20400 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James op 18-03-2003 05:32 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > While > Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he > also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his > commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group) N: I think you should speak freely about these points. There may be misunderstandings about Buddhaghosa, and when we talk about this, there is an opportunity to straighten things out. If you have a long list, why don't you bring it forward point by point, so that different people can look at it quietly. We may have to compare different texts and see where the points are that are difficult to understand. And sure enough, I will not be able to answer all questions on controversial points. Nina. 20401 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 0:41pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a wholesome practice. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist Practice" > document > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and how > to give offerings to it, etc. > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like > something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20402 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 0:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James > op 18-03-2003 05:32 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > While > > Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he > > also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his > > commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group) > N: I think you should speak freely about these points. There may be > misunderstandings about Buddhaghosa, and when we talk about this, there is > an opportunity to straighten things out. > If you have a long list, why don't you bring it forward point by point, so > that different people can look at it quietly. We may have to compare > different texts and see where the points are that are difficult to > understand. And sure enough, I will not be able to answer all questions on > controversial points. > Nina. Hi Nina, That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's nest...I have learned. I wrote a lot more in this post and then deleted it. No point. Let us both just believe what we want regarding this issue. Metta, James 20403 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Victor, I see your point. And, don't get me wrong, I was not implying any "unwholesomeness" to having a shrine. email is so hard to read subtext sometimes! That said, would there not be a fear, or even a tendency to refocus reverence into worship thereby making the shrine another attachment? And, even more importantly, and practically, is having such a shrine really an important first (or second or third) step for a person such as myself, struggling to understand Buddhism and the expectations of it. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core > Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's > reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the > attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and > essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive > in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a > wholesome practice. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > Everyone, > > > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another > > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist > Practice" > > document > > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and > how > > to give offerings to it, etc. > > > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like > > something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a > > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20404 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] > We have tickets for ten days' time to go to a Rolling Stones concert here. > It's the kind of thing we do about once every 10 years. I know the sound > will be far too loud to be intrinsically 'pleasant' and yet still there's > just about enough lobha to go and follow after the papanca, though it > won't bother me if it gets cancelled as happened last time;-) Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a good reminder of impermance(!). mike 20405 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:03pm Subject: Free Visuddhimagga in Sydney I want to give away my Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa. It can be picked up from me in Sydney (expensive to post). If you are interested in this large volume contact me offlist at antony272b at hotmail.com metta / Antony. 20406 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Dear Robert and Dan, Outstanding, Robert. Also applies to my recent question to Jon re. rebirth in deva realms etc., maybe? Must reread this discourse. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan D. To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] > > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote > > Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't > strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. > Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of > suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, > Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen > and understood. > > > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > > disagreeable at all times. > > Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for > these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go > very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense > contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. 20407 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Great Stuff, Sarah, Where does the Atthasalini quotation begin and end? (I see a closing quotation at the end of this paragraph. Looking at it now, it sounds more like KS or NVG, at least at the end--who speaks where? Thanks in advance. mike The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind." 20408 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love > Dear Mike and Dharam, > This is the end of a long development up to arahatship. I think what we're talking about is 'jahanta' in Pali. I haven't had time to research this yet but suspect it occurs incompletely many times before vimokkha, when conditions (i.e. hearing or reflecting on Dhamma) dictate. Could be wrong, I'd like to know more about this. > Let us not skip what > has to be known first: all daily realities, including our attachments. Of course we can't skip these even if we wanted to. Insight into them (whether theoretical or profound) tends to condition relinquishing though, I think. > No > forcing not to have them, but understanding them as conditioned relaities > when they naturally arise. Of course it's understanding (pa~n~naa) that conditions the relinquishing--not the idea, 'I relinquish' (or 'I should relinquish'). > They have to be understood as not mine, not self > first. The development of understanding should be very natural. Yes, it always is as it must be. mike 20409 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these 2 concepts, and > I think I still have difficulty seperating them. I've always thought > of the world as operating on probabilities. And, our actions cause > probability levels to rise in different ways. It's like dropping > stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a small stone causes > a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, the ripples merge > to form waves. But, while the direct effects of the stone may not be > felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are getting what > we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those merges, or even our > children or grandchildren may be impacted. Anyway, morality involves > doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope that makes > sense... ===== I like your analogy. ===== > > OK, enough of "Davism" (or would it be Dave-ianity?). So far as > Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is > this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way > to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes > D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; > perhaps they will shed light on this. ===== For some time, I have been meaning to write a magazine article explaining dependent origination in layman's terms. Thanks for your prompting... please give me a couple of days to put a draft together. ===== > This may be a huge rationalization, but, since my favorite past time > is fishing, and I only practice catch-and-release, I think I am OK! > I try not to kill the fish, but only annoy it for a while. :-) > > Here again, I will look for places that further define the precepts. > Even Christianity has a lot of trouble agreeing on what the "rules" > are. I suppose that there is the same spectrum in the Buddhist > circles as well. ===== Sorry to "pun"ish you, but it looks as though you are off the hook when it comes to killing :-) Of course, all willed actions (including annoying fish) will create kamma (which you may have to pay for later). If you want a clearer definition for the precepts, I suggest that you read Bhikkhu Bodhi's article (it is a good one): http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h tm The canonical text which goes into some detail on this is the Atthasalini, Book I, Part III, Section V "Discourse on Courses of Immoral Actions". Unfortunately, it is not on-line. I want to stress that "precepts" are not "rules". "Precepts" are factors of training that you choose to apply to yourself whereas "rules" are defined by somebody else. There hasn't been much debate in Buddhist Circles (that I am aware of) regarding the interpretation of precepts. The five point checklist that I gave on killing makes things pretty clear (similar checklists are available for the other four precepts as well). A second reason for the lack of arguments regarding precepts is that precepts are a personal factor of training. Whether you keep the precepts or not, the law of kamma still operates (As you sow, so shall you reap). Dave, I will be back to you in a couple of days with a layman's version of Dependent Origination. Metta, Rob M :-) 20410 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Great Stuff, Sarah, > > Where does the Atthasalini quotation begin and end? (I see a closing > quotation at the end of this paragraph. Looking at it now, it sounds > more > like KS or NVG, at least at the end--who speaks where? ..... Apologies for not making it clearer. The following was all a quote from ‘Cetasikas’ and the opening quotation was before “The Visuddhimagga....”