the complete section, in as much as it relates to Ananda. I could not find it online, perhaps someone else has a complete source for the Vinaya online? Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "James" Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 5:40 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "peterdac4298" wrote: > > Hi James > > > > Even at the time of the Buddha, the Bhikkhu life was seen as an > > advantage rather than a necessity. The Good Lord did teach the > > Sattipathana Sutta for the benefit of layfolk after all! > > > > In todays world this still holds true, with the special role of > > preserving the Dhamma for the next and future generations. > Bhikkhus > > have an advantage that is quite hard for lay people to duplicate. > > > > Cheers > > Peter > > Hi Peter, > > I would agree with you, and have always held that position as well, > I was just wondering why Ven. Ananda didn't state as much. This > sutta is a very strong statement of major importance. I don't think > I have seen a teaching of Ananda where he states his own position, > rather than restating a teaching of the Buddha, like he does in this > sutta. It is significant and I think it should be considered > carefully, from many different angles. I think Ananda, through whom > we get most of the Buddha's teachings, is an under-recongnized > figure in Buddhism. That was why I was looking for the sutta > regarding his enlightenment. It occurred after much concentrated > effort where he was unsuccessful, and it wasn't until he 'gave up' > that he did reached enlightenment. I would like to know the > details. I feel there is much to learn from the life, perspective, > and teachings of Ananda. > > Metta, James 17338 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 1:24am Subject: Re: 'Reason's Traces' Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > I have begun to read a book titled Reason's Traces: Identity and > Interpretation in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist Thought > by Matthew T. Kapstein, Widsom Publications, 2001. I was wondering > if you, or anyone else in this group has read it. What did you > (they) think? I will do a post on my findings/interpretations when > I have finished the book. I would also like to know of other books > or articles related to these issues of anatta and ultimate reality > that might be of benefit in my studies. Thanks for the heads up. I am behind on my posts as I have come down with a flu for the past few days (it is my vipaka, it was pre- destined to happen :-) ). I will look for the book next time I am in a Buddhist bookshop. The closest that I have is "The Buddha's Doctrine of Anatta" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. It is a small book of 100 pages. I recently picked it up at a place that prints free Dhamma books. Once I recover, I will stop in again to see if they have any more copies and I will send it to you. Metta, Rob M :-) 17339 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 4:50am Subject: Dear Charles Dear Charles, _____________________ C.B. :I hope your children learn English fast because it has a lot of grammer and learn it well because my sister took the test for a good school in England and she only just past. _____________ Well they speak good English but Alex (age 10) is bad at spelling and he doesn't like homework much. _________ How old are your two children? What Boarding School do yo want them to go to? _____________ Roxanne is 12 and my 3rd one, Mei-ling (age 14), lives with my mother in NZ as she found Japanese school too hard because she didn't know the language.We spend lots of money on long distance calls. Roxy and Mei don't want to go to boarding school but Alex does as he wants to sleep in a room with all the other boys and play with them everyday. His favourite game is marbles (after playstation2) ___________ C.B;What do your children think about Buddhism and do they like it? ________ Yes they like it, and they believe in kamma and rebirth like you, so they try to be good. Robert 17340 From: James Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 5:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > I think the key here is in how one develops tranquility. I think by > tranquility here is meant the development of the jhanas, not just a general > peace of mind. Ray, The problem here is language. I don't know Pali but I am thinking that `tranquility' and `jhanic states' are two quite different things. At least in English they are. I will try to find the sutta in Pali later. Right now, I am deep into studies of anatta. Which, mentioning translation, at this point in my studies I am wondering if anatta is being traditionally translated the best way. Instead of `no-self', maybe it should be `no-essence'?? Thanks for the prospective. You gave me something valuable to ponder. Take care. Metta, James 17341 From: James Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Emptiness? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., TGrand458@a... wrote: >snip< > As far as this particular sutta is concerned...emptiness does exactly mean -- > "empty of self." Empty of self simply means that conditioned phenomena (all > phenomena except for Nibbana) arise due to conditions, alter due to > conditions, and cease due to conditions. There is nothing that is "self > made" or "self generated." >/snip< TG, This is an interesting perspective. I don't think I have read this definition previously. I am searching for a way to explain anatta using 'reason' instead of 'intuition'. After all, my intuition and your intuition don't match, but 'reason', by it's very nature, has to match. Then, while we may not agree on definitions, at least we both understand the meaning of the message communicated when discussing anatta (as much as possible ;-). Thank you for this valuable perspective. I will keep it in mind. Metta, James 17342 From: James Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 6:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > James I don't know if the material you are looking for is online. It comes > from the Vinaya, Vin.2:284 ff. As noted in the book "Great Disciples of the > Buddha" by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker. I think it has the > complete section, in as much as it relates to Ananda. I could not find it > online, perhaps someone else has a complete source for the Vinaya online? > Ray Dear Ray, Thank you so much for this information! No wonder I couldn't find it, I was looking in the wrong place! (Hmmmm...story of my life! ;-) I will redirect my attention to the Vinaya. Thanks again. Metta, James 17343 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? Dear James, Ray & All, Delighted to be catching up with yours and everyone’s posts after a really inspiring dhamma-packed weekend....more later. (Azita, thanks for setting a good example with your short summary - look f/w to others;-)) I think you’ll find most the details you’re asking about regarding Ananda in the link to an old post from the series I mentioned before based on the intro to the commentary to the vinaya by Buddhaghosa. The account in the Mahavamsa is almost identical from memory. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/9810 I’m interested to follow the reference in the vinaya itself, but can’t find it at present (and not on line as far as I know). As Ananda’s arahatship occurred after the parinibbana of the Buddha, it makes sense to me that we read about it in the commentaries rather than the suttas. Sarah Pls note that references to ‘Dhamma’ in dhamma-vinaya refer to the Suttanta and Abhidhamma Pitakas as I understand. ===== --- Ray Hendrickson wrote: > James I don't know if the material you are looking for is online. It > comes > from the Vinaya, Vin.2:284 ff. As noted in the book "Great Disciples of > the > Buddha" by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker. I think it has the > complete section, in as much as it relates to Ananda. I could not find > it > online, perhaps someone else has a complete source for the Vinaya > online? 17344 From: James Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 7:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? Sarah, Thanks for the reference. Hmmm...those are all the details huh? How disappointing. But thank you for the reference. Okay, I have finally read this commentary you have been pressing! ;-) Let me give you my first impressions and then do some follow-up research. This commentary by Buddhagosa seems to me to be a reactionary piece. He is writing after schisms have already been formed in the Sangha; which would later become many factions of Buddhism. He wanted to hold the Tipitaka up as the definitive word, no question about it, and anyone who questions is a heretic to The Triple Gem. This reminds me of the Old Testament and the writings of the Major and Minor prophets proclaiming that God knew that some would break away from the tradition of the Jews, later becoming Christians, and that God will smite those heretics in due course. Take for example this section from Buddhaghosa: "...the words uttered by Subhadda who had taken to the ascetic life in old age, namely, `Away with it friends, grieve not, lament not, we are well rid of the Great Recluse who was wont to tell us what was befitting and what was not and hence made our lives miserable; but now we will do whatever we please and not do what we please not'; kindled the enthusiasm among the Order of monks to bring about a rehearsal of the Dhamma and Vinaya and further reflected, `It may be that the occasion would arise for evil-minded monks to think that the Sacred-word is such, that its Teacher is no more, to form factions and before long make the Good Teaching disappear for ever." (Question: In what sutta did Subhadda state this?) I don't view this as scholarship on the authority of the Tipitaka, I see this is an attempt at building guilt and blaming. I mean really, to use the phrase `evil-minded monks' is very questionable; and the term `Sacred-word' to describe the teachings run contrary to how the Buddha saw them and described them. Of course the monks wanted to recite/assemble the teachings at the first Council, but I am skeptical that the main intention was due to paranoia over 'evil- minded monks'-just the reasonable intention of making sure the teachings weren't lost due to the passage of time. Could you imagine this monk is basically saying to the Sangha, "Okay, we have to record all of these teachings because I know that some of you are evil-minded, or will be evil-minded, and might try to destroy them." That's quite a pep talk! ;-) And since when is disagreement being evil-minded? Are all Non-Thera Buddhists supposed to be considered 'evil-minded' now? Again, my first impression is that this is a reactionary piece, but I will do more historical research and get back to you. Metta, James 17345 From: immerschlafgut Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 10:02am Subject: HANDBOOK FOR MANKIND Authored by the Ven.Buddhadasa who is well known for the readiness with which he gives non-literal interpretations to the Buddhist texts. Giving more weight to meditative experience and everyday observation than to philology, he finds meaning in many otherwise obscure points of doctrine. He does not hesitate to reject as naïve a word-for-word interpretation that has no bearing on real life. In this book, he has made the point the point that the whole Buddha- Dhamma is nothing but the teaching dealing with "what is what". He says that Buddhism is the religion which teaches one to know just this much : "what is what". All the chapter in this book dealing with five= aggregates, the four kinds of attachment, intuition in a natural way, intuition by methodical practice, and other topics all point to "what is what". To order the book, Visit www.thaidistinctive.com Click under Books:Religion Category or Contacts immerschlafgut@y... 17346 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 7:32pm Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta Dear James, Have been a lurker, as Sarah calls it, for far too long, and so, after an absolutely wonderful weekend of Dhamma discussions with Achaan Sujin and others from dsg and our English discussion group in Bangkok, and with encouragement from Sarah (condition for cetana -volition-and chanda-"wish to do"-cetasikas to arise), I decided to write a bit. Several people have asked which of the 4 kinds of methods mentioned by Ven. Ananda in the Yuganaddha sutta is best. The answer depends on "our" accumulations. Each of us, in the course of all "our" numerous lifetimes, have accrued various tendencies, habits, that make up what we call a personality and which incline us towards certain types of actions, either generally kusala (wholesome), or akusala (unwholesome). The fact that you are interested in the Dhamma means that "you" have accumulated tendencies to be interested in and study the Dhamma from various previous lifetimes. However, there is no "you" doing this from lifetime to lifetime. There are only cittas and cetasikas arising which condition various actions, kamma or result (vipaka) or kiriya (cittas that are neither kamma or vipaka, but aid in a citta process) to take place. All those accumulations are "stored" in each citta that arises, and get passed on to the next citta when the previous one has arisen and fallen away. Only "you" can know which method is best for you. "I" tried the method of doing samatha (tranquil) meditation for many years and found that "I" got nowhere that way since there was no understanding arising. For others, that may be best for them, but for me the development of insight (understanding) through satipatthana brings on the development of calmness. But more importantly, it provides for the conditions to bring about awareness and understanding. When we read about, listen to, discuss and contemplate about the Dhamma, this creates conditions for sati (awareness is an inadequate term in English) and panna (insight, understanding) to arise. Other forms of kusala (wholesome actions), generosity and the following of sila (morality) also create conditions for sati and panna to arise. However, "we" have no control over this process and cannot determine when "it" will happen, when understanding will arise. It happens in very small increments, and occurs when "we" have a kind of "ah-ha" experience of the nature of a particular reality arising and of the anattaness of it. This "ah-ha" is different from just reading about it; it is a deep understanding from within. However, it took Lord Buddha eons to perfect "his" stream of cittas and cetasikas to the point that all defilements were eliminated and total understanding arose. "We" certainly cannot expect to achieve it in a shorter time. So, whichever method seems right for you, that is the one to follow. However, the "doing" of kusala actions (bhavana, dana and sila) should accompany you in your daily life, so that the conditions for sati and panna to arise can be developed. metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 17347 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Kang Krajan experience Dear Azita, Betty & All, It’s a pleasant surprise to ‘re-connect’ and ‘see’ you again so soon on line with good reminders. Hopefully some of the others will follow the example......Yesterday, Jon went straight from the airport around mid-day into legislation drafting in the office while Chris and I have had softer landings and a chance for more leisurely time to catch up with DSG. She’ll be flying back to Brisbane tonight from Hong Kong. It’s always interesting to reflect on what makes most impression after a very memorable dhamma-packed weekend and it is often quite unpredictable . I hope others elaborate on what they found most useful. I know Rob K asked one or two people, so hopefully a few comments will be shared with us all . Perhaps what hit home most for me were the reflections on attachment as the cause of suffering and particularly clinging to self (not necessarily with any wrong view most of the time). I think this was prompted by a comment K.Sujin made to me after the first afternoon’s discussion. So many of our concerns and questions relate to ‘my’ or ‘our’ particular problems, difficulties, fears, worries, progress (or lack of), discouragement, long stories, situations, objects of lobha/dosa according to accumulations, working out intellectual details and so on. Whilst being preoccupied with these issues, there is no understanding of paramattha dhammas at this moment. Knowing the difference at any time, even during dhamma discussion, of the precise characteristics of kusala and akusala cittas and of the various dhammas arising without concern for ‘oneself’ is so very essential. In contrast to these ‘precoccupations’, were the inspiring examples given by K.Sujin, our hosts and by all of kindness, selfless giving and sharing of dhamma help and hospitality at every opportunity. Just a little more glimmer of appreciation of what it means when we talk about attachment being the cause of dukkha. As we read in the Udana (ch 5, 1 ‘Dear’),The Buddha reminds us: “Searching all directions with one's awareness, one finds no one dearer than oneself. In the same way, others are fiercely dear to themselves. So one should not hurt others if one loves oneself.” ***** Many thanks to everyone for making it such a special time. Sarah p.s Thanks Betty for all your tireless help with planning and arrangements. ========================== --- azita gill wrote: > > hello dsg'ers and esp. Nina, lodewick, Jon, > sarah, Sukin, Jaran,Num, Christine, Robert, Betty, > Ell[the fast walker] > such a delight to meet with all of you and have > the opportunity to discuss the Dhamma with Khun Sujin. > And to rejoice in Khun Duangdern's amazing generosity > - Anumordana, Khun D. 17348 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? Hi James, --- James wrote: > Sarah, > > Thanks for the reference. Hmmm...those are all the details huh? > How disappointing. But thank you for the reference. Okay, I have > finally read this commentary you have been pressing! ;-) ..... Actually, what you read from the earlier post was just my summary and quotes from the commentary (not on line). If you read the other posts in the series (before and after) you may get more detail, though I know it may be confusing. If you post any quotes or extracts from any of the segments like you’ve done before for further discussion, that would be good and I’m happy to add any further notes or footnotes from the text;-);-) ..... >Let > me give you my first impressions and then do some follow-up research. > > This commentary by Buddhagosa seems to me to be a reactionary > piece. > Take for example this section from Buddhaghosa: > > "...the words uttered by Subhadda who had taken to the ascetic life > in old age, namely, `Away with it friends, grieve not, lament not, > we are well rid of the Great Recluse who was wont to tell us what > was befitting and what was not and hence made our lives miserable; > but now we will do whatever we please and not do what we please > not'; kindled the enthusiasm among the Order of monks to bring about > a rehearsal of the Dhamma and Vinaya and further reflected, `It may > be that the occasion would arise for evil-minded monks to think that > the Sacred-word is such, that its Teacher is no more, to form > factions and before long make the Good Teaching disappear for ever." > (Question: In what sutta did Subhadda state this?) ..... As Rob K mentioned before, don’t be put-off by English translation terms such as ‘sacred’(after all it is translated in the ‘Sacred Books of the Buddhists’ series;-)) or ‘evil-minded’. Use whatever language is helpful to you. I’ve just checked the reference for Subhadda in Dict of PPN. We read here that Subhadda was a barber. “He entered the Order and resented having to observe various rules, great and small. When the Buddha died and the monks stood weeping, Subhadda asked them to rejoice instead, saying: “We are well rid of the Mahasamana; we shall now do just as we like.” Maha Kassapa heard this while he was on his way from Pava to Kusinara, and it was this remark which made him decide to hold the First council after the Buddha’s Death.” Footnote gives these refs : Vin ii 284f; Dii 162; Mhv iii 6 The reference to Digha Nik is to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (p.274 in the Walshe transl). More details also in DAii,599 (comm. to DN). ..... > I don't view this as scholarship on the authority of the Tipitaka, I > see this is an attempt at building guilt and blaming. I mean > really, to use the phrase `evil-minded monks' is very questionable; > and the term `Sacred-word' to describe the teachings run contrary to > how the Buddha saw them and described them. Of course the monks > wanted to recite/assemble the teachings at the first Council, but I > am skeptical that the main intention was due to paranoia over 'evil- > minded monks'-just the reasonable intention of making sure the > teachings weren't lost due to the passage of time. ..... OK, perhaps we can just agree that the intention was the preservation of the Teachings so that people like ourselves would have access.Being rehearsed in minute detail and later preserved in writing has meant that they have not been adulterated or altered for the main part to this day. ..... >Could you > imagine this monk is basically saying to the Sangha, "Okay, we have > to record all of these teachings because I know that some of you are > evil-minded, or will be evil-minded, and might try to destroy > them." That's quite a pep talk! ;-) And since when is disagreement > being evil-minded? Are all Non-Thera Buddhists supposed to be > considered 'evil-minded' now? .... Well, James, there have always been and always will be rule-breakers and those who like to rock the boat;-) For my part, I’m glad that Subhadda propmpted Maha Kassapa to hold the First Council and rehearse the Teachings in such detail. I think it’s very apparent that Subhadda’s intentions and disrespect for the Buddha and Dhamma were very unwholesome or whatever expression you find helpful to use. .... > Again, my first impression is that this is a reactionary piece, but > I will do more historical research and get back to you. ..... Good. As I understand the ancient commentaries (and abhidhamma) to be the most authoritative sources to support the suttas and you don’t, we just have to agree to differ at times. Sarah ===== 17349 From: James Date: Mon Dec 2, 2002 11:39pm Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Mom Bongkojpriya \(Betty\) Yugala" wrote: > Dear James, > Have been a lurker, as Sarah calls it, for far too long, and so, after an > absolutely wonderful weekend of Dhamma discussions with Achaan Sujin and > others from dsg and our English discussion group in Bangkok, and with > encouragement from Sarah (condition for cetana -volition-and chanda-"wish to > do"-cetasikas to arise), I decided to write a bit. > >snip< > > Only "you" can know which method is best for you. "I" tried the method of > doing samatha (tranquil) meditation for many years and found that "I" got > nowhere that way since there was no understanding arising. For others, that > may be best for them, but for me the development of insight (understanding) > through satipatthana brings on the development of calmness. But more > importantly, it provides for the conditions to bring about awareness and > understanding. > > When we read about, listen to, discuss and contemplate about the Dhamma, > this creates conditions for sati (awareness is an inadequate term in > English) and panna (insight, understanding) to arise. Other forms of kusala > (wholesome actions), generosity and the following of sila (morality) also > create conditions for sati and panna to arise. > > However, "we" have no control over this process and cannot determine when > "it" will happen, when understanding will arise. It happens in very small > increments, and occurs when "we" have a kind of "ah-ha" experience of the > nature of a particular reality arising and of the anattaness of it. This > "ah-ha" is different from just reading about it; it is a deep understanding > from within. However, it took Lord Buddha eons to perfect "his" stream of > cittas and cetasikas to the point that all defilements were eliminated and > total understanding arose. "We" certainly cannot expect to achieve it in a > shorter time. > > So, whichever method seems right for you, that is the one to follow. > However, the "doing" of kusala actions (bhavana, dana and sila) should > accompany you in your daily life, so that the conditions for sati and panna > to arise can be developed. > > metta, > Betty > _______________________ > Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala > 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road > Bangkok 10900, Thailand > tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 > e-mail: beyugala@k... Betty, Thank you for the post. I think that you are trying to tell me something that I have just begun to figure out. Perhaps you have a connection with me, beyond this Internet, and I want to encourage you to keep it. According to this very important sutta by Ananda, some achieve Nibbana through samatha, some through vipassana, some through both in tandem, and a few, a very few, through the power of the mind alone…through reasoning. I have been a Buddhist for 15 years and have practiced meditation for most of those years. Samatha didn't do much for me, vipassana did a bit more but I still felt that it was lacking for me, and now I have given up both and begun to apply the power of my mind alone to dharma. This is how Ananda describes it: "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, and pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it -- his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed. I should be obvious to everyone in this group that I have a great deal of restlessness concerning the Dhamma. Why? I must understand Dhamma with my mind, with my cognitive thought, in order for insight to arise in me. That is just the way my mind is. I can accept that now, before I could not. I kept meditating and not much was happening. I study the suttas and read everything I can get my hands on now because that is how I `meditate'. During the Buddha's time, many monks achieved Nibbana simply from listening to the Buddha speak. This wasn't magic, they just had a mind similar to mine. Why can't I achieve Nibbana just from reading the suttas? Two reasons: One, they aren't spoken by Lord Buddha, so a lot is lost there; Two, I am finding that the Pali language simply doesn't match English and most of the suttas are translated improperly/incompletely. Recently, I have begun to focus my cognitive thoughts on the question of anatta/ultimate reality, since that is the heart of the Buddha's insight/teaching. I am not sure of my progress, but I think I understand a bit more than I did before. Consequently, I have had very real, brief visitations these past three days from a very short, pale figure dressed all in black (black cloak and hat, and walking stick) who raises a fear in me unlike I have experienced before. I don't think I need to say more, maybe you know what I mean. I will move forward. I wish you well in your practice as well, Betty. Thank you for coming out of the woodwork to address me. Metta, James 17350 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 1:53am Subject: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Rob M, Hope you’re recovering and let me say how delighted we all were to read your wonderful posts and insights over the weekend and particularly the kind and encouraging manner in which they were written - a fine example for us all. I expect bits and pieces will come back to all of us in due course. Sometimes there were informal or meal-time discussions as well, so we may have learnt from different reflections too. I’ll just mention a few bits now which may be of relevance to comments you’ve made. We were all very aware of how you had tried to join us. I’ll leave the texts for now. 1. In passing I raised your question about the extent of the Buddha’s knowledge regarding the future and future conditions. K. Sujin’s response was that we could never over-estimate the wisdom and knowledge. Anything at all that he put his mind to, he would know for so many aeons into the future (implication that sth like 9/11 would be nothing at all IF it were attended to). We cannot use ‘predetermined’, only ‘conditioned’, but it’s quite useless to speculate about the future or these matters. The more understanding there is, the fewer the conditions to think about ‘predetermined’, ‘freewill’ and so on. ***** 2. I also raised the qu about votthapanna (determining) consciousness and predominant cetasikas such as manasikara. As we discussed before, yoniso manasikara (wise attention) and ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention) only arise during the javana process, prompting kusala and akusala states. Determining consciousness is just one citta. “Who knows what is predominant and what’s the use of speculating”, she asked. In other words, it’s more useful to understand the reality appearing at the present moment than to speculate on details in processes that cannot be known. ***** 3. At one point on the first day, I was trying to ‘work out’ a detail on ayatanas (bases) intellectually. Very appropriately she reminded me that this was just thinking and speculating and not understanding anything about the present moment - the namas and rupas which can be experienced and known now. It was such a helpful reminder for me. So easily we can go off-track, lost in intellectual speculation which is not even wise consideration - just being lost in pannatti (concepts) without any sati. ***** 4. We also had some discussion on the first day (Rob or others may add details) about the recollection of the past or of past good deeds. K.Sujin was reminding us that sati can arise even at moment of recalling or thinking about the past. The citta arises with sanna (as always), recalling the past and if there is awareness of satipatthana, the present object,e.g thinking is the object. There can be recalling with lobha or panna according to accumulations at that moment. She also stressed often that when satipatthana is clearly understood, whatever we read in the texts is understood accordingly and without doubt. It has to be the “path of detachment from the very beginning”. ***** 5. There was also quite a lot of discussion over the weekend on kamma and kamma-patha (bringing results) and the intricacies. Someone else may fill in more details, but what I appreciated was the reminder that the concern should be for the akusala cittas at this moment rather than the possible results. There was also a little more on ayuhana (kammic accumulation). K.Sujin suggested she usually prefers not to use the term because it’s impossible to see “the complexity at each moment’, but it’s more useful to ‘see’ it or reflect on it when referring to rebirth.(I don’t think I can add more on that, but again others may;-)) ***** 6. Rob M, I’ve appreciated all the discussions you and others have been having on anatta, though I’m still catching up. Whether we’re sitting or walking, so very often we’re “enslaved by the idea of a self”. At this moment or reading or listening, understanding can begin to know ‘our’ accumulations’ - conditioned mental factors of lobha, dosa, moha and so on. Larry, she was stressing that we putthujanas (worldlings) have all combinations of carita (character), i.e all the different types discussed in detail in some texts. Many more details are given in the Netti (the Guide) where I was quoting the details about proximate cause from before. (That reminds me, if any of your or anyone else’s qus or comments went unanswered when we all dashed off, do repost them for us to look at again). ***** That’s it for now. Thanks again for helping to inspire our discussions with questions and also all the great posts in our absence. Nina has gone to Cambodia with sets of print-outs of posts we made just as we were setting off on Friday;-).If others have any different recollections on any of the points I’ve mentioned and are able to elaborate or add others, pls do. Sarah ====== 17351 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 7:46am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: According to this very important sutta by Ananda, some achieve Nibbana through samatha, some through vipassana, some through both in tandem, and a few, a very few, through the power of the mind alone…through reasoning. I have been a Buddhist for 15 years and have practiced meditation for most of those years. Samatha didn't do much for me, vipassana did a bit more but I still felt that it was lacking for me, and now I have given up both and begun to apply the power of my mind alone to dharma. KKT: Allow me to pop in here to give my observation. I think it's very difficult (if not impossible) to achieve Nibbana through the power of the mind alone, i.e. through reasoning. On the beginning of the Path, one needs << reasoning >> to << see >> clearly the Path like one has a map. But the map is not enough, one has to walk the Path. Again, while one walks the Path, the walking becomes << really >> effective only when one has the first << Insight >>. After this first insight, walking the Path is no other than the deepening of this insight. In Zen they call this first insight Satori and because Satori is often sudden, the process of walking the Path is called << sudden enlightenment/gradual cultivation >> But the first Satori is crucial. Peace, KKT 17352 From: James Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 11:35am Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > Dear James, > KKT: Allow me to pop in here > to give my observation. > > I think it's very difficult > (if not impossible) to achieve > Nibbana through the power of > the mind alone, i.e. through reasoning. > > On the beginning of the Path, > one needs << reasoning >> to << see >> > clearly the Path like one has a map. > > But the map is not enough, > one has to walk the Path. > > Again, while one walks the Path, > the walking becomes << really >> effective > only when one has the first << Insight >>. > > After this first insight, > walking the Path is no other > than the deepening of this insight. > > In Zen they call this first insight Satori > and because Satori is often sudden, > the process of walking the Path is called > << sudden enlightenment/gradual cultivation >> > > But the first Satori is crucial. > > > Peace, > > > KKT KKT, Let me ask you a question: How many stands of hair do I have on my head? Think about the question and get back to me. Metta, Jame 17353 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 1:38pm Subject: Re: Yuganaddha Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: Let me ask you a question: How many stands of hair do I have on my head? Think about the question and get back to me. Metta, Jame KKT: Don't know, James. Just don't know. Peace, KKT 17354 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 1:56pm Subject: Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > > Hi Peter, > I don't think > I have seen a teaching of Ananda where he states his own position, > rather than restating a teaching of the Buddha, like he does in this > sutta. It is significant and I think it should be considered > carefully, from many different angles. I think Ananda, through whom > we get most of the Buddha's teachings, is an under-recongnized > figure in Buddhism. That was why I was looking for the sutta > regarding his enlightenment. It occurred after much concentrated > effort where he was unsuccessful, and it wasn't until he 'gave up' > that he did reached enlightenment. I would like to know the > details. I feel there is much to learn from the life, perspective, > and teachings of Ananda. > > Metta, James Hi James I have just looked at "The Life of the Buddha in the Words of the Pali Canon" by ~Naanamoli, where he gives as good an account as will probably be found anywhere. Ananda, whilst still a stream winner, was under pressure from the Elders to attain sainthood in order to be admitted to the first council, and as you said, it was not until he decided to mindfully lay down in order to get some sleep, that it finally happened: during that brief moment of transition. ~Naanamoli was quoting from the Cullavagga Cv. 11: 1-10 and not a great deal seems to be said, probably just as well too. It could never be the same for anyone else and there would be no point in detailing the event beyond giving it as one example of the many ways such a thing can happen. A little latter in the book, ~Naanamoli gives a hint at the very early days of the embryonic Sangha by quoting from Majima 108, where Ananda has to answer questions put to him, by no less a person than the Defence Minister for that region. Questions that made a direct quote from the Suttas rather awkward. I personally feel that his answers illustrate the general attitude of many Buddhists ever since, and that not much is to be gained by searching for further "insights" into Ananda's mind set. It seems to me that it is more than enough trying to figure out what the Buddha said and then mapping that onto our own daily experiences. Having said that however, I would not be at all surprised if Anada contributed as much as anyone else to the earliest commentaries. Cheers Peter 17355 From: Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Sarah, Good to have you back and read all your interesting comments. You wrote: "Larry, she was stressing that we putthujanas (worldlings) have all combinations of carita (character), i.e all the different types discussed in detail in some texts." It seems that no modern teachers are interested in this aspect of the commentary. Did K. Sujin, or do you, have any alternate ideas on why 4 satipatthanas? Larry 17356 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Good to have you back and read all your interesting comments. You wrote: > > "Larry, she was stressing that we putthujanas (worldlings) have all > combinations of carita (character), i.e all the different types > discussed in detail in some texts." > > It seems that no modern teachers are interested in this aspect of the > commentary. Did K. Sujin, or do you, have any alternate ideas on why 4 > satipatthanas? The *other* "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" by Ashin Janakabhivamsa has an interesting chapter on carita (Chapter 5). http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/Abhidhamma.htm Metta, Rob M :-) 17357 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 4:37pm Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Sarah, Yes! I can finally say that "Free Will" is out. I have replaced it with the word "choice" and stressed that "choice" is a result of conditions, not an external factor such as a self. --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hope you're recovering and let me say how delighted we all were to read > your wonderful posts and insights over the weekend and particularly the > kind and encouraging manner in which they were written - a fine example > for us all. I am recovering slowly. I am in India for the next couple of days and I am not sure that this is going to speed my recovery. I am still a couple of posts behind. > ***** > 2. I also raised the qu about votthapanna (determining) consciousness and > predominant cetasikas such as manasikara. As we discussed before, yoniso > manasikara (wise attention) and ayoniso manasikara (unwise attention) only > arise during the javana process, prompting kusala and akusala states. > Determining consciousness is just one citta. "Who knows what is > predominant and what's the use of speculating", she asked. In other words, > it's more useful to understand the reality appearing at the present moment > than to speculate on details in processes that cannot be known. I am polishing my Class Notes. A new class starts on Jan 5th and I want to print out a complete set for each student. I am de-stressing the idea of "predominant" cetasikas, but FYI, I just ran across this interesting quote in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary (under manasikara): "It is, therefore, the prominent factor in two specific classes of consciousness: i.e. 'advertence at the five sense doors' and at the mind-door." I remind myself that Narada wrote that "free will arose during the determining consciousness" and the problems that got me into. A single comment by a single author has to be taken with a grain of salt. > ***** > 3. At one point on the first day, I was trying to `work out' a detail on > ayatanas (bases) intellectually. Very appropriately she reminded me that > this was just thinking and speculating and not understanding anything > about the present moment - the namas and rupas which can be experienced > and known now. It was such a helpful reminder for me. So easily we can go > off-track, lost in intellectual speculation which is not even wise > consideration - just being lost in pannatti (concepts) without any sati. > ***** Been there, done that! Many times. Guilty as charged :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 17358 From: azita gill Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kang Krajan again > dear all, "Monks, just as the dawn is the forerunner, the harbinger of the arising of the sun, even so is Right Understanding the forerunner, the harbinger of fully comprehending the 4 Ariyan Truths. Of one who has Right Understanding it may be expected that he/she [my add.-for you know who!!]will understand as it really is...this is Dukkha...this is the arising of Dukkha...this the cessation [Nibbana]...and this the path leading to cessation." S.N. Maha-Vagga - Kindred sayings about the Truths, ch.IV para7. While in Kang Krajan, we talked a lot about the development of right understanding that knows realities as they appear thro. the 6 doorways of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense and mind. Quote from Khun Sujin: "usually one knows the characteristics of reality but one takes all realities for oneself. Irritation cannot change its characteristic at all bec. it has a reason to be like that; but there can be understanding of that which appears as a characteristic of a reality. In a day, everything should be known, should be made aware of as a characteristic of a reality" From this w/e a Kang Krajan, I understand, at least theoretically, a little more about Anatta. At the moment of sotapattimagga [stream entry], the idea of self really no longer exists, there is no more reasons for it to arise bec Panna has been developed to the level where Anatta is truly known, where Anicca is truly known and therefore Dukkha also is also truly known. I understand to reach this level, it takes a long, long, long time, and patience and courage, and why not, lets have good cheer as well- it feels better than being despondent. Azita > > > 17359 From: Date: Tue Dec 3, 2002 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yuganaddha Sutta Hello KKT, >Again, while one walks the Path, >the walking becomes << really >> effective >only when one has the first << Insight >>. > >After this first insight, >walking the Path is no other >than the deepening of this insight. > >In Zen they call this first insight Satori >and because Satori is often sudden, >the process of walking the Path is called ><< sudden enlightenment/gradual cultivation >> > >But the first Satori is crucial. It's not, perhaps, really so difficult to see. An opening can happen all sorts of ways. How to stay in the seeing; how to be the seeing. You're exactly right. (The Buddha's omniscience was permanent awareness James, not knowing all the prime numbers ;-). metta, stephen 17360 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] bare mindfulness Hi Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > It takes me too long to get back to posts and I apologize for the > disruption. I am going on the theory that if I can post from time to > time it is better than not posting at all. I at least am very glad to > be able to drop in when I can. It feels at this point like visiting > good friends -- not that there's any attachment there.... ..... No disruption and ‘from time to time’ is definitely better than ‘not at all’. .....and for us it’s like having ‘good friends’ drop in, even if there is attachment;-) don’t be put off by the occasional bark - we all get them at times, esp. if we’re long-winded as I often am;-). There aren’t any bites and we’re all very grateful to Larry for his tireless efforts with the extracts and considerations they lead to. He’s having a well-earned break now from the Way commentary til Nina returns. ..... > The theme in several of your comments, that the idea of self and desire > for a result can easily creep in to one's concept of the path and the > attempt to discern realities as well, is very well taken. It is easy > to want to jump to the conclusion and feel the 'security' of a method > that seems to guarantee enlightenment. All of this must be a denial of > the current work of relaxing the clinging mind and submitting to the > reality now, whether it seems like it's leading somewhere or not ..... Yes, I had a chat with Christine at the weekend about how there really are no ‘sweeteners’ in the path of detachment. Even when we talk about ‘relaxing the clinging mind and submitting to reality now’, attachment and clinging to self or results can creep in. She may add more. ..... > A friend recently had the insight that all the things that occur in > samsara really don't lead anywhere, all the causes and effects lead to > just more causes and effects. i thought it was interesting. It > removed the whole idea that one can 'get somewhere' by interacting with > samsara in this or that way. ..... No ‘one’ to get anywhere or interact in anyway. ..... >Only discernment and progress in relation > to wisdom does anything, and this only comes by cultivating the right > conditions. ..... Yes and no self to cultivate conditions either. ..... > Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm happy to hear your reminders about the > subtle idea of self. ..... I think it’s useful for us all. There are 20 kinds of sakkaya-ditthi (self view), i.e 4 types for each of the khandhas. K.Sujin was reminding us that it’s useful to know about these and to understand how they can arise at any time, even whilst ‘practising’ or discussing dhamma. ..... > And thanks for letting me take part in this interesting discussion. .... This is an open forum as you said. For my part, I always enjoy chatting to you and miss your contributions when you disappear. I’ve always appreciated your kind support for DSG too. Look f/w to anymore anatta discussion. As James says, it’s the 'heart' of the Teachings. Sarah p.s Did you see the following quote from TG? I thought it was very good: “The Suttas were delivered to all sorts of individuals or groups with all sorts of different levels of understanding. I believe the best way to try to understand individual suttas is to read all of the suttas over and over. If that is done and they are seriously contemplated, the "puzzle" starts fitting together. As far as this particular sutta is concerned...emptiness does exactly mean -- "empty of self." Empty of self simply means that conditioned phenomena (all phenomena except for Nibbana) arise due to conditions, alter due to conditions, and cease due to conditions. There is nothing that is "self made" or "self generated." “ ======================================== 17361 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 1:31am Subject: vipaka, conditions, and the puppet Dear All, HK was ablaze with lights and movement when I left last night - surely one of the Great Cities of the world. It seems so long ago now (just over a week?) since meeting Paul and RobM on the way through HK to BKK - both warm, intelligent, enthusiastic dsgers. Photos are great, but there is nothing like the real thing. :) Hopefully, we'll meet again soon - S.E. Asia or East Coast Oz ... no worries. Wonderful posts over the last week or two from 'regulars', 'irregulars', and new voices. Usually (at home) I read posts by myself - so it was such a lovely experience to hear the posts with Dhamma friends - usually Jon reading aloud - and be able to discuss or clarify different points immediately. I think Jon is getting used to someone interjecting, agreeing/disagreeing and making other exclamations during the readings.:) Seeing old friends, some in person for the first time, was a happiness though a little overwhelming. Don't think I contributed much to the Dhamma discussions, but enjoyed the Listening. I've learned a great deal and owe so much to all those who continue to share and explain the Dhamma. Nina and Lodewick, it was delightful being in your company - and Nina! you still ask a lot of questions too! :-) The interest you both have in the Dhamma is contagious. ...A small confession - sometimes I find Abhidhamma a little too technical, a little (!) 