. I’ll add single quotes for the Vism ref this time (I was just coying and pasting before). From: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas32.html ..... (Nina:) “The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : ‘It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly.’ The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind.” ..... While I’m here, let me add the quote itself from Atthasalini which, as Nina, says, is almost indentical, but it’s always interesting to look at different translations anyway. From the transl of Atthasalini (The Expositor, PTS): “ ‘Equanimity’ (or balance of mind) is neutrality regarding various states. It has the characteristic of carrying on consciousness and mental properties equally, the function of checking deficiency and excess, or of cutting off partisanship; it has the manifestation of neutrality. By virtue of its indifference regarding consciousnes and mental properties it should be regarded as a charioteer who treats with impartiality the well-trained horses he is driving.” ..... Hope this makes it clear. It’s a wonderful reminder, isn’t it? I always find it helpful to reflect and understand more about this state and to be reminded that there cannot be any wholesome cittas without it. Metta, Sarah Mike: “Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a good reminder of impermance(!).” Sarah: But will these old wrinkle-rocker fans notice??? Last time I saw these guys live, I was a 16 year old school-girl hanging out in the local Crypt cafe when they came in for a coffee. 20411 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am just thinking of one aspect, one reason for disillusionment: it takes a long time of development and when people do not see any result they become impatient. Where is the result? The Dhamma is so subtle and difficult to understand, and our clinging to self and our ignorance covers up the truth. In that way we begin already with the wrong development, full of the idea of, I do it. One should be clear about this: what is dhamma, reality, and how and when does it appear. Maybe we should discuss first: . A. Sujin greatly stressed this point when we were in Bgk last time, Nina. op 18-03-2003 22:11 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or > disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder > why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. > The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw > the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. 20412 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas Hi Andrew, I’m glad that Ken H is nudging you to ask your questions and hope you can pass on the nudge to any others in your group;-). Good to read of your careful study and consideration. ..... --- Andrew wrote: > Dear Group > In ADL, Nina says (in the context of a sense-door process) that the > bhavanga-cittas do not experience the rupa. ..... Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in mind-door processes. ..... >In "Realities and > Concepts", Sujin B says (in the context of a mind-door process) that > the arrest-bhavanga is "the mind-door through which the cittas of the > mind-door process will experience the object" (p 63). > Question: in a mind-door process, do the bhavanga-cittas experience > the mind-object? What do they experience? ..... They arise in between the sense-door and mind-door processes and never experience the mind-object. As I just mentioned, they experience the same object as the patisandhi citta (rebirth consciousness) and this is the same object taken by the javana cittas (kusala or akusala cittas) in the last process before the cuti citta (death consciousness) in the previous life. This particular object can never be known. ..... > Sujin also seems to say (p 24) that pannatti can be "included in" a > mind-door-object. > Question: what is an example of mind-door-object that is not pannatti? ..... Any reality - e.g a rupa just experienced in a sense-door process, a citta, a mental factor or nibbana! If these realities weren’t experienced in the mind door process, it would be impossible for sati (awareness) to be aware of them or panna (understanding) to know them in the mind-door process. These are good questions. I’m sure my responses just raise more questions. Let me know if I (or anyone else) can help further. Metta, Sarah ===== 20413 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave (& Ken H), I'm greatly appreciating your discussions with Rob M and others. I've never had a shrine room or felt a need for one, but fully appreciate that for others it may be a condition for wise reflection as Rob M pointed out. There was so much in this post of Ken H's that was clearly and beautifully presented, imho, that I can't resist requoting parts with a few token comments in between;-): --- kenhowardau wrote: > The doctrine of not-self (anatta), is all-encompassing > and unyielding; it cannot be put to one side for the sake > of convenience. In other words, it does not allow the > possibility of a temporary self which heroically > practises Right Mindfulness in order to realise its own > non-existence. In this way, anatta is so profound and so > difficult to grasp that it is mostly rejected as > unworkable, even by the majority of Buddhists. > > The result, I'm sorry to say, is that the Buddha's > unique, incomparable teaching, is widely portrayed as a > mere religion. The illusion of a self who meditates and > follows precepts is no different from the illusion of a > self who prays and obeys commandments. ..... So profound (i.e. mirrors my sentiments exactly;-)) ..... > Whenever there is right understanding of conditioned > paramattha dhammas, there is no interest in the wrong > questions; "Is there a self? Is there not a self? Will I > be reborn? Will I not be reborn?" To the contrary, one > is delighted to find that the question of self does not > arise. ..... Exactly so.... ..... > Which way will we go; will we settle for the 'self you > have when you're not having a self,' or will we accept > anatta in its entirety?' Only conditions will decide. > > Good luck with your giving up of the old ways; let's > hope you don't install another religion in their place. > :-) ..... Dave, with all the good friends you're talking to here, you can't go wrong;-) Metta and a nudge to continue your discussions with Ken H, Rob M, Victor and all, Sarah ===== 20414 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, (Sukin & Connie at the end), --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Nina and Sarah, > > Thank you for your thoughtful responses. ..... .....and all your thoughtful questions and reflections. I’m especially appreciating your dialogue with Mike. ..... > This same gardener also needs some mental construct of the potential > final product, say the appearance or sensation of the garden. > She/He requires some understanding of the utility of expending all > that effort. And (pertinent to relinquishing attachment), as > importantly, what must be given to, or given up, for the result > he/she seeks. ..... Just to follow this analogy a little further.....Let’s say the gardener is completely blind and has been since birth but as he gardens it is a condition for his eye-sight to be slowly and gradually restored at the same time. In the beginning, no matter how anyone describes flowers in bloom and other features of the garden, he merely has a quite unrealistic idea of what is being said and it’s of very limited value. He starts to plant the seeds, however, and there is the smallest glimmer of sight, though not enough confidence that it really is the planting of seeds that is conditioning this sight. With encouragement, he continues and at times the sight becomes a little clearer, but of course with many dark spells and doubts about the right cause and best approach in between. It may seem to him at times that the price and the effort are too great because of his lack of confidence in the rewards. However, as the connection becomes more apparent and the eyesight becomes more firmly established, there is less and less doubt or misapprehension and the price becomes clearly effortless and not a factor to be considered. ..... > There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or > disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder > why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. > The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw > the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. ..... Expectations and attachment?? Clinging to self as in the idea of “relinquishing attachment”?? ..... > Disillusionment is probably multifactorial, one aspect may poor > understanding of what is to be achieved, and as important, > what is to be relinquished. Giving up/relinquishing/surrendering > (?), are common motifs of many faiths, yet I wonder how many actually > understand the 'bargain' at the outset. Could the shock of finding > out, be an important cause for these people's disillusionment and > doubt? ..... I think it’s only at a conceptual level that there’s any bargain, giving up and so on. At moments of awareness there is no idea like this and no concern for any self. ..... > None of us wants to scare away newcomers by presenting seemingly > difficult hurdles at any early stage. However, IMHO in the > interest of 'informed consent' and to perhaps avoid later > disillusionment, students/practitioners of any ~ ism, should pay some > heed to what is required to be given up, even while being attracted > to what is to be gained. ..... To me this is merely thinking, like describing the garden to the blind gardener. ..... > Let us use the example of a legal contract (even social contracts, > such as marriage may apply). At the outset, one would think there > would never be a future problem. Unfortunately, we all know that > disputes can arise too frequently. One reason is that the parties > do not fully understand the implications of what they are signing up > for at the outset. [There are many reasons for this, and I am > neither an attorney nor a psychologist.] This sets the stage for > disillusionment, leading to despair, anger, conflict etc. I suspect > that true informed consent, with nothing assumed, could alleviate a > lot of this sort of dukkha (small 'd'), don't you? ..... Ideally we’d all start out without any expectations at all;-) I’ve always been of the “the bigger the wedding, the bigger the crash” school;-) I’ve also read studies about arranged marriages having a higher success rate, but I’m veering off-course here. When it comes to the development of understanding of the Buddha’s Teachings, there is no self that can control the process, no one to sign a deal with and no consent to be given. As people have been discussing, most of us come from different religious and cultural backgrounds and are here discussing the Dhamma in spite of other intentions, agreements