'hard going' - though I notice when I'm with others who value and understand the Abhidhamma that it becomes much more vital, interesting and relevant to everyday life and the present moment. Sukin - sorry if I 'talked your ear off' for hours - I promise to cease and desist if you'll try to post more often - I know you must be busy though, so don't feel 'oppressed' by my selfish request. :) Betty - remember the rare non-dhamma discussion over dinner in the evening in the garden at Khun D's house (with those innovative candles hanging in all the trees), about names in general, and Texan names in particular? Just so you won't lead Jaran, Sukin and Num astray :) ... Google tells us there was an 'Ima' but not a 'Ura'. So, only half hogg-wash? :). KenH (and Andrew) - looking forward to seeing you all this weekend again at Cooran - but, KenH, I need to tell you that Azita has been delegated as Congee recipe collector. (I think she knows ...). She has had actual hands-on creative experience in this area - I only eat it! And I've got (somewhere) tapes of our dhamma discussions in BKK that can be copied. :) And to get back to a Dhamma focus - the flight left HK at midnight, and incomprehensibly, the seats allocated to five or six crying babies and misbehaving toddlers were in my row and the rows in front and behind. Which made me wonder "Why Me?" If vipaka is not just the big things like winning the lottery, having your house burn down, being murdered or becoming Prime Minister - then the hearing of unpleasant sounds is 'vipaka through the ear door'. (?) In other words, there was no use all of us feelling irritated and commiserating with each other by glances, facial expressions and gestures. Being kept awake all night by 'the unpleasant object' (sound) was not the result of crying babies or unskillful parenting, but because of kamma each of us committed somewhere back in beginningless time? The crying babies in the plane is 'just the story'? I used to think 'There is nothing bad except thinking makes it so' - but Jon and I had a part conversation about unpleasant visible object which seemed to bring accumulations and conditions into the mix - sorry Jon if I misunderstood completely - probably did? So - sinking further into the quicksand (my excuse is thirty six hours without sleep :)) - can hearing a sound as 'unpleasant' also be because of accumulations and not kamma? Interesting that some of the topics raised by James, RobM and Victor on dsg paralleled the reflections that BKK Dhamma discussions always stir up in me - like free will/no control, conditionality, anatta, impermanence and 'personal pronouns' :) - you know, just the usual old stuff. RobK - I wonder if you can recall the time you wrote about a Puppet with respect to the above 'usual old stuff'? I initially had a hard time (just as RobM does), and I recall being upset at the very idea when you mentioned it (there was a sutta, I think?) - but like most things that upset me it is only because I'm clinging to 'something' - usually 'self' or 'ego'. I might have a look at the puppet/conditions/anatta thing again - it still troubles me sometimes - it is the heart of Buddhism, I agree with James. And I think it was a Bhikkhuni talking to Mara about the puppet ... metta, Christine 17362 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yes! I can finally say that "Free Will" is out. I have replaced it > with the word "choice" and stressed that "choice" is a result of > conditions, not an external factor such as a self. ..... hmmm......not sure about the “choice” replacement.....we’ll see;-) ..... > I am polishing my Class Notes. A new class starts on Jan 5th and I > want to print out a complete set for each student. I am de-stressing > the idea of "predominant" cetasikas, but FYI, I just ran across this > interesting quote in Nyanatiloka's Dictionary (under manasikara): > "It is, therefore, the prominent factor in two specific classes of > consciousness: i.e. 'advertence at the five sense doors' and at the > mind-door." .... Right....just checked. Thanks for pointing this out and also Vis X1V, 152 which emphasises its controlling function. Not sure if this is the same as prominent. .... > I remind myself that Narada wrote that "free will arose during the > determining consciousness" and the problems that got me into. A > single comment by a single author has to be taken with a grain of > salt. .... I think that is a very wise attitude, Rob, no matter how well-respected the author may be. In the end, however, it is the ignorance and wrong-view that will latch onto whatever it’s convenient to latch onto;-( .... > Been there, done that! Many times. Guilty as charged :-) .... Well, this is the way to learn about accumulations and carita at the present moment. I’m sure everyone (even those who don’t agree) must have been impressed by the sincerity and open-mindedness to listening and considering in your posts (also in those by Ray, Swee Boon, James and several others). I’ve read most and particularly appreciated your long one to the LURKERS on kamma, vipaka and anatta. If it doesn’t sound condescending in anyway, I’d like to say you’ve really got the point and explained it beautifully. For those who skipped through or were away, please read it carefully:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17285 A few minor points: 1. there seemed to be a suggestion that all “active” consciousness will produce results. Of course, not all kamma is kamma patha (bringing results). I hope I didn’t misunderstand.We discussed more on this at the weekend too. 2. As you know, I think the term ‘thought processes’ for sense door and mind door processes is particularly misleading, but I know it is commonly used. 3. I’m not sure it is useful to refer to ‘internal’ and ‘external’ processes. There may be one or two more minor quibbles, but that’s all they are. It’s a very helpful post reflecting the growth of understanding. I particularly appreciated your comment in another post when you said “I now look around and start to see how ubiquitous and insiduous this self-view is; it disorts almost everything....” I have one or two comments to add on the vipallassa thread, but will leave it for now. Get well soon and look f/w to seeing you again in Hong Kong without any free-will baggage;-);-) Sarah ======= 17363 From: James Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 6:41am Subject: wake up Hey All, Some reflections I wrote this morning. Thought I would share: The universe is anatta (no-essence) and the mind is anatta. Both are forever shifting and changing. But the samsara mind is a liar and a cheat—trickery is its weapon. The samsara mind clings to each single moment and gathers them up, holds them close, and stitches them together—creating a blanket of illusion under which it sleeps. The problem is not that an anatta mind cannot know an anatta universe; the problem is that a samsara mind cannot know an anatta universe. A samsara mind only knows a samsara universe, which is of its own making. Like a grumpy, sleeping child, the samsara mind must be woken with patience and caring. If too lax, the mind will go back to sleep quickly; if too harsh and abrupt, the mind will cry, scream, and fight…and then go back to sleep in defiance. Like a mother singing to her little child: "Wake up, Wake up, Wake up You little sleepy head Get up, Get up, Get up Get out of bed..." Metta, James 17364 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 6:55am Subject: Is this a contradiction? Please help... In the Abhidhamma, we have (1) kusala citta (kamma) (2) akusala citta (kamma) (3) vipaka citta (result of kamma) (4) kiriya citta (neither kamma nor result of kamma) And in 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujun Boriharnwanaket', (under Files/z-Survey6.pdf), Page 50, second last paragraph: It has been explained in the Commentary that the cetasikas that accompany the vipakacitta are vipaka cetasikas, but since citta is the "leader" the word vipakacitta is used; the accompanying cetasikas are also vipaka. -> This means that 'feelings' which accompany -> a vipaka citta are also vipaka ('feeling' being cetasikas). In Abhidhamma parlance, anything that 'happens to us' is the result of kamma, aka vipaka. -> 'happens to us' meaning that in sequence, using eye-sense as an example, (a) seeing-consciousness arises, which is vipaka (b) receiving-consciousness arises, which is vipaka (c) investigating-consciousness arises, which is vipaka And in Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21, "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither- pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-021.html **-> The contradiction is that in the Abhidhamma, the part of 'what happens to us' is always the result of kamma (or vipaka). **-> Whereas in Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21, the Buddha seems to imply that 'what happens to us' is not always the result of kamma (or vipaka). **-> Are we going beyond what we know and is accepted as true by the world when we say 'what happens to us' is always vipaka? **-> Are we going beyond what we know and is accepted as true by the world when we say that a person who is being pricked by the needle while sewing a piece of cloth is vipaka? I mean, an injury is an injury. Being pricked by the needle is just that, an injury. I don't construe that such an injury is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. Having wind in my intestines is uncomfortable. But wind is just wind. I don't construe that such a physical discomfort in my stomach/intestine is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. Releasing wind from my intestines through the rectum brings comfort. But releasing wind is just releasing wind. I don't contrue that such a physical comfort by releasing wind from the intestines through the rectum is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. **-> Having said all these, I could be wrong. So, please help. 17365 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 7:32am Subject: Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... (continued...) **-> The weather becoming too cold/hot causes physical discomfort. But the change in the climate is just that. I don't contrue that such a physical discomfort due to changes in the climate is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. NEO Swee Boon 17366 From: James Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 7:44am Subject: Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "nidive" wrote: > (continued...) > > **-> The weather becoming too cold/hot causes physical discomfort. > But the change in the climate is just that. I don't contrue > that such a physical discomfort due to changes in the climate > is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. > > > NEO Swee Boon Hello NEO Swee Boon, This will be a banner day, I am going to defend the Abhidhamma! But don't get too excited, I am also going to question it. I think the question you have about kamma is the result of confusion over mundane kamma and ultimate kamma. Basically, kamma is the result of conditions (this/that conditionality) and since our entire samsara existence is a conditioned one, everything is kamma. What the Buddha was speaking against in this sutta you quote is the tendency for some people to view mundane kamma as ultimate kamma. For example, to say, "I have `wind' because last week I cut someone off in traffic." That is not something that someone can know directly, it has no basis in accepted reality, and therefore the Buddha spoke against that view of kamma. However, with that said, I also don't believe that cittas (mind moments) fall neatly into four categories such as: kusala, akusala, vipaka, kiriya. How many categories do I think there are? Answer: Infinitival. Each one is so unique and non-repeated that I find the use of categories for such things oxymoronic. Metta, James ps. 'Gas X' works great for those 'wind' problems. :-) 17367 From: Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is this a contradiction? Please help... Hi, Nidive - Vipaka means kamma vipaka, the result of volition/volitional action. It would seem to me that what the Buddha might have been addressing in the Samyutta Nikaya that you reference below is the matter of primary/direct conditionality. Certainly not all that happens in, to, and through us is primarily the result of our own volition. Typically, person A's attacking person B is an act of kamma on the part of person A, and not directly/primarily the fruition of the kamma of person B, else A could be construed as just an innocent vehicle for the fruition of B's kamma. However, how could some element of kamma vipaka fail to be a participant in each mind-moment of a person? After all, the very fact that we experience anything at all is mainly based on prior volition as also are the realm of experience in which we "dwell", the kind of body we have acquired, and many of the conditions in which we find ourselves. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/4/02 9:57:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > In the Abhidhamma, we have > > (1) kusala citta (kamma) > (2) akusala citta (kamma) > (3) vipaka citta (result of kamma) > (4) kiriya citta (neither kamma nor result of kamma) > > And in 'A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujun Boriharnwanaket', > (under Files/z-Survey6.pdf), Page 50, second last paragraph: > > It has been explained in the Commentary that the cetasikas that > accompany the vipakacitta are vipaka cetasikas, but since citta is > the "leader" the word vipakacitta is used; the accompanying > cetasikas are also vipaka. > > -> This means that 'feelings' which accompany > -> a vipaka citta are also vipaka ('feeling' being cetasikas). > > In Abhidhamma parlance, anything that 'happens to us' is the result > of kamma, aka vipaka. > > -> 'happens to us' meaning that in sequence, > using eye-sense as an example, > (a) seeing-consciousness arises, which is vipaka > (b) receiving-consciousness arises, which is vipaka > (c) investigating-consciousness arises, which is vipaka > > And in Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21, > > "There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this > doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, > pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous > action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" > > "Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain > kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also > in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) > phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of > climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of > Kamma -- (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of > feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the > world it is accepted as true. > > "Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view > that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither- > pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they > go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true > by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of > these ascetics and brahmans." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-021.html > > > **-> The contradiction is that in the Abhidhamma, the part > of 'what happens to us' is always the result of kamma > (or vipaka). > **-> Whereas in Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21, the Buddha seems to imply > that 'what happens to us' is not always the result of kamma > (or vipaka). > **-> Are we going beyond what we know and is accepted as true by > the world when we say 'what happens to us' is always vipaka? > > **-> Are we going beyond what we know and is accepted as true by > the world when we say that a person who is being pricked by > the needle while sewing a piece of cloth is vipaka? > > I mean, an injury is an injury. Being pricked by the needle > is just that, an injury. I don't construe that such an injury > is vipaka. Because I do not see any moral causation in that. > > Having wind in my intestines is uncomfortable. But wind is > just wind. I don't construe that such a physical discomfort > in my stomach/intestine is vipaka. Because I do not see any > moral causation in that. > > Releasing wind from my intestines through the rectum brings > comfort. But releasing wind is just releasing wind. I don't > contrue that such a physical comfort by releasing wind from > the intestines through the rectum is vipaka. Because I do > not see any moral causation in that. > > **-> Having said all these, I could be wrong. > So, please help. > > /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) 17368 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 0:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Renunciation? Hi All Don't know if this is helpful, but it was passed on to me by the site webmaster, whom had been quite a regular contributor to the dhamma-list discussion group a couple of years or so ago. http://evinaya.cjb.net/about.html http://www.geocities.com/venkumara/evinaya/ Hope it helps in this context, if not now then maybe latter. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > James I don't know if the material you are looking for is > online. It comes > > from the Vinaya, Vin.2:284 ff. As noted in the book "Great > Disciples of the > > Buddha" by Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker. I think it has > the > > complete section, in as much as it relates to Ananda. I could not > find it > > online, perhaps someone else has a complete source for the Vinaya > online? > > Ray > > Dear Ray, > > Thank you so much for this information! No wonder I couldn't find > it, I was looking in the wrong place! (Hmmmm...story of my life! ;- ) > I will redirect my attention to the Vinaya. Thanks again. > > Metta, James 17369 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 3:13pm Subject: Re: Renunciation? --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Dear James, Ray & All, > As Ananda's > arahatship occurred after the parinibbana of the Buddha, it makes sense to > me that we read about it in the commentaries rather than the suttas. > > Sarah Hi Sarah Especially since we are given that Ananda died at the grand age of 120years, he had quite a significant period of time, following the parinibbana, in which to make such contributions. I have also wondered whether Sariputa may have made any similar contributions during the Buddha's lifetime: he may have even initiated this tradition? However, by the time of Buddhaghosa, the commentaries appear to have been in such disarray that following his editorial work, almost all the earlier collections seem to have been rather neglected so as to have disappeared altogether. Cheers Peter 17370 From: James Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 8:05pm Subject: Vajira and Mara Hello All, I wanted to post a rather brief sutta, but very good, concerning anatta. This sutta also contains the subject of Mara. I would like to know if anyone in this group believes he/she has been visited by Mara and what the experience was like. You can write to me publicly or privately. Metta, James Vajira Sutta Vajira Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi [135] and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding. Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse: "By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?" Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse -- a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration." Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. 17371 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 4, 2002 10:20pm Subject: Re: Vajira and Mara James, Thank you for the sutta about the Bhikkhuni Vajira and Mara. In following up your quote I found the one I was wondering about yesterday. It is the Bhikkhuni Sela to whom Mara used the simile of the puppet, and who was as equally unimpressed as Vajira by Mara the tempter. "This puppet is not made by itself, Nor is this misery made by another. It has come to be dependent on a cause, When the cause dissolves then it will cease. <<>> Just so the aggregates and elements, And these six bases of sensory contact, Have come to be dependent on a cause; When the cause dissolves they will cease." Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Sela knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. I don't recall any visitation that I could name Mara, but the Buddha and the Arahats knew they had been visited by him. Perhaps like unusual occurrences, sights, sounds etc. in meditation it is best not to place too much importance on it? Just set aside and get on with studying Dhamma, increasing wisdom and eradicating defilements where and when possible.... The fact that the being Mara is a deva on the highest deva plane accentuates the truth that the gods are not necessarily wise or good. Mara also stands for death and defilements. Mara's task is to prevent beings from being won over to the Dhamma, to keep them trapped in the cycle of birth and death, his own personal domain. It seems that Mara is a real Being, he is mentioned too many times in the Tipitaka to be dismissed as a myth or superstition imo - as well as being a term used for kilesa and dukkha. Could it be that like any other scary obstacle, the devaputta Mara simply has to be known at that moment in order to become powerless.? In the Marasamyutta (p.195 of Bodhi's Samyutta Nikaya) there are 25 instances of the Buddha defeating Mara. Oftentimes it says that Mara makes an attempt to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the Blessed One. Always it ends "Then Mara the Evil One, realising, "The Blessed One knows me, the Fortunate One knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there." It seems he has power when there is no understanding that he is involved, and when we feel fear - can one feel fear if there is concentration on and confidence in the Dhamma? The Bhikkhunisamyutta follows immediately after (p. 221) and has 10 instances of Mara being defeated by the Bhikkhunis. Each of the nuns is an arahat and has seen so deeply into the truth of the Dhamma that she is utterly unimpressed by Mara. Once Mara realizes that he is known, he vanishes immediately, "sad and disappointed." Though we are not yet arahats, can't we also know Mara in whatever form he takes, and so disarm him? See also Nina's message to Rahula at:: "Maara has many meanigs: the person of Maara, devaputta, and then: kilesa maara, the defilements, and also: all conditioned realities which are impermanent and thus dukkha. Maara is a name that can be used for all that is dukkha. Birth, old age and death are Maara. The PTS dict gives: death, maara can be applied to all conditioned realities: realm of rebirth, opposed to nibbana. Khandha, dhatu, ayatana, they are maara. S, I, Maara Samyutta." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16439 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Hello All, > > I wanted to post a rather brief sutta, but very good, concerning > anatta. This sutta also contains the subject of Mara. I would like > to know if anyone in this group believes he/she has been visited by > Mara and what the experience was like. You can write to me publicly > or privately. > > Metta, James 17372 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 2:30am Subject: Forgiveness Hello all, I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say about this .. about asking for one's own forgiveness from others and from the Lord, about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. Maybe I'm still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, but forgiveness would seem to me to be quite an important thing to ask for and give, and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There seems to be some teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. I looked but I couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight doesn't even have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in the sutta listings. Perhaps it's called something else? If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving them affect the kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving them affect my kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to the first and 'yes' to the second. The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve 'acceptance of self and other', 'metta to both other and self (oops)', 'compassion for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the position of the other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a 'forgiveness- shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word topic? metta, Christine 17373 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Dear Swee Boon & All, I’m very impressed by your considerations of subtle, but important points in many of your posts. We had quite a lot of discussion on the Sivaka sutta before and Nina translated the commentary. Please see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/13094 Also, if you were to go to escribe and type in Sivaka, you’d be referred to all the previous discussion on this sutta;-) (James & All, you may also find it helpful to read a post of Nina’s on the Yuganaddha Sutta being discussed at:) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14225 Swee Boon, I think James makes a good point when he suggests that sometimes when kamma is being discussed, we are just using conventional terms. If we say anything that happens to us is the result of kamma, it’s a generalisation. There are always many conditions having effect and even the vipaka cittas caused by kamma need other conditions to condition the result. Sometimes (as in the sutta) the results of kamma referred to are indirect results. For example, unpleasant feelings brought about on account of various akusala vipaka through the sense doors may be those accompanying dosa-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in aversion), following the vipaka cittas. ***** Taken from Nina’s post above: Trasnl from the commentary: “N: Here, with reference to the feelings arisen from the seven causes mentioned before, the feelings connected with the body can be warded off, but as to the feelings that are the results of kamma, all medicines and all ways of protection are not suitable for warding them off. In this sutta conventional language has been used.” ..... Transl from the sub-commentary: “N: This sutta is spoken from the standpoint of worldly convention; (the feelings) arisen from bile, and so on, are designated in the manner of worldly convention. The feelings connected with the sensuous body are actually produced by kamma, but by way of the present condition there is thus this worldly convention; accepting what is thus said, it should be understood that the opponents doctrine is refuted.” ***** If we say that being pricked by a needle is vipaka, we are also speaking conventionally. In reality (or in abhidhamma terms), strictly speaking, there is no person, no pricking and no needle. There must be moments of akusala vipaka through the body sense, but these are so very brief. There are also many other cittas and rupas being experienced - seeing, visible object, unpleasant feeling, aversion, thinking, and so on. The moments of vipaka citta, must have been conditioned for the main part by kamma, but there are many other conditions at work for these and the subsequent cittas to arise. I don’t think it’s helpful or necessary to try to see the connection between the physical discomfort and moral causation as you put it. On the otherhand, I think it’s very helpful to be aware of hardness, softness or the element of motion as rupas (not self) and distinct from the aversion, unpleasant feelings or thinking which arise on their account. I think your questions are very useful and I also appreciated Howard’s and James’ input as well. Sarah p.s Rob M: By ‘whatever a person experiences’, I understand ‘whatever namas or rupas arise to experience or be experienced’ in paramattha dhamma terminology;-) Again from the text: “`ya.m ki~ncaaya.m purisapuggalo pa.tisa.mvedeti sukha.m vaa dukkha.m vaa adukkhamasukha.m vaa sabba.m ta.m pubbekatahetuu'ti. idha bhava.m gotamo kimaahaa''ti? 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?" “ ================================================ 17374 From: ajahn_paul Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 3:36am Subject: Re: Forgiveness Dear christine, i think the whole concept and system is different. god says that every single person has sin due to adam and his wife bla bla bla, i think u know better than me about what the bible says. and, bcoz of that SIN, we have to ask forgiveness from god. in my own point of view, it just like a man giving u some posion at the first place, then he would like u to beg him for the medician. ^_~ but, in buddhism, the first thing we have to learn is kamma, u deserved for what u had done. so, even u r forgiven, kamma wont change. im not sure if u know the story.... one of the Buddha's followers, i dont know his name in english or pali. >.< he found his mom had been gone to hell, so he tried to save her and give food to her, but failed. then he asked Buddha to help, and Buddha said he can do nothing about that. i guess thats why! ^_~ --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say about this .. > about asking for one's own forgiveness from others and from the Lord, > about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. Maybe I'm > still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, but forgiveness > would seem to me to be quite an important thing to ask for and give, > and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There seems to be some > teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. I looked but I > couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight doesn't even > have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in the sutta > listings. Perhaps it's called something else? > If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving them affect the > kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving them affect my > kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to the first > and 'yes' to the second. > The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve 'acceptance of > self and other', 'metta to both other and self (oops)', 'compassion > for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the position of the > other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a 'forgiveness- > shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word topic? > > metta, > Christine 17375 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 5:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... In reality (or in abhidhamma terms), strictly speaking, > there is no person, no pricking and no needle. If someone was being pricked by a needle, how would speaking strictly in abhidhamma term "there is no person, no pricking, and no needle" help him or her? Metta, Victor 17376 From: James Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 5:36am Subject: Re: Forgiveness --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christine, I think that the Buddha did practice Tonglin/Bodhicitta meditation, and that his meditation contained an aspect of forgiveness. True forgiveness means recognizing the reason someone has done something, the pain that drove him/her to do that bad thing, and to have sympathy for that person. Metta and compassion are different than sympathy. Metta and compassion are like an embracing acceptance, very general and all encompassing; but sympathy involves looking deeply into people's pain, the reasons that cause it, with an aspect of almost `wishing it away' so that the pain will disappear. I think this is forgiveness, Buddhist style. And yes it does recognize `existent beings', but they still have no permanent essence (don't ask me to fully explain that yet ;-) Allow me to quote the sutta, since it isn't very long, where the Buddha is practicing this Tonglin/Bodhicitta meditation. Metta, James Ps. Thanks for the words about Mara. They are well stated and I will consider them deeply. Sakalika Sutta The Stone Sliver I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha at the Maddakucchi Deer Reserve. Now at that time his foot had been pierced by a stone sliver. Excruciating were the bodily feelings that developed within him -- painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable -- but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed. Having had his outer robe folded in four and laid out, he lay down on his right side in the lion's posture -- with one foot placed on top of the other -- mindful & alert. Then Mara the Evil One went to the Blessed One and recited this verse in his presence: "Are you lying there in a stupor, or drunk on poetry? Are your goals so very few? All alone in a secluded lodging, what is this dreamer, this sleepy-face?" The Buddha: "I lie here, not in a stupor, nor drunk on poetry. My goal attained, I am sorrow-free. All alone in a secluded lodging, I lie down with sympathy for all beings. Even those pierced in the chest with an arrow, their hearts rapidly, rapidly beating: even they with their arrows are able to sleep. So why shouldn't I, with my arrow removed? I'm not awake with worry, nor afraid to sleep. Days & nights don't oppress me. I see no threat of decline in any world at all. That's why I sleep with sympathy for all beings." Then Mara the Evil One -- sad & dejected at realizing, "The Blessed One knows me; the One Well-Gone knows me" -- vanished right there 17377 From: Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 1:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara Hi, Christine (and James) - What a great post! Whether or not there is a Mara who is more than metaphor, I think that the metaphorical sense of 'Mara' as temptation is the important one, and I think that you have pointed out the crux of the matter when you pointed out that knowing Mara, knowing him well - knowing fully the delusive and dangerous nature of temptation, defeats him. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/5/02 1:20:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > James, > > Thank you for the sutta about the Bhikkhuni Vajira and Mara. In > following up your quote I found the one I was wondering about > yesterday. It is the Bhikkhuni Sela to whom Mara used the simile of > the puppet, and who was as equally unimpressed as Vajira by Mara the > tempter. > "This puppet is not made by itself, > Nor is this misery made by another. > It has come to be dependent on a cause, > When the cause dissolves then it will cease. > <<>> > Just so the aggregates and elements, > And these six bases of sensory contact, > Have come to be dependent on a cause; > When the cause dissolves they will cease." > Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Sela knows me," sad > and disappointed, disappeared right there. > > I don't recall any visitation that I could name Mara, but the Buddha > and the Arahats knew they had been visited by him. Perhaps like > unusual occurrences, sights, sounds etc. in meditation it is best not > to place too much importance on it? Just set aside and get on with > studying Dhamma, increasing wisdom and eradicating defilements where > and when possible.... > The fact that the being Mara is a deva on the highest deva plane > accentuates the truth that the gods are not necessarily wise or good. > Mara also stands for death and defilements. Mara's task is to prevent > beings from being won over to the Dhamma, to keep them trapped in the > cycle of birth and death, his own personal domain. It seems that > Mara is a real Being, he is mentioned too many times in the Tipitaka > to be dismissed as a myth or superstition imo - as well as being a > term > used for kilesa and dukkha. Could it be that like any other scary > obstacle, the devaputta Mara simply has to be known at that moment > in order to become powerless.? In the Marasamyutta (p.195 of Bodhi's > Samyutta Nikaya) there are 25 instances of the Buddha defeating > Mara. Oftentimes it says that Mara makes an attempt to arouse fear, > trepidation, and terror in the Blessed One. Always it ends "Then > Mara the Evil One, realising, "The Blessed One knows me, the > Fortunate One knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right > there." It seems he has power when there is no understanding that he > is involved, and when we feel fear - can one feel fear if there is > concentration on and confidence in the Dhamma? > The Bhikkhunisamyutta follows immediately after (p. 221) and has 10 > instances of Mara being defeated by the Bhikkhunis. > Each of the nuns is an arahat and has seen so deeply into the truth > of the Dhamma that she is utterly unimpressed by Mara. Once Mara > realizes that he is known, he vanishes immediately, "sad and > disappointed." > Though we are not yet arahats, can't we also know Mara in whatever > form he takes, and so disarm him? > > See also Nina's message to Rahula at:: > "Maara has many meanigs: the person of Maara, devaputta, and then: > kilesa > maara, the defilements, and also: all conditioned realities which are > impermanent and thus dukkha. Maara is a name that can be used for all > that > is dukkha. Birth, old age and death are Maara. The PTS dict gives: > death, > maara can be applied to all conditioned realities: realm of rebirth, > opposed > to nibbana. Khandha, dhatu, ayatana, they are maara. S, I, Maara > Samyutta." > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16439 > > 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) 17378 From: Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Forgiveness Hi, Christine - Certainly you are correct about the divine abidings fostering forgiveness. Likewise, the perfection of dana might well include the inclination to forgive. Also, I think that the perfection of khanti (patience/forbearance) is close in meaning and effect to forgiveness. There is the following from the web site http://www.watpa.iirt.net/development/parami.html ****************************** Khanti  As important as Viriya is Khanti. It is the patient endurance of suffering inflicted upon oneself by others, and the forbearance of others’ wrongs.  A Bodhisatta practices patience to such an extent that he is not provoked even when his hands and feet are cut off. In the Khantivadi Jataka (No.313), it appears that not only did the Bodhisatta cheerfully endure the torture inflicted by the drunkard king, who mercilessly ordered his hands and feet, nose and ears to be cut off, but requited those injuries with a blessing. Lying on the ground, in a deep pool of his own blood, with mutilated limbs, the Bodhisatta said, "Long live the king, whose cruel hand my body thus has marred.  Pure souls like mine such deeds as these with anger ne’er regard." Of his forbearance it is said that whenever he is harmed, he thinks of the aggressor:  "This person is a fellow-being of mine. Intentionally or unintentionally I myself must have been the source of provocation, or it may be due to a past evil kamma of mine. As it is the outcome of my own action, why should I harbour ill-will towards him?"  It may be mentioned that a Bodhisatta is not irritated by any man’s shameless conduct either.  Admonishing his disciples to practice forbearance, the Buddha says in the Kakacupana Sutta:  "Though robbers, who are highway men should sever your limbs with a two handled saw, yet if you thereby defile your mind, you would be no follower of my teaching".  "Thus should you train yourselves: ‘Unsullied shall our hearts remain. No evil word shall escape our lips. King and compassionate, with loving-heart, harbouring no ill will shall we abide, enfolding even these bandits with thoughts of loving-kindness. And forth from them proceeding, we shall abide, radiating the whole world with thoughts of loving-kindness, vast, expansive, measureless, benevolent and unified."  Practising patience and tolerance, instead of seeing the ugliness in others, a Bodhisatta tries to seek the good and beautiful in all. ******************************** With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/5/02 5:32:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say about this .. > about asking for one's own forgiveness from others and from the Lord, > about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. Maybe I'm > still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, but forgiveness > would seem to me to be quite an important thing to ask for and give, > and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There seems to be some > teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. I looked but I > couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight doesn't even > have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in the sutta > listings. Perhaps it's called something else? > If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving them affect the > kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving them affect my > kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to the first > and 'yes' to the second. > The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve 'acceptance of > self and other', 'metta to both other and self (oops)', 'compassion > for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the position of the > other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a 'forgiveness- > shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word topic? > > 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) 17379 From: Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Hi, Victor - In a message dated 12/5/02 8:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > In reality (or in abhidhamma terms), strictly speaking, > >there is no person, no pricking and no needle. > > If someone was being pricked by a needle, how would speaking strictly > in abhidhamma term "there is no person, no pricking, and no needle" > help him or her? > > Metta, > Victor > ============================ Actually, what *does* help is realizing that "this is just a sharp and strong series of unpleasant stinging and pressure sensations". (What also helps, of course, is removing the cause! And there lies the extreme usefulness 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) 17380 From: Frank Kuan Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 8:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Forgiveness Hi Chris, "forgiveness" teachings in the theravada tradition are plentiful, just not explicitly stated as such. "Forgiveness" works on a higher level domain, presupposing the existence of a "self to be forgiven", "others to be forgiven", "actions that need to be forgiven". As with many other high level emotions, buddhism heads off the problems at lower levels (lust, anger, delusion) and doesn't reinforce even a conventional notion of "self" to eradicate defilements. The problem with most conventional religious teachings on "forgiveness" is it reinforces clinging to notions of "self", clinging to notions of "others", clinging to even the actions that require forgiven. Trying to work through and relieve sufferings of complex emotions (with conventional teachings) creates much more suffering and delusion in the process! The whole basis for the notion of forgiveness (as understood conventionally) is counter to anatta. Between the teachings of anatta and the noble 8fold path factor of "right effort", it's a brilliant and comprehensive solution that not only solves all the issues of "forgiveness", including the baggage added from the conventional religious teachings on forgiveness, but also systematically chips away at the underlying root at the cause of our actions that would lead to situations requiring "forgiveness". There is a multitiered solution system in Buddhism's strategy (equivalent of "forgiveness"): 1) ideally "right view" would completely head off any action that would require forgiveness. 2) "right effort" (especially the part of guarding the sense doors) would head off defilements as they arise in the mind, as they inevitably would when "right view" is not mature. 3) "right effort" - two parts that strive to eliminate arisen defilements, and unarisen defilements! Eliminating unarisen defilements is especially interesting. How does one do this? (left as an exercise to the reader) 4) If the defilements continue to proliferate and give rise to complex unwholesome emotions despite our "right effort", then we should simply resort to damage control at this point and not allow ourselves to perform unwholesome action/speech. ("right speech", "right action", "right livelihood") -fk --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello all, > > I was wondering what the Theravada teachings say > about 'forgiveness'. Christianity has a lot to say > about this .. > about asking for one's own forgiveness from others > and from the Lord, > about forgiving others, about forgiving oneself. > Maybe I'm > still 'trailing clouds of glory' from that faith, > but forgiveness > would seem to me to be quite an important thing to > ask for and give, > and I wonder why I can't find any teachings. There > seems to be some > teachings in Mahayana writings - e.g. Bodhicitta. > I looked but I > couldn't find much in Theravada ... accesstoinsight > doesn't even > have 'forgiveness' under the subject headings in > the sutta > listings. Perhaps it's called something else? > If someone did a wrong to me, would my forgiving > them affect the > kammic fruit of their act? Would my not forgiving > them affect my > kammic fruit? Somehow I feel the answer is 'no' to > the first > and 'yes' to the second. > The mechanism of forgiveness would seem to involve > 'acceptance of > self and other', 'metta to both other and self > (oops)', 'compassion > for both', 'equanimity', 'putting oneself in the > position of the > other', and 'anatta'. Maybe that's why there is a > 'forgiveness- > shaped' blank in Theravada - no simple one word > topic? > > metta, > Christine 17381 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 1:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta/pronouns Hello Victor,Ray,and all, Sorry I wasn't here to join in this thread. And as I haven't yet caught up with all the previous posts, I hope I am not repeating something, or entirely off the point. Somehow I feel you'll point it out if I am, Victor. ;-) This excerpt and link may be of interest about pronouns: from Dialogues of the Buddha {The Dîgha-Nikâya} Translated from the Pâli by T. W. Rhys Davids London, H. Frowde, Oxford University Press [1899] Vol. II of The Sacred Books of the Buddhists "It was the refusal to allow any place for this universal belief in a semi-material soul in his own system that is the most striking, and perhaps the most original feature in Gotama's teaching. No other religion of which we have sufficient records to enable us to form an opinion on the point has been constructed without the 'soul.' Where the others said 'soul,' Gotama said usually 'Action,' which comes to much the same as character. In this respect he came very near to our modern use of the word in such expressions as 'a high-souled man' or 'a soul for music.' And it is worth calling attention to the fact that even in Shakspere more than half the times the word is used it is in this secondary, ethical, emotional sense. Even in the old authorised translation of our Bible, in which the word occurs altogether 449 times, it is used 55 times merely in the sense of person, only 85 times in the animistic sense, and 306 times in the sense of emotional or intellectual qualities or disposition This will make Gotama's position, which is really very simple; more clear. He rejected entirely the use of the word in the old animistic sense. He retained it in a personal sense, in the meaning of 'oneself, himself,' And though, of course, he acknowledged the reality of the emotional and intellectual dispositions, he refused absolutely to look upon them as a unity. The position is so absolute, so often insisted on, so fundamental to the right understanding of primitive Buddhism, that it is essential there should be no mistake about it. Yet the position is also so original, so fundamentally opposed to what is usually understood as religious belief, both in India and elsewhere, that there is great temptation to attempt to find a loophole through which at least a covert or esoteric belief in the soul and in future life (that is of course of a soul), can be recognised, in some sort of way, as part of so widely accepted a religious system. There is no loophole, and the efforts to find one have always met with unswerving opposition, both in the Pitakas themselves and in extra-canonical works." http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/dob/dob-06in.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ray, > > Do you know that the word "self" is also a pronoun? I believe most > dictionaries have that definition. Other definitions for the > word "self" are mostly on what self is. The definition you > mentioned "the ego; that which knows, remembers, desireds, suffers, > etc." is one of them. > > When it comes to understand the word "self", most people either think > in terms of what self is or assume it implicitly. They are entangled > in one self-view or another. > > When I asked you how the term "self" is normally used, I did not ask > you to define what self is. Instead, I was trying to get you see how > the word "self" is used as pronoun. If you examine the Pali Canon > closely, you will see that is how the Buddha and his disciples used > it as well. > > Do you see how the dictionary define the word "self" as pronoun? > Instead of giving definition of what self is, it gives example to > show how the word "self" is used. > > The Buddha's teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a > simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are > entangling. One would never get close to understand the Buddha's > teaching if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view. > > Metta, > Victor 17382 From: James Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 5:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine (and James) - > > What a great post! Whether or not there is a Mara who is more than > metaphor, I think that the metaphorical sense of 'Mara' as temptation is the > important one, and I think that you have pointed out the crux of the matter > when you pointed out that knowing Mara, knowing him well - knowing fully the > delusive and dangerous nature of temptation, defeats him. > > With metta, > Howard > Howard, I do not agree with your perspective of Mara. Maybe I would before actually experiencing him, but not now. Thinking of Mara as metaphor for temptation is useless and not how the Buddha spoke of Mara at all…I agreed with Christine's words and perspective, but not the quote she quoted from Nina. Nina has obviously never met Mara or she wouldn't have written those statements. I am not sure why you both feel compelled to write about a subject with a stance plainly in contradiction to all of the Tipitaka. The Buddha, his monks, his nuns, NEVER spoke of Mara as a metaphor, and yet you and Nina say that is the most important way to view him. That is very misleading and not proper dhamma. I have just remained quiet about such things until I knew them personally. Now that I know them personally, I don't think I need to be quiet anymore. Mara isn't temptation predominately; Mara is a blockade…a barrier. Mara isn't the one who keeps us attached to this samsara world lifetime after lifetime; our own ignorance does that. Mara simply finds it his duty to support this samsara existence. Anyone who appears as if they are going to break loose, he swoops down to try his best to stop them. He mainly does it with fear and confusion, and occassionally temptation. I speak from personal experience. I will post more in a bit. Metta, James 17383 From: James Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 5:38pm Subject: Mara Hey Everyone: First, before I begin what most of you may be skeptical about, I want to stress that everything in this post is the truth. It is what I have experienced directly with no flourishes or exaggeration. To post on such a subject, in even the most simple of deceitful ways, would bring me unimaginably bad kamma. I would not disrespect the Triple Gem in such a manner. Since no one is telling about any incidents with Mara, I am going to tell mine. But a few things first, as I wrote in an earlier post to this group, I have always been skeptical about Devas, Maras, etc. I won't accept something on someone else's word alone. And I also don't speak of things that I don't know for sure. Frankly, I didn't believe that Mara existed. I thought, and have often read, that he was just a metaphor for craving (and many other negative things). Now I know that I am wrong for thinking that previously. Mara is a real being—I have seen him, sensed him when unseen, and I have