and in spite of periods of disillusionment, despair and so on. Christine presented this beautifully in a recent post “There is no need to rush things. It's a bit like ending a love affair - one has sweet memories of what really never was true. Occasionally Buddhism seems rather arid and joyless, usually when I'm stressed and tired. But better to have Reality and Truth than a false dream.” ..... > Understanding not only what is to be gained, but what must be > relinquished, may be vital to keep people on a chosen path. ..... I think both ‘gaining’ and ‘relinquishing’ show a clinging to self. ..... > I would be very interested in both of your views (Mike and > Christine's too) on what I realize is an unorthodox inquiry. ..... I’ll be glad to hear other views too. I, for one, love your ‘unorthodox inquiry’ approach and your very eloquent style. Metta, Sarah p.s And what’s happened to your friend Sukin and Connie and their unorthodox and stimulation discussion......hint, hint...... ============================================ 20415 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Eddie, You've been making some good points: --- Eddie Lou wrote: > One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the > wisdom of the ability to differentiate between 'rupa' > - closest equivalent being physical or physique and > 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. ..... This is exactly as I understand it and as described in the first stage of insight. Until there is the clear distingusishing of namas and rupas from each other and from concepts which are usually taken for being truths, there cannot be any detachment from the idea of self. Nothing is relinquished because there is no self in the first place to be relinquished. Only wrong views.... ..... > This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys to > be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you before > - Samsara and with the true final destination being > Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no longer > exists. ..... Thank you for giving these explanations in your own words. Metta, Sarah ======= Weight Age Gender Female Male 20416 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > I'm understanding this to say clear comprehension of resort is keeping > the object (sign?) of meditation constantly in mind and cear > comprehension of nondelusion is understanding the consciousness process > in the moment. ..... I understand resort (gocara) as one of the 4 clear comprehensions and in the context of satipatthana to refer to any reality which is the object of mindfulness. I was reminded of your question when I quoted from Vism to Dan. Sound is the resort or object of hearing: VismX1V, 55 “Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the RESORT of that too. it is of various kinds as ‘drum sound, tabor sound’ (Dhs621) and so on.” ***** Earlier in the Way corner, Nina and Jim were discussing more about the meaning of gocara: Nina wrote: “I am also thinking of the Sutta on the falcon and the warning that the monk should keep to his own range: the four satipatthanas. In the dict. PTS, gocara: pasture, range and also object, sense object. Like visaya: locality, realm, range, and also object.” Much more has been written by Rob K and others on this topic and perhaps some of it will be reposted if you are interested. (Rob, I think you wrote on this quite recently but couldn’t find your post by keying in ‘gocara’ on escribe...) In the recent extracts from the Way, we read some serious Abhidhamma;-) It’s not easy as there is a lot of detail about the processes, the various conditions and so forth. I think we can see how closely integrated the sutta, the commentaries and the Abhidhamma are and how it’s very difficult to understand any of these parts of the Teachings in isolation. It helps to understand the conditionality and anattaness of phenomena arising now. For example,from Way 61: “[T] ......While the conscious state arisen earlier, in ceasing, it ceases in just the form of proximity-condition and so forth, to another conscious state arising after it [yam hi purimuppannam cittam tam nirujjhantam aññassa paccha uppajjamanassa anantaradi paccaya bhaveneva nirujjhati]. Then another conscious state which has just obtained a condition, arises [yathaladdha paccayameva aññampi uppajjate cittam]. And here (mind is) in a different state by reason of the difference of occasion [avattha visesato cettha aññatha].” Rob M and others were discussing proximity condition recently and earlier in this extract it also discussed pre-nascence and post-nascence conditions which also related to the details Nina has been translating and writing on the characteristics and stages of rupa which lasts for the time of 17 cittas as also discussed in this Way extract. Lots of detail and not easy to fully comprehend even intellectually. But like a jigsaw puzzle, slowly the pieces fit into place, usually at unexpected times of not-trying to comprehend;-) Let us know if you have further comments/questions on gocara (resort) or the other Clear Comprehensions. Nothing easy. Metta, Sarah ======= 20417 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:23am Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, I don't think having a shrine room is really important first step for a person struggling to understanding Buddhism and the expectations of it. I do think it is very important to distinguish what the teaching of the Buddha is and what it is not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > I see your point. And, don't get me wrong, I was not implying > any "unwholesomeness" to having a shrine. email is so hard to read > subtext sometimes! > > That said, would there not be a fear, or even a tendency to refocus > reverence into worship thereby making the shrine another attachment? > > And, even more importantly, and practically, is having such a shrine > really an important first (or second or third) step for a person such > as myself, struggling to understand Buddhism and the expectations of > it. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20418 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - correction Hi Andrew & All, The first part of the sentence below is carelessly written and can be misleading, I think. Let me re-write it here: Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense-door and mind-door processes now. In deep sleep (when there is no dreaming), they arise continuously, as there is no sense-door or mind-door activity as I understand. They experience their own object etc.... --- Sarah wrote: > Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind > door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which > is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and > not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in > mind-door processes. 20419 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:15am Subject: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - correction) Hi, Sarah (and Andrew and all) - In a message dated 3/20/03 7:34:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Andrew &All, > > The first part of the sentence below is carelessly written and can be > misleading, I think. Let me re-write it here: > > Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense-door and > mind-door processes now. In deep sleep (when there is no dreaming), they > arise continuously, as there is no sense-door or mind-door activity as I > understand. They experience their own object etc.... > > --- Sarah wrote: > >Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind > >door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which > >is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and > >not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in > >mind-door processes. > > ============================== Formulations aside, I'd like to pursue a bit the object of bhavanga cittas, said to be the object of rebirth consciousness. Exactly what sort of "object" is this which, even when experienced by the cittas in a lengthy process of bhavanga cittas, is unobserved? What sort of object of consciousness is it that one is not conscious of? It strikes me that if there is any validity to this notion, then bhavanga cittas must correspond to what Psychology since Jung and Freud has called "subconscious". If this is so, it occurs to me that there might be a relation between this topic and that of groups of co-occurring rupas, or "kalapas". In her article on Rupas, Nina included the following: *************************************************************** The four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion are always present wherever there is materiality. Apart from these four elements there are other rupas, namely twentyfour “derived rupasâ€? (in Pali: upada rupas). The “Atthasaliniâ€? (II, Book II, Ch III, 305) explains about them: > “... grasping the great essentials (great elements), not letting go, such > (derived rupas) proceed in dependance upon them.â€? Thus, the derived rupas > could not arise without the four Great Elements. But not all kinds of derived rupas arise with every group of rupas. However, four among the derived rupas always arise together with the four Great Elements in every group of rupas and are thus present wherever there is materiality, no matter whether rupas of the body or materiality outside the body. These four rupas are the following: > visible object (or colour) > odour > flavour > nutrition The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise together are called the “inseparable rupasâ€? (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. It is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. **************************************************** Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion of a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all but one are subliminal? I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so that there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is being claimed here. 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) 20420 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Dear Sarah, Thanks for the clarifications--all pure gold. Love the 'tatra-majjhattataa' (that is, I'm totally indifferent to it, of course). Will definitely be adding these passages to my toolbox. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War > From the transl of Atthasalini (The Expositor, PTS): > > " 'Equanimity' (or balance of mind) 'there-middleness> is neutrality regarding various states. It has the > characteristic of carrying on consciousness and mental properties equally, > the function of checking deficiency and excess, or of cutting off > partisanship; it has the manifestation of neutrality. By virtue of its > indifference regarding consciousnes and mental properties it should be > regarded as a charioteer who treats with impartiality the well-trained > horses he is driving." > ..... > Hope this makes it clear. It's a wonderful reminder, isn't it? I always > find it helpful to reflect and understand more about this state and to be > reminded that there cannot be any wholesome cittas without it. I don't think the implications of the latter can be overstated--thanks again for this great stuff. > Metta, > > Sarah Upekkhaa (0nce In A While), mike > Mike: "Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a > good reminder of impermance(!)." > Sarah: But will these old wrinkle-rocker fans notice??? > Last time I saw these guys live, I was a 16 year old school-girl hanging > out in the local Crypt cafe when they came in for a coffee. Wow--what a thrill for a teenie-bopper--really! 20421 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi again - In a message dated 3/20/03 8:16:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so > that > there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > being claimed here. > > =========================== I think that, perhaps, I have the answer to my own question: Maybe the answer is that the odor does arise together with the color, but that the conditions are not in place for the odor to be consciously detected - specifically, in the scenario I put forward, the conditions that correspond to what we conventionally call "the nostrils being open" are not present, so throughout an entire rupic process (or chain of processes) the odor does co-occur with the color, but it is always subliminal. But if, on the other hand, "the nostrils were not closed," then what would happen would be that seeing and smelling would alternatively occur consciously. What do you think? 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) 20422 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 6:25am Subject: Separatining Kamma From Dependent Origination: To Dave Dear Dave How are you? Welcome to the universe of the Buddha's Teachings! You asked Robert M the following. "So far as Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; perhaps they will shed light on this." I have written something that answers your question somewhere else. While we are waiting for Robert M's writing on Dependent Origination, I reproduced part of my say posted to another list here. I hope Robert would not mind my intrusion here. :) _________________ _ _ _ ________________ SEPARATION OF KAMMA FROM DEPENDENT ORIGINATION Dependent Origination (Pa.ticcasammuppaado) is a standard elaborate system of causation found in Suttanta Pi.taka. The system has twelve causational links as follows. "Through unwiseness, actions happen; because of actions, consciousness arises; due to consciousness, the mental and physical organism appears; because of the mental and physical organism, contact happens; through contact, feeling arises; due to feeling, attachment happens; by attachment, obsession arises; because of obsession, live action occurs; through live action, life renewal happens; due to life renewal, aging and death, worry, grief, pain, displeasure, and exhaustion take place." There are two exposed areas of kamma in the links of Dependent Origination. They are sankhaarapaccayaa (because of actions in the past) and bhavapaccayaa (through live action in the present life). The term "bhava" in the bhavapaccayaa can mean kammabhavo as one of the meanings of bhavo. 1. Kamma as sankhaarapaccayaa happened in the past, so we can't do anything about it now in this life (have no choice). 2. Kamma as bhavapaccayaa happens in this life, so we can do something about it (have a choice). The above explanation was based on the equivalent terms of kamma as contained in the twelve links of Dependent Origination. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 20423 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:17am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi, every body, > > I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to > Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old > school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, > talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I > think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there > something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the > statue in the temple they all look like they are made > out of gold, are they really? > > I found the most interesting information that Buddhism > is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how > did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? > > I hope you guys get friendly with me. > Bye. > > From Tom Hi Star Kid Kom, How are you doing? I hope you are fine. I am glad that you are getting interested in Buddhism. It will be helpful for you in your life. About your first question, there is something special about the Buddha because he discovered the truth about life. He discovered the reason we are all here and what we all need to do to be happy and peaceful. And rather than keep this information to himself and avoid the headache/hassle of trying to teach it to people who would have a hard time understanding, he sacrificed his time and energy for the benefit of everyone by teaching for 45 years. During those 45 years he had to encounter, while remaining peaceful, people who wanted to worship him, people who hated him, people who tried to kill him, and, thankfully, some people who understood him. He did this of his own free will, from his compassion, for the benefit of the world. That was a very nice thing to do wasn't it? For that reason, even if you don't agree with him or understand him, you should still respect him for the good things that he did. About the Buddha statues, they are overwhelming just painted gold, they aren't really solid gold (Though you can find some small statues which are solid gold...like jewelery.). You can find Buddha statues made out of rock, metal, glass, and plastic. It doesn't matter what they are made out of, what matters is what they remind you of. They are to remind you of the Buddha and what he did with his life. It is interesting that you ask this question about gold Buddha statues because it relates to a sad story of something that happened at my temple about 11 years ago. At my temple, Wat Promkunaram, some high school boys went to the temple to rob the monks of their donation money and to steal the main, large Buddha statue because they thought it was made out of solid gold. When they checked out the statue up close, they found out that it wasn't made of gold, it was just painted gold. They also discovered that the monks didn't have any donation money; what little money they had which had been donated was put in the bank already (to pay for food, electricity, etc. for the temple). These boys were upset and angry when they discovered this, and afraid that they would get caught, so they made all of the monks, nuns, and a few laypeople at the temple at that time lay down on the floor of a room, and the boys killed them all with guns. Greed can make people do many horrible things. But this didn't stop the temple from continuing on and doing what the Buddha taught; some more monks came from Thailand to live at the temple and continue the teachings… just like the Buddha did in his life. Hatred and ignorance aren't reasons to stop being peaceful and loving, they are reasons to continue. Tom, Buddhism can be a religion even if there is no self. First, as a side note, some people argue if Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, but not me. I don't care which people think it is. I think it is a religion but some people think it is a philosophy, which is fine. What is more important is that Buddhism is the Truth; what each person labels it is of little importance. Second, just because there is no self doesn't mean that Buddhism can't be a religion (or philosophy) because everyone thinks that there is a self and doesn't want there to be no self. Your question is like asking, "Why do we eat if there is no self?", "Why do we go to school if there is no self?", "Why do I have to do my homework if there is no self?" That would be a good try Tom, but you still have to do your homework! ;-) Just because we have no self that doesn't release us from daily responsibilities or the need to discover who we truly are. Buddhism helps us to do this. Actually, we have Buddhism because we have no self, and Buddhism helps us to see this. Take care Tom and I hope you do well in school and study more about Buddhism. Metta, James 20424 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:48am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Star Kid Kom, > Dear Kom, Oops! LOL! My apologies Kom! I didn't even notice this until after I sent off this letter. Must have been from habit of writing your name and reading it so often. Look on the bright side... you could see this as an offering of a 'Fountain of Youth'. Now you have youth and wisdom! ;-). Metta, James 20425 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Precepts Dave, > Actually, I think I could use the "layman's terms." > The writing > style of the Buddhist texts is different and > somewhat difficult to > discern. I sure wish those texts (some and I think are more like direct translation with possible fear of loss of context and meaning) can be more reader/user-friendly. I am always wondering the wisdom of reculcation/repetition (is that your discerning issue). Maybe it is serving some purpose - memorizing? > unfortunately, completely > lost on me! Completely agree, I got lost But I put myself back on track - just need patience (part of the self-control/discipline as Buddhism called for). If there is a will there is a way - to unravel the great Truth. Metta. Eddie 20426 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Precepts Dave, > I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these > 2 concepts, and > I think I still have difficulty seperating them. > I've always thought > of the world as operating on probabilities. And, > our actions cause > probability levels to rise in different ways. I think probability may be is the closest approximation current human can discern a phenomenum. This statement is close to what one scientist said, I forget who - Einstein? Maybe that is why Einstein said God is not rolling a dice, in reference to Quantum Mechanics. Einstein I heard was quite supportive of Buddhism. > like dropping > stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a > small stone causes > a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, > the ripples merge > to form waves. I think that is a good empirical example, a stone big and small will make a difference. So will the drop location can, due to different, relevant, aggregate property in that location. > But, while the direct effects of the > stone may not be > felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are > getting what > we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those > merges, or even our > children or grandchildren may be impacted. That is possible also. Karma Law works funny to us but is "precise mechanism" just like laws of Physics - say law of conservation of energy. > Anyway, > morality involves > doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope > that makes > sense... Metta. Eddie 20427 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James and all friends, op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > nest. That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a study with knotty points. Look, the nest is empty, hornets gone. You only thought there were hornets. Asking questions is useful, it is one of the conditions for enlightenment. Sorry, I did not want to cause you any uneasy feeling. Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them. Often it is not necessary to feel uneasy about such points, it is more a matter of comparing texts, seeing them from a different angle. Or someone may just fall over certain terms, and an additional problem: the Pali language. I do understand how complicated all this may seem. Nina 20428 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of > Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them. Hi Nina and all the others, one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had an enlightenment experience, and like Nanavira Thera puts it correctly: "Nobody, after all, who has not reached the path can afford to assume that he is right about the Buddha's Teaching." But being a puthujjana myself I rather keep a quiet profile too and would like to point you to an interesting article by Vimalo Kulbarz (if your German is good enough): http://www.dhamma- dana.de/buecher/theravada/vimalo_kulbarz- die_buddhalehre_und_ihre_ueberlieferung_in_der_theravada- tradition.htm 20429 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > ---> Hi Nina and all the others, > > one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had > an enlightenment experience, and like Nanavira Thera puts it > correctly: "Nobody, after all, who has not reached the path can > afford to assume that he is right about the Buddha's Teaching." > ________ Dear Lars, Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa is not enlightened? Thanks Robert 20430 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa is > not enlightened? > Thanks > Robert Hi Robert, I don't have the reference, it is stated in the article I pointed to. But apparently he wrote it in one of his commentaries. I could ask the author. Lars 20431 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James and all friends, > op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > > nest. > That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a study > with knotty points. Hi Nina, I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects directly to the person, and, more importantly, the craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take care. Metta, James ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20432 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Lars, Thanks for the quick reply. I have studied Buddhaghosa and haven't seen any reference like this. I do remember reading a different article that said the same thing but when I checked the writer had misunderstood a note added by a copyist. In the final page of the Visuddhimagga there is a note that says "by this merit may I see metteya buddha and ..realise the dispensations highest fruit." (thus attaining enligtenment in a future age). This endpiece was added by someone who carefully copied out the Visuddhimagga on to palm leaf- a major undertaking in itself. It occurs in the sri lankan editions but not the Burmese. It might be that the article you read also misunderstood this point. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa > is > > not enlightened? > > Thanks > > Robert > > Hi Robert, > I don't have the reference, it is stated in the article I pointed > to. But apparently he wrote it in one of his commentaries. I could > ask the author. > > Lars 20433 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa James, I don't mean butt into your conversation, and I hope it is neither unwelcomed nor too late, but I have a question... Who exactly is Buddhaghosa and what is his relationship to Buddhism? I did a web search for him and came up with some info on someone who wrote "commentaries" on texts back around 400C.E. Is this the guy? If so, he seems to be held in "high regard" so I, as someone very new to Buddhism, wonder if he is considered controversial or if others (even a known minority) share your insights and concerns? Since I've never heard of him, I have not read anything by him so I could not discuss/debate the accuracy of your insights. But, with the vast volumes of literature out there, I am relying somewhat on all of you here in DSG to show me where to go and where to avoid. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > Dear James and all friends, > > op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > > > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > > > nest. > > That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a > study > > with knotty points. > > Hi Nina, > > I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use > the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or > not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that > are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine > the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I > have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is > lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when > someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest > through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects > directly to the person, and, more importantly, the > craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or > speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that > doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. > I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no > matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I > know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, > using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes > back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher > matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… > there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or > evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… > written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, > things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew > this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his > writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. > Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take > care. > > Metta, James > > ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that > is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20434 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > James, > > I don't mean butt into your conversation, and I hope it is neither > unwelcomed nor too late, but I have a question... Who exactly is > Buddhaghosa and what is his relationship to Buddhism? Hi Dave, Here is scholarly information about Buddhaghosa: "BUDDHAGHOSA, ~ celebrated Buddhist writer. He was a Brahmin by birth and was born near the great Bodhi tree at Budh Gaya in north India about A.D. 390, his father's name being Kesi. His teacher, Revata, induced him to go to Ceylon, where the commentaries on the scriptures had been preserved in the Sinhalese language, with the object of translating them into Pãli. He went accordingly to Anuradhapura, studied there under Sanghapala, and asked leave of the fraternity there to translate the commentaries. With their consent he then did so, having first shown his ability by writing the work Visud-dhi Magga (the Path of Purity, a kind of summary of Buddhist doctrine). When he had completed his many years' labours he returned to the neighbourhood of the Bodhi tree in north India. Before he came to Ceylon he had already written a book entitled Nanodaya (the Rise of Knowledge), and had commenced a commentary on the principal psychological manual contained in the Pitakas. This latter work he afterwards rewrote in Ceylon, as the present text (now published by the Pall Text Society) shows. One volume of the Suman gala Vilãsin~ (a portion of the commentaries mentioned above) has been edited, and extracts from his comment on the Buddhist canon law. This last work has been discovered in a nearly comtemporaneous Chinese translation (an edition in Pali is based on a comparison with that translation). The works here mentioned form, however, only a small portion of what Buddhaghosa wrote. His industry must have been prodigious. He is known to have written books that would fill about 20 octavo volumes of about 400 pages each; and there are other writings ascribed to him which may or may not be really his work. It is too early therefore to attempt a criticism of it. But it is already clear that, when made acceptable, it will be of the greatest value for the history of Indian literature and of Indian ideas. So much is uncertain at present in that history for want of definite dates that the voluminous writings of an author whose date is approximately certain will afford a standard by which the age of other writings can be tested. And as the original commentaries in Sinhalese are now lost his works are the only evidence we have of the traditions then handed down in the Buddhist community. The main source of our information about Buddhaghosa is the Mahävamsa, written in Anuradhapura about fifty years after he was working there. But there are numerous references to him in Pali books on Pãli literature; and a Burmese author of unknown date, but possibly of the I5th century, has compiled a biography of him, the Buddhaghos' Uppaui, of little value and no critical judgment." http://74.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BU/BUDDHAGHOSA.htm As far as believing my `insights', I am not asking anyone to do that. This was a matter between Nina and me and I wouldn't have revealed this information, which I haven't done previously, except that I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts. You believe what you want and discover for yourself the truth. You should not look toward any of the members of this group, myself included, for that. Metta, James 20435 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:17pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Religion and non-self Hi James, > -----Original Message----- > From: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] > Dear Kom, > > Oops! LOL! My apologies Kom! I didn't even notice this until after > I sent off this letter. Must have been from habit of writing your > name and reading it so often. No problem. One of my highschool teachers called me Tom for mostly the entire time that I knew her. > Look on the bright side... you could > see this as an offering of a 'Fountain of Youth'. Now you have youth > and wisdom! ;-). > Those who teach the dhamma offer the undeath! kom 20437 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Way 65, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 84 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html On an object falling within reach of consciousness at the eye-door, impulsion arises right at the very end when from the movement of the life-continum onwards, the states of adverting, seeing, receiving, considering and determining, having arisen, have ceased. That impulsion is like a visitor, at the eyedoor which is comparable to a house belonging to the states of adverting and the rest mentioned above born there before the arising of impulsion. As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state. At the eye-door, the mental states that close with the state of determining arise and break up together with associated phenomena, at just those places on which they arise. They do not see each other. Therefore the mental states that close with determining are brief and temporary. There, as in a house of the dead, where here is one more to die just at that very instant, it is not proper for that one who is to die to be given to delight in dancing and singing and the like, even so, at a sense-door, when the states of adverting and the rest with associated phenomena have died just where they arose, it is not fit for the remaining impulsion that is to die shortly to take delight in anything by way of lust and the like. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood thus by way of the temporary state. [Tika] Like a visitor = Like someone come specially, a stranger [agantuka puriso viya]. [T] Visitors are of two kinds, by way of a guest, that is, a person who comes and goes, a person who does not stay permanently in a place, and by way of someone who comes specially to a place, a stranger. In this connection, one who is an acquaintance, or one who is known, is a guest. One who is not an acquaintance and is unknown, is a stranger. According to the context here a stranger is meant. [T] Since to these mental states there is just that duration limited to the process of rise-and-fall of mental phenomena, these states of mind are called temporary. And further this clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, by way of the reflection on the aggregates, bases, processes and conditions. To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; seeing is consciousness-aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? [T] Seeing = Eye-consciousness [cakkhuviññanam]. By reason of knowing the acts of looking straight on and of looking away from the front in that way only as "eye-consciousness", adverting and the rest are left out, as bare seeing only is in "eye-consciousness" [tassa vaseneva alokana vilokana paññayananto avajjanadinam agahanam]. [T] Separate from that fivefold aggregate, who, singly, looks straight on? Who, singly, looks away from the front? None, singly, only by oneself indeed, looks straight on, and none, singly, only by oneself, looks away from the front -- this reply is intended to be given to the questions. 20438 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Sarah, You make a good point about clear comprehension of resort. I hadn't picked up on it being gocara. I agree cc of resort would be whatever the object of mindfulness is but I wonder what is it not if it is whatever happens to be in your mind? These guys seemed to be very strict about not straying from the object. Would it be better to say not straying from satipatthana? Larry 20439 From: Darcy Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Hi... Greetings to all, My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce myself to the group. I'm a non-traditional university student studying history and languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, they are wise and compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a great deal, both from posts here and on a few other groups I joined. Thank you. :-) Metta, Darcy 20440 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Hi Dharam and Nina, Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of relinquishment: Visuddhimagga VIII 236: Contemplating relinquishment is of two kinds, that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relnquishment as entering into. Relinquishment itself as [a way of] contemplation is 'contemplation of relinquishment'. For insight is called both 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since [firstly] through substitution of opposite qualities it gives up defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma formations, and [secondly], through seeing the wretchedness of what is formed, it also enters into nibbana by inclining towards nibbana, which is the opposite of the formed. Also the path is called both 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since it gives up defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma-formations by cutting them off, and it enters into nibbana by making it its object. Also, Visuddhimagga I,12: Likewise the means for surmounting the states of loss is shown by "Virtue"; the means for surmounting the element of sense desires by "Concentration"; and the means for surmounting all becoming by "Understanding". And the abandoning of the defilements by substitution of opposites is shown by "Virtue"; that by suppression is shown by "Concentration"; and that by cutting off is shown by "Understanding". Larry 20442 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > You make a good point about clear comprehension of resort. I hadn't > picked up on it being gocara. ..... See another note from Nina written last month below on this for more details. ..... >I agree cc of resort would be whatever the > object of mindfulness is but I wonder what is it not if it is whatever > happens to be in your mind? ..... It must be a reality which is the object of satipatthana at that moment. It is not a concept (eg whilst day-dreaming or proliferating in thought),nor is it a reality that is unknown - eg a sound or visible object of which there is no awareness. ..... >These guys seemed to be very strict about > not straying from the object. Would it be better to say not straying > from satipatthana? ..... Often that would be so. There are also many references to samatha and in those instances the gocara (field, resort, object) is the concept usually and object of samatha. So one has to check the context carefully. I don't have the text for the reference you raised in front of me now. I think this is a good topic to pursue and relevant to daily life. Let me know how it sounds to date, Larry. Metta, Sarah ===== Nina’s earlier post: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the > Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, p. 61 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > There are these four kinds of comprehension: clear comprehension of > purpose [satthaka sampajañña], of suitability [sappaya > sampajañña], of resort [gocara sampajañña], and of non-delusion > [asammoha sampajañña]. > The clear comprehension of the (mental) > resort which is called the subject of meditation that is unrelinquished, > in going backwards and forwards on the alms resort and elsewhere, is the > clear comprehension of resort. Nina: gocara sampajañña, gocara is the object of right understanding. Any object appearing through the six doors, this is the kammatthana. As we read:< the subject of meditation that is unrelinquished,in going backwards and forwards>. Here, in this case, the monk does not sit, closes his eyes and concentrates. The monk is going about. We study the Co so that we have more understanding of what is implied in the sutta. I think we should not forget the sutta text when studying thecommentary and frequently go back to it. I am inclined to forget this. ================================================ 20443 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Mike & Dharam (and others), > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:12 AM > > > D: It seems that other > > teachings also have suffering and its > resolution/salvation as > > important endeavors. > > D: Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > > this existence is presumably one reason for the > popularity of so many > > (all?) religious teachings. > > > D: However, if this unsatisfactory state > > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble > truths, then > > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. > > Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, > the only of the four noble > truths that fits in fairly well with the > understanding of suffering to be > found in other teachings (well--minus the five > aggregates bit): > From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know about death being suffering, illness being suffering, parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's profound? The truth of suffering, as taught by the Buddha, is profound beyond the conventional suffering that we understand, and what other wise people may have noticed. This is a truth taught only by a Sammasam-buddha, the Enlightened one, the Perfected one. Right now, the truth of suffering is going on all around us, do we know them as they truly are? Seeing is suffering. Do we know it, truly, that seeing is suffering? Happiness is suffering. How is that a suffering? Hey, we all learn and understand that seeing doesn't last, which is why it is suffering. But the understanding at the thinking level alone doesn't bring us closer to nibbana. We must know the truth as it truly is. But what is this truth? When we study the teaching of the Buddha, we are studying sacca dhamma, the ultimate, absolute truth. The truth is ultimate for it is indisputable, by way of having its own distinct characteristic. Anger is anger is anger, and never kindness or righteousness. We are studying what is real, what cannot be denied. What kind of "truth" can be denied? What kind of truth cannot? For example, I live in America, therefore, I am a free man (this example often brings me sniggering...). Is being this free man a truth that cannot be denied? An anarchist probably would laugh at this statement. How can I be free with all the constraints placed on me by the laws? (And what part of this 5 aggregates that I call a man anyway?) The truth as taught by the Buddha is not subjective like this truth. Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they are, and how very little we really know about them, then we begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound and unique to the Buddha's teachings. kom 20444 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi Howard, Good to see you around again;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote:> > Formulations aside, I'd like to pursue a bit the object of > bhavanga > cittas, said to be the object of rebirth consciousness. > Exactly what sort of "object" is this which, even when > experienced by > the cittas in a lengthy process of bhavanga cittas, is unobserved? What > sort > of object of consciousness is it that one is not conscious of? ..... Of course, the bhavanga cittas are ‘conscious’ of the object, but as I understand, it is never taken as object of sati except of course for the Buddha and I’ve no idea whether anyone else. Someone may know. Details of the different kinds of object are given in the texts - I can add more detail later if you’re interested or Rob M may. ..... It > strikes me > that if there is any validity to this notion, then bhavanga cittas must > correspond to what Psychology since Jung and Freud has called > "subconscious". ..... I don’t think so. Bhavanga cittas are not “subconscious” and don’t last or arise at the same time or under the surface of other cittas. A stream of cittas that is interrupted by a sense-door or mind-door process is a way they are often presented. ..... > If this is so, it occurs to me that there might be a relation between > this > topic and that of groups of co-occurring rupas, or "kalapas". ..... This is another topic again. Rupas are only experienced during the sense-door and mind-door processes so are not experienced by the bhavanga cittas. There are always relations or interconnectedness, i.e reasons for the exact sequence and arising of various cittas and rupas experienced, but not the kind of relationship you’re implying as far as I know. > **************************************************** > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the > discernment of > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the > occasion of > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - > the > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > but > one are subliminal? ..... I wouldn’t put it this way. Like with the tree outside your window when there is no looking, one cannot say the rupas are subliminal. Simply, there are no conditions for seeing to see that visible object, or body consciousness to feel the hardness of the tree and so on. In the same way, rupas arising are supported by other rupas in a kalapa, but it depends on conditions what is experienced at any given moment. In the Way corner recently we read about the predominance of certain rupas whilst walking- eg predominance of earth element whilst lowering the foot and air element while lifting it. It just depends whether there is any awareness of what ‘appears’, but the rupas arise and fall regardless. You ask some other detailed qus on odour and colour, but I need to check your other post first and get back later (unless someone else like ~KOM~ can help out in the meantime) because I’m out of time til the beginning of next week. Howard, I’m delighted to see your keen consideration of this important but complex points. I’m afraid this is a bit rushed as I have students due any minute. Pls let us know how this sounds so far anyway. Hope you and Rita are not missing baby Sarah too much if you’re back in NY;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20445 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:02am Subject: Madhura and Ghotamukha Suttas Dear Group, I wondered when I read the Madhura sutta MN 84 and the Ghotamukha Sutta MN 94 how they came to be included in the Majjhima Nikaya if they were composed after the Buddha's passing? Are there others like this? They both begin with the words "(Evam me suttam) Thus have I heard ..." which was, I thought, an authentication of the text and signified suttas heard from the lips of the Blessed One. Am I on the wrong track? metta, Christine 20446 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:03am Subject: Re: New poll for dhammastudygroup Hi, The poll is deleted upon moderators' request. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > Victor > > Polls such as this are off-topic for DSG. Grateful if you would > delete it. Thanks. > > This thread is now closed. Any comments off-list only, please. > > Jon & Sarah 20447 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I find your message interesting and wonder if you can clarify the following points: 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Mike & Dharam (and others), > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:12 AM > > > > > D: It seems that other > > > teachings also have suffering and its > > resolution/salvation as > > > important endeavors. > > > > D: Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > > > this existence is presumably one reason for the > > popularity of so many > > > (all?) religious teachings. > > > > > > D: However, if this unsatisfactory state > > > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble > > truths, then > > > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. > > > > Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, > > the only of the four noble > > truths that fits in fairly well with the > > understanding of suffering to be > > found in other teachings (well--minus the five > > aggregates bit): > > > > From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are > hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find > this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know > about death being suffering, illness being suffering, > parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment > brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would > agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's > profound? > > The truth of suffering, as taught by the Buddha, is profound > beyond the conventional suffering that we understand, and > what other wise people may have noticed. This is a truth > taught only by a Sammasam-buddha, the Enlightened one, the > Perfected one. > > Right now, the truth of suffering is going on all around us, > do we know them as they truly are? Seeing is suffering. Do > we know it, truly, that seeing is suffering? Happiness is > suffering. How is that a suffering? Hey, we all learn and > understand that seeing doesn't last, which is why it is > suffering. But the understanding at the thinking level > alone doesn't bring us closer to nibbana. We must know the > truth as it truly is. But what is this truth? > > When we study the teaching of the Buddha, we are studying > sacca dhamma, the ultimate, absolute truth. The truth is > ultimate for it is indisputable, by way of having its own > distinct characteristic. Anger is anger is anger, and never > kindness or righteousness. We are studying what is real, > what cannot be denied. > > What kind of "truth" can be denied? What kind of truth > cannot? For example, I live in America, therefore, I am a > free man (this example often brings me sniggering...). Is > being this free man a truth that cannot be denied? An > anarchist probably would laugh at this statement. How can I > be free with all the constraints placed on me by the laws? > (And what part of this 5 aggregates that I call a man > anyway?) The truth as taught by the Buddha is not > subjective like this truth. > > Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely > exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or > mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably > that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth > taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute > truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what > they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very > profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense > bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we > begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they > are, and how very little we really know about them, then we > begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound > and unique to the Buddha's teachings. > > kom 20448 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: A Reply --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > This letter (No:20206) explains better, but what do > you mean by writing too fast? Also you write "just a > bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but > will be something else later on." Please explain this. > > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet! I am glad that you understand better from my other letter; but I see now you are going to put me to a big test! I was hoping that you wouldn't ask me to explain the phrase, "just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on," and I am not sure if I will be able to in a way you will understand, but I will try. This is a very difficult thing to explain using simple words. Regarding your first question, about me writing quickly, if I write very quickly I use big words that have a lot of meaning for each word. This is just being lazy on my part because it allows me to use fewer words and to not have to explain things in fine detail. I can assume that the reader's mind will put together what I haven't bothered to explain. This works great with adults because they blame themselves if they don't understand the message ;-), but it doesn't work with kids because they blame the writer for not being specific enough…which is where the blame really belongs. I forgot this and wrote too fast in a few of the letters to the Star Kids. I will stop doing that. However, sometimes an idea or concept is so complicated and hard to understand that it is very difficult to explain using simple words. This concept that you ask about is like that, but I will try my best to only use simple words. Janet, I am sure that you have learned that our solar system has different planets in it. You could probably even tell me the nine planets by name. And I hope that you also know that the only planet with living creatures and plants on it is Earth. Do you know why it is the only planet with life on it? Because it is the only planet that has all of the right conditions for life: not too close or too far from the sun, oxygen, and water. All of these things are the conditions that allow for life to be on this planet. If you took one of those conditions away, there would be no more life on this planet. But the story doesn't end there because there are also conditions that allow for each individual person, plant, and animal to