heard his voice. And the experiences were quite real each time. Mara first visited me after I had begun to read the book "Reason's Traces." I got through the forward and came across the alternative definition for anatta, "no-essence". A light bulb came on because this definition made so much more sense to me than `non-self'. After reading, I laid back in a recliner, and I was thinking about what this new definition meant in terms of the universe and myself. My eyes were closed, kinda dozing but not asleep, just pondering, when my thoughts were completely abducted. In an instant I saw in my mind me lying on the recliner and a very short (4'7" or so), pale skinned, humanoid appearing man (but with grotesque puffy eyes and shedding hair), dressed in a black cloak, a black hat (Fedora style), who walked past the right side of the recliner. I jumped up immediately out of my rest and recoiled from that side of the chair. I could sense that he was gone but I was extremely, extremely, extremely scared! And I didn't think to myself, "What was that?" I immediately, instinctively thought to myself, "Oh no, that was Mara!" Since then, I have had a few more visits…at least once if not twice per day. They occur when I am pondering anatta and its consequences in a deep fashion. When they occur, I can feel him walk past me, I don't see him during everyday awakefulness, and it makes me feel fear every time (though less so now). This morning, I heard his voice in my head as I lay half-asleep and half-awake. I was thinking about Anatta (yes I even think deeply while half-asleep). And I was thinking, "Okay, everything is impermanent. Everything is impermanent," when I head a second voice say, "Permanent." My mind immediately disagreed, and it did a quick search, and I realized that the thought wasn't mine. It had been put there. After a bit of confusion, my mind drifted to a vision of a classroom of kids, and I thought to myself, "They all have no essence." And a second voice said, "Souls…souls." Again, it wasn't my thought. The voice, which I could actually `hear', was a man's voice and much deeper and more rich than my `thinking voice'. Then I got out of bed. It seems that Mara works best during lucid dreaming, or perhaps meditation. It is then that he can get inside the mind of the person. Maybe everyday mind is not so easy for him and he can only give impressions. I wanted to share this for those who need the information. Does this entire happening to me mean I am enlightened? HA! I know that I am far from that. But I must be heading in the right direction, using the right method for me, or Mara wouldn't visit me. Does this visitation make me happy? No. I just wanted reaching Nibbana to be nice and easy; having an otherworldly stalker was not my goal or hope…and something I didn't even imagine happening. Metta, James 17384 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 6:40pm Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robmoult" wrote: > > The *other* "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" by Ashin Janakabhivamsa has > an interesting chapter on carita (Chapter 5). > > http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/Abhidhamma.htm > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M I am sure most members would agree that your above link is most interesting and helpful, I'm sure many others will find it so also. I enclose the below quote from the front page of this site for further consideration. "...Cover story: On the seventh year after His Enlightenment, the Buddha preached the Abhidhamma (Higher Doctrine) in Tavatimsa Heaven. As a fulfillment of gratitude to his former mother, now a Santussita deva, the Buddha then delivered a sermon on the Higher Doctrine to thousands of Devas (Gods) and Brahmas (higher celestial beings) who attained the various stages of Noble Sainthood. ..." Can we deduce, in this example from the life of the Buddha, that a period of meditation, in which reflection on the intricacies of the Dhamma, is as worthy (i.e.. conducive for future development) as a similar period involved in cultivating jhanas or investigation of current processes would be? In simpler terms, would this period of clear reviewing (should it ever arise) be as useful as similar periods of either cultivation or investigation? Presumably it would depend on such things as the degree of clarity and compassion accompanying it, etc. Cheers Peter 17385 From: azita gill Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 6:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > Actually, what *does* help is realizing that > "this is just a sharp and > strong series of unpleasant stinging and pressure > sensations". (What also > helps, of course, is removing the cause! And there > lies the extreme > usefulness of concepts.) > > With metta, > Howard > dear Howard, this comment made me smile, I think maybe you have a touch of dark humour. even the knowing that it is a 'sharp and strong series of unpleasant stinging.......' is already thinking. I think that if there was sati at that moment, there would be no naming the object that was experienced thro the body sense, and maybe this is what you are saying anyway, just the experience of unpleasant sensation thro the body doorway. As Khun Sujin said, we are experiencing realities all the time thro the 6 doorways but we take it for self, thro ignorance. I enjoy reading the part of the Diamond Sutta that u. put at the end of each of your posts, Howard. Cheers, Azita 17386 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 7:24pm Subject: Re: Mara Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: < snip > In an instant I saw in my mind me lying on the recliner and a very short (4'7" or so), pale skinned, humanoid appearing man (but with grotesque puffy eyes and shedding hair), dressed in a black cloak, a black hat (Fedora style), who walked past the right side of the recliner. KKT: One question: What does it mean << I saw in my mind >> ??? Thanks. KKT 17387 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 8:03pm Subject: Re: Mara James, I know you will have considered that there are other possibilities - like the half awake mind creating illusions, or mental strain from pondering too hard and too long on one point, or 'your self' fighting a last ditch battle for survival. And there is the possibility that you are correct in your assessment. Allow me to reiterate - perhaps it is better to put what has happened aside, not to give it too much importance, even avoid being in the same circumstances that seem to condition this visitation. It may or may not have any lasting significance, other than being more tolerant of others experiences. It will certainly have given you an altered outlook on the Teachings. Ultimately, though, it is not bringing you peace or freedom, it is causing you stress - dukkha, and is there any benefit in encouraging the experience to re-occur? I, too, find anatta a difficult subject. Sometimes I find with topics in Dhamma study that if I have a complete break for a while, I come back further advanced with new insights. I find the Nava Sutta a useful reminder for occasions when I am trying to force my mind to understand something quickly, and also as an encouragement when I begin to feel 'I'm never going to understand this!' When there are the right conditions right understanding will occur, whether we want it or not. And if the right conditions aren't there, no amount of wishing or thinking or forcing will achieve the goal. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-101.html Sometimes we can feel so close to understanding, on the brink of a break through, that we think a bit more intensive pondering, reasoning, mulling over a topic will have the desired result. It won't. This is just a self thinking. In this case, it is not the mind, the intelligence, that needs to understand facts and opinions - like chemistry or math or philosophy - it is panna that needs to arise to have insight into anatta. It cannot be forced. It is beyond control. Thanks for trusting us with what has occurred. much metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > Hey Everyone: > > First, before I begin what most of you may be skeptical about, I > want to stress that everything in this post is the truth. It is > what I have experienced directly with no flourishes or > exaggeration. To post on such a subject, in even the most simple of > deceitful ways, would bring me unimaginably bad kamma. I would not > disrespect the Triple Gem in such a manner. > > Since no one is telling about any incidents with Mara, I am going to > tell mine. 17388 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 10:19pm Subject: Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hello Sarah (and James at the end), Thanks for your reports on the Kang Krajan experience; many more to follow I hope. You wrote: > At one point on the first day, I was trying to `work out' a detail on ayatanas (bases) intellectually. Very appropriately [K Sujin] reminded me that this was just thinking and speculating and not understanding anything about the present moment - the namas and rupas which can be experienced and known now. It was such a helpful reminder for me. So easily we can go off-track, lost in intellectual speculation which is not even wise consideration - just being lost in pannatti (concepts) without any sati. > ------- Yet again, you have said what I needed to hear. So much of what I take for `Dhamma study' is just pannatti. (You'll never see that drafts folder now :-) ) Even the most pivotal questions (e.g., is there a self or is there not a self), are misguided when they don't address the present namas and rupas. Another case in point is the beautiful Sakalika-sutta that James has posted. It shows us the Buddha's perfect understanding of mara -- the five khandhas -- the conditioned namas and rupas. But if we see it in a conventional way, then all that beautiful imagery of a wounded `Blessed One' in conversation with `the Evil One,' is just so much pannatti. Christine, Andrew, Steven and I will be meeting with some other Dhamma friends at Andrew's this weekend. As was the case last time, I'll probably drive people mad with continual reminders of how there is only nama and rupa. I'll tell them to blame you. Kind regards Ken H PS James, I just saw your Mara post as I was about to send this. I wouldn't want to appear indifferent to experiences that are important to you. That there was ultimately nothing more than fleeting, conditioned phenomena, is the most meaningful thing I can say about them -- or about anything else in the world. KH 17389 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 10:26pm Subject: Re: Forgiveness Hi Paul, James, Howard and Frank, Thank you for your great thoughts and comments on this subject. I may come back to you about this on Sunday Oz time. I'm away for the weekend with the SEQdsg at Cooran. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Dear christine, > > i think the whole concept and system is different. > > god says that every single person has sin due to adam and his wife > bla bla bla, i think u know better than me about what the bible > says. and, bcoz of that SIN, we have to ask forgiveness from god. > in my own point of view, it just like a man giving u some posion at > the first place, then he would like u to beg him for the medician. ^_~ > > but, in buddhism, the first thing we have to learn is kamma, u > deserved for what u had done. so, even u r forgiven, kamma wont > change. > > im not sure if u know the story.... one of the Buddha's followers, i > dont know his name in english or pali. >.< > > he found his mom had been gone to hell, so he tried to save her and > give food to her, but failed. then he asked Buddha to help, and > Buddha said he can do nothing about that. > > i guess thats why! ^_~ > > 17390 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 11:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Is this a contradiction? Please help... Dear Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > If someone was being pricked by a needle, how would speaking strictly > in abhidhamma term "there is no person, no pricking, and no needle" > help him or her? .... This is a very good question.......;-) Depending on the understanding at any given time, it may lead to detachment from the idea of a self and may help to see the conditioned nature of present phenomena. What is being taken now for an experience or a situation is in reality a variety of conditioned phenomena (as I understood Howard to be suggesting) - hardness, heat, pain, consciousness, feeling. In other words, just the namas and rupas you originally were asking about (without any names;-)). To quote from what you wrote to Ray: “The Buddha’s teaching on each and every aggregate being not self is a simple yet profound and liberating teaching. Self-views are entangling. One would never get close to understand the Buddha’s teachng if he or she tries to understand it with a self-view.” Pls let me know if you have further comments/questions on this. As Howard also commented, understanding realities doesn’t mean abandoning concepts either;-) Sarah ===== 17391 From: James Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 11:04pm Subject: Re: Mara KKT, It means that I was thinking of something else, in a rather relaxed way (I believe I was pondering the nature of humans and planets), with my eyes closed, when I suddenly saw everything like my eyes were open. I saw, what I felt was Mara afterward, walk past the side of the chair looking straight ahead. When I opened my eyes in a fright, there was nothing there. I have never had experiences or visions like that. I was wholly unique and wholly real. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > Dear James, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "James" wrote: > > < snip > > > In an instant I saw in > my mind me lying on the recliner and a very short (4'7" or so), pale > skinned, humanoid appearing man (but with grotesque puffy eyes and > shedding hair), dressed in a black cloak, a black hat (Fedora > style), who walked past the right side of the recliner. > > > > > KKT: One question: > > What does it mean << I saw in my mind >> ??? > > Thanks. > > > KKT 17392 From: Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara Hi, James - You might consider re-reading what I wrote. I never denied that there is a deva who spends his time as an adversary, attempting to thwart liberation. I simply don't know first-hand that there is. My point was that personal temptations constitute a more important impediment. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/5/02 8:02:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Christine (and James) - > > > > What a great post! Whether or not there is a Mara who is > more than > >metaphor, I think that the metaphorical sense of 'Mara' as > temptation is the > >important one, and I think that you have pointed out the crux of > the matter > >when you pointed out that knowing Mara, knowing him well - knowing > fully the > >delusive and dangerous nature of temptation, defeats him. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > > Howard, > > I do not agree with your perspective of Mara. Maybe I would before > actually experiencing him, but not now. Thinking of Mara as > metaphor for temptation is useless and not how the Buddha spoke of > Mara at all…I agreed with Christine's words and perspective, but not > the quote she quoted from Nina. Nina has obviously never met Mara > or she wouldn't have written those statements. I am not sure why > you both feel compelled to write about a subject with a stance > plainly in contradiction to all of the Tipitaka. The Buddha, his > monks, his nuns, NEVER spoke of Mara as a metaphor, and yet you and > Nina say that is the most important way to view him. That is very > misleading and not proper dhamma. I have just remained quiet about > such things until I knew them personally. Now that I know them > personally, I don't think I need to be quiet anymore. > > Mara isn't temptation predominately; Mara is a blockade…a barrier. > Mara isn't the one who keeps us attached to this samsara world > lifetime after lifetime; our own ignorance does that. Mara simply > finds it his duty to support this samsara existence. Anyone who > appears as if they are going to break loose, he swoops down to try > his best to stop them. He mainly does it with fear and confusion, > and occassionally temptation. I speak from personal experience. I > will post more in a bit. > > Metta, James > /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) 17393 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Freewill is out?!;-)?!:-) Hi Ken H, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Thanks for your reports on the Kang Krajan experience; > many more to follow I hope. .... ;-) likewise those from the SEQld DSG gathering this weekend;-);-) ..... > Yet again, you have said what I needed to hear. So much > of what I take for `Dhamma study' is just pannatti. > (You'll never see that drafts folder now :-) ) Even the > most pivotal questions (e.g., is there a self or is there > not a self), are misguided when they don't address the > present namas and rupas. .... .....so much ‘self’ censorship...but hopefully the combination of Chrsitine’s inspirations and your wise reflections will lead to useful discussions for you all and some helpful titbits for the rest of us;-) ..... > Another case in point is the beautiful Sakalika-sutta > that James has posted. It shows us the Buddha's perfect > understanding of mara -- the five khandhas -- the > conditioned namas and rupas. But if we see it in a > conventional way, then all that beautiful imagery of a > wounded `Blessed One' in conversation with `the Evil > One,' is just so much pannatti. ..... wisely put.... .... > Christine, Andrew, Steven and I will be meeting with some > other Dhamma friends at Andrew's this weekend. As was > the case last time, I'll probably drive people mad with > continual reminders of how there is only nama and rupa. > I'll tell them to blame you. .... ;-) You have my full support - with the continual reminders (not with the driving people mad). We were sorry to miss Steve in Bkk and hope you can give him and Andrew a few prods about DSG at the same time..... Have a good weekend, Sarah ===== 17394 From: James Date: Thu Dec 5, 2002 11:26pm Subject: Re: Mara --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" wrote: > James, > > I know you will have considered that there are other possibilities - > like the half awake mind creating illusions, or mental strain from > pondering too hard and too long on one point, or 'your self' fighting > a last ditch battle for survival. And there is the possibility that > you are correct in your assessment. Allow me to reiterate - perhaps > it is better to put what has happened aside, not to give it too much > importance, even avoid being in the same circumstances that seem to > condition this visitation. It may or may not have any lasting > significance, other than being more tolerant of others experiences. > It will certainly have given you an altered outlook on the > Teachings. Ultimately, though, it is not bringing you peace or > freedom, it is causing you stress - dukkha, and is there any benefit > in encouraging the experience to re-occur? > > I, too, find anatta a difficult subject. Sometimes I find with > topics in Dhamma study that if I have a complete break for a while, > I come back further advanced with new insights. I find the Nava > Sutta a useful reminder for occasions when I am trying to force my > mind to understand something quickly, and also as an encouragement > when I begin to feel 'I'm never going to understand this!' When > there are the right conditions right understanding will occur, > whether we want it or not. And if the right conditions aren't there, > no amount of wishing or thinking or forcing will achieve the goal. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-101.html > Sometimes we can feel so close to understanding, on the brink of a > break through, that we think a bit more intensive pondering, > reasoning, mulling over a topic will have the desired result. It > won't. This is just a self thinking. In this case, it is not the > mind, the intelligence, that needs to understand facts and opinions - > like chemistry or math or philosophy - it is panna that needs to > arise to have insight into anatta. It cannot be forced. It is > beyond control. > Thanks for trusting us with what has occurred. > > much metta, > Christine > Christine, LOL! What makes you think I am encouraging the visitations to recur? They are disturbing my thoughts. I have begun to do Chankra meditation to try to keep him away as much as possible. And I can tell you, with 100% certainty; it is not the result of me straining my brain. I have four college degrees, including a Masters; I have strained my brain under much more pressure than just thinking about Anatta, and I have never had visions before or experiences such as these. And I am not sure why you believe I should ignore them. Did the Buddha ignore them? Did his monks ignore them? Did his nuns ignore them? They are significant and should not be ignored. There are quite a few suttas about Mara for a reason. Mara must be confronted head-on, seen for who he is and the tricks he is playing, and to dismiss him. Frankly, he makes it so that it is impossible to ignore him. Not even the Buddha ignored him…every time Mara spoke, the Buddha answered. Of course, such things to us sound like fantasy. And to a Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc., Nibbana sounds like a fantasy also. How do we know it is a reality? Because we do, and that is all. I also don't feel that I am being brave by talking about this, I am being honest. The Tipitaka makes no apologies for such realities; I don't think I should either. Many people in this group, and in the world, have too many views that they hold onto. All views should be abandoned and the world viewed with an open mind. In everyday reality, what you see is usually not what you see. Just take me at my word and send me good thoughts to help ward off this visitor. That is what would be helpful. Metta, James ps. This is the last post I will do on this matter. If anyone wants to discuss further, contact me off-list. 17395 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 0:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Getting closer to Anatta Hi James, (Ray, Rob M, Rob K & All), I have several of your anatta’ posts in front of me and I’d like to pick up on a few issues - many of which have probably been clarified for you already by Ray, Rob M, Rob K and your own reflections. If you don’t mind, I’ll use point form this time (more or less in the order you raised them): ..... 1. You mentioned in a post to Rob M that “the only person who doesn’t have a ‘self’.....would be a Buddha”. We can say that everyone has wrong views concerning self (sakkaya ditthi) apart from the ariyans including sotapannas. Regardless of the views, there is no self. Realities don’t change, but the understanding of them does. ..... 2.You mentioned about ‘desire for existence’ in this connection. In Kang Krajan we had some discussion about the two kinds of bhava tanha (desire for existence).It can refer to bhava tanha with the wrong idea of self (eradicated by the sotapanna) or the more subtle clinging to life or rebirth which is only eradicated by the arahat. It depends on the context, As you mention it is one of the asavas (cankers). I think Ray clarified this point well and added helpful sutta references. James, there is no self (real or false) at any time. The sotapanna has no illusion of any kind. Whilst there is craving, life will continue, regardless of whether there is right or wrong view about it. I didn’t see anything erroneous in the extract you commented in the Nyantiloka dict (although I’ve seen a few other errors) or in your extract from Edward Thomas “The Hist of Bud Thought’. Pls give me a reference to the first if you still think it’s incorrect as I’m curious about it. ..... 3. I found Ray’s explanations (no need to put in Abhidhamma terms, Ray;-)) very helpful regarding kamma and rebirth. As you suggest, James, it’s not simple to appreciate that just as now there are only namas and rupas, so at the next moment, and the next and so on. This is the way to understand rebirth at each moment, results of kamma and kamma now and to appreciate it’s always been this way and always will within samsara. ..... 4. You raised in another post to Ray the questions of ‘the reality of non-self, why he taught it, and where it was supposed to lead’. You conclude by suggesting ‘ ‘self’ does exist, but as something that is impermanent, not self that is eternal..or has control over existence.’ (Apologies for taking your comments out of context). I think as Ken H was just suggesting, as there is more understanding right now of the characteristics of namas and rupas being experienced ,there is clearer comprehension of where the understanding leads and less confusion about self or non-self. Life and daily functioning don’t change. The use of concepts and conventional truths doesn’t change. Realities don’t change. The dust of ignorance and wrong view is gradually removed - very little by very little. As Ray explained so well (backed up by sutta from SN), understanding the anatta nature of all these namas and rupas is the way: ‘through such disenchantment one would develop dispassion towards the aggregates and with dispassion comes release’. We cling to an idea of self and see it as something fearful to relinquish, not realising that it is this very clinging that brings about the fear. ..... 5. Whether we refer to ‘chewed up by feeling, perception..’ and the rest or ‘ensnared’ or ‘captivated’ it doesn’t matter. These are not alternative viewpoints or meditation exercises but the truth of reality at this moment. Right now, aren’t ‘we’ captivated by felings, rupas...the 5 khandhas? Don’t we find these experiences important and cling to them as ‘mine’ or ‘me’? This is why the development of panna (wisdom) has to be the path of detachment. You suggest that the Buddha isn’t talking about ‘an ultimate reality’. I would suggest that he is always talking about ultimate realities, i.e. the truth, regardless of the language used according to context. Rather than being the way to go ‘crazy’, understanding ultimate realities whenever there are conditions for panna to arise, is the way to find ‘sanity’;-) Panna doesn’t need a Buddha’s wisdom to understand a nama or rupa for what it is (i.e no self). Right now, seeing can be understood as seeing, visible object as visible object and so on. (Of course, without considering the Buddha’s Teachings, there would be no conditions for this panna to arise). ..... 6. You mention that you’re not sure what ‘eye-consciousness’ is and I think when you raise these points and suggest a need to put on the brakes after the first couple of pages or chapters of ADL, it shows some very helpful reflection. It’s only too easy to think it’s all clear when it isn’t. Eye-consciousness (cakkhu vinnana) refers to this very moment of seeing now which sees just its object. If you close your eyes and then open them, there is seeing immediately. No self in it. By empty or void of a self, it justs means that at that moment of opening the eyes, there is only seeing. It has its own nature of characteristic for an instant and then has fallen away. This is true for all other phenomena including consciousness in the mind-door process. I think others like Rob K explained the Sunna Sutta in more detail. These are important and useful points for us all and not easy at all as you suggest. Pls ask for furthr clarifications if it’s helpful. ..... 7. “ ‘no-self’ vs ‘no-essence’.... I think it depends what is meant by the terms. Empty of self doesn’t mean there is nothing experienced. Seeing has its particular characteristic (lakhana or sabhava -s’times transl as essence), different from that of hearing or that of the visible object which is seen. It’s not James, however, who sees or hears and it doesn’t belong to James. James is a concept in the imagination only;-) ..... 8. I agree with Christine’s comments on Mara or any other special experiences. Anything is possible, but I would also encourage anyone not to cling to lucid dreaming experiences, nightmares, visitations, visions or other experiences. By clinging and thinking about the stories or experiences, it’s a condition for them to repeat and this can be an obstacle to the development of wisdom and detachment. We also had some discussion on this topic at Kang Krajan;-) ***** James, you’ve raised a lot of important points for everyone to consider. I’ve really appreciated the responses your reflections have generated as well. As Christine also said, thank you for sharing with us all. Sarah ====== 17396 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 4:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vajira and Mara --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > You might consider re-reading what I wrote. I never denied that there > is a deva who spends his time as an adversary, attempting to thwart > liberation. I simply don't know first-hand that there is. My point was that > personal temptations constitute a more important impediment. > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard I think that the point of the Mara mythology is that "personal temptation" is a manifestation of Mara's retinue, e.g. his daughters and his cohorts. I hope the following link puts it well. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/demons.html Cheers Peter 17398 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "what is awareness. Stephen --- oreznoone@a... wrote: .. .. .. > BTW, the old question remains open: abhidhamma recognizes both black > and white kamma, and mixed, but what about the kamma that ends kamma? > What is its classification? The Abhidhamma classifies kamma in a number of different ways, the most basic of which is the 2-fold classification of kusala and akusala. The various kinds of kamma referred to in the 'black and white' sutta are simply different combinations and levels of these 2 kinds of kamma. For example, the 'mixed' kamma of the sutta refers to the fact that both kusala and akusala kamma have been performed and accumulated and will bear their respective fruit (there is no 'mixed kamma' per se in the Abhidhamma). Likewise, the 'kamma that ends kamma' is a reference to a particular level, or sub-class, of kusala kamma. Jon 17399 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 6, 2002 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fear of Rupas James --- James wrote: .. .. .. <> If you have a problem as regards the Abhidhamma, I am happy to discuss this question purely on the basis of the suttas. (There are many who share your scepticism about the Abhidhamma for 1 reason or another.) <> As you have acknowledged in your post on the Sunna Sutta, this is not really so. Indeed, there is a whole section of suttas (the Salayatana-vagga of the Samyutta Nikaya) dealing with the 6 sense bases and their external objects, namely, visible object (sometimes translated as 'form'), sound, smell, taste and tangible objects (hardness and softness, heat and cold, motion and pressure). I have posted 3 of these suttas below. It is not important whether we refer to the external sense-objects as rupas or by some more conventional name; the important thing is to know that they are among the 'dhammas' that the Buddha said are capable of being directly experienced, should be known and are to be abandoned. <> According to these suttas, there are 6 types of consciousness corresponding to the experiencing through the 6 different doorways. <> All the 'external' dhammas are outside the body. They are mentioned repeatedly throughout the suttas. They are included in the things that are taken for "the world" and that are to be abandoned. In this and other respects they are in just the same category as consciousness and the mental states. <> Every dhamma, whether internal or external, has the same 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. <> I agree with this. The thing most directly leading to enlightenment is the knowledge of the true characteristic of the things we take for being permanent, satisfactory and self, and those things include the external dhammas that are experienced by one's consciousness. Jon Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Sabba Sutta (The All) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "Monks, I will teach you the All. "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. "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." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.24 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-024.html Pahanaya Sutta (For Abandoning) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon for abandoning. "And which All is a phenomenon for abandoning? to be abandoned? "The eye is to be abandoned. Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too is to be abandoned. "The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned... "The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned... "The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned... "The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned... "The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned... "This is called the All as a phenomenon for abandoning." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.82 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-082.html Loka Sutta (The World) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world (loka),'it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates (lujjati), monk, it is called the 'world.' "Now what disintegrates? "The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate... "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" -------------------------------------------------------------------