exist. You can kind of think of yourself, your parents, and your friends just like they are individual planets, planets that can think and feel, but still planets that exist because of certain conditions. Now, do you know why there are planets? There are planets because energy comes together, in the form of matter (like dirt), and it creates gravity. This gravity attracts other energy in the form of matter, more and more, and it will eventually create a whole planet. Well, according to Buddhism, what forms people (and plants and animals) is ignorance. What happens is that energy comes together and it is a special type of energy that has awareness. When it has this awareness it may perceive of itself that it isn't energy that came together at all, it sees itself as a complete and lasting thing which shouldn't end. It doesn't want to end. This is the ignorance of that energy. This ignorance will attract other energy that forms the body, mind and feelings. According to Buddhism, this ignorance will create five things that made up the person: form (body), feeling, perception, fabrications (thoughts), and consciousness. But, just as planets don't last forever, but gravity does if given the right conditions, our bodies don't last forever, but the ignorance that created them can continue on. This ignorance will create body after body until it finally sees itself for what it truly is…and what it truly is is `no self' (anatta). When it sees this, the ignorance that formed body after body stops, and the awareness of this energy knows Nibbana (enlightenment) and will then be aware of everything in the universe. Okay, this is quite a bit of information I realize. What the Buddha taught is that this cannot be really known with the ignorant mind, it has to be seen directly with pure awareness. That is the only way to stop the ignorance and become free. I am not sure if you are going to understand this explanation, but if you don't that is okay. Maybe one day you will. Take care and study hard in school. Love, James 20449 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > I find your message interesting and wonder if you > can clarify the > following points: > > 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > Regards, > Victor > The original message already has my understanding on the two questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding the conventional truth of suffering would be: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I think most people, regardless of what belief they have, would agree to these statements. kom 20450 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Nina, I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause frustration. N: I am just thinking of one aspect, one reason for disillusionment: it takes a long time of development and when people do not see any result they become impatient. D: Impatience may indeed be an important cause of disillusionment. Perhaps those who feel this can chime in with what they think is operating. Nina, I ought to clarify that I myself have not felt disillusionment or impatience, with any of the different understandings, including the Dhamma, that I have been fortunate to come across. It occurs that dis-illusion-ment is itself actually an important precept of all the religions arising from advanced Indian minds. All of them emphasize the necessity of shedding illusions of samsara! They do use different approaches. Some observers emphasize the differences, some the similarities. [Perhaps the words disgruntlement or disappointment are better than disillusionment in the context of my earlier observation about recent messages on dsg? Sorry for the nomenclatural clumsiness!] With respect, u.w. dharam 20451 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:06am Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/21/03 2:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard, I’m delighted to see your keen consideration of this important but > complex points. I’m afraid this is a bit rushed as I have students due any > minute. Pls let us know how this sounds so far anyway. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand and appreciate your reply. It points out to me a possible area in which the Abhidhamma "position" might not be a phenomenalist one, which is, of course, a fact that is interesting to me. ------------------------------------------------ > > Hope you and Rita are not missing baby Sarah too much if you’re back in > NY;-) > ========================= We ARE missing her. (But we'll manage! ;-) 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) 20452 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Sarah, Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. I agree that gaining and relinquishing demonstrate a preoccupation with self. That is the correct diagnosis, but clinging is probably present in most people trying to make their way in various religions. The pity is that their not fully understanding this factor may prevent them from going the 'full distance', and therefore prematurely jump ship. I like the extension of the gardener analogy to diminishing blindness - it helpfully further develops the model. I think it is a useful representation of the journey fo understanding. I think I hold more utility for describing structure to the blind than you may, particularly if it tries to represent 'reality' and therefore prevent the blind person from bumping, tripping or slamming into some of those 'realities'. S: When it comes to the development of understanding of the Buddha's Teachings, there is no self that can control the process, no one to sign a deal with and no consent to be given. As people have been discussing, most of us come from different religious and cultural backgrounds and are here discussing the Dhamma in spite of other intentions, agreements and in spite of periods of disillusionment, despair and so on. D: I (think I)understand what you say about Anatta here. However, how many really pursue the Buddha's Teachings with that clearly in perspective all along? I do not mean to underestimate others, but ask this question honestly and humbly. There is a necessary distance between theory and practice until the later stages. It is during these earlier stages, where the risk for disgruntlement may arise. I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel this, although I would be interested to find out their views. It may be that many people approach religions (this and others) looking for refuge. My point is just that, they risk disgruntlement, if there is not some degree of understanding about the necessary changes in mentality in seeking that refuge. Sarah, thanks for a very stimulating and instructive conversation. metta u.w. dharam 20453 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Hi Larry, Perfect!! Thank you very, very much for these passages. This is crystal clear and just right. It clarifies relinquishing, in the final sense, but also the prior contemplation of it. Great. u.w. dharam --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Dharam and Nina, > > Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for > disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of > relinquishment: > > Visuddhimagga VIII 236: Contemplating relinquishment is of two kinds, > that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relnquishment as > entering into. Relinquishment itself as [a way of] contemplation is > 'contemplation of relinquishment'. For insight is called both > 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' > since [firstly] through substitution of opposite qualities it gives up > defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma formations, and > [secondly], through seeing the wretchedness of what is formed, it also > enters into nibbana by inclining towards nibbana, which is the opposite > of the formed. Also the path is called both 'relinquishment as giving > up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since it gives up defilements > with their aggregate-producing kamma-formations by cutting them off, and > it enters into nibbana by making it its object. > > Also, > > Visuddhimagga I,12: Likewise the means for surmounting the states of > loss is shown by "Virtue"; the means for surmounting the element of > sense desires by "Concentration"; and the means for surmounting all > becoming by "Understanding". > > And the abandoning of the defilements by substitution of opposites is > shown by "Virtue"; that by suppression is shown by "Concentration"; and > that by cutting off is shown by "Understanding". > > Larry 20454 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi, Kom (and Victor) - In a message dated 3/21/03 10:40:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Victor, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > > > >Hi Kom, > > > >I find your message interesting and wonder if you > >can clarify the > >following points: > > > >1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > > >2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > > >Regards, > >Victor > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, > pain, grief, &despair are dukkha; association with the > unbeloved is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > wanted is dukkha. > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > would agree to these statements. > > kom > > > ============================= It occurs to me that there is something a bit unclear in the the use of the terms 'conventional truth' and 'conventional speech'. The reason is that *all* speech is conventional. Every language and all language usage is a convention or set of conventions. And any "truth" is a declarative statement in a language that, in some sense, is understood, by convention, by common agreement, to accord with "the way things are". So, I think that the notions of conventional speech and conventional truth need to be pursued and clarified a bit. It does seem that one can make a distinction, though some will doubt this, between merely imagined phenomena that are the intended referents of well grounded but mind-constructed notions such as trees, cars, people, houses, systems of philosophy, religions, and, in fact, all the supposed entities that we seem to experience and think about all the time, on the one hand, and actually and directly experienced phenomena such as images, sounds, textures, feelings, etc out of which the mind constructs the aforementioned entity-ideas, on the other hand. If one agrees to this, then it makes sense to speak of sammuti-dhammas (the well grounded but not-actually existent phenomena that make up out world! ;-), versus the paramattha-dhammas that are actual and direct elements of experience. Now we can and do have concepts and words for "objects" of both types. Perhaps we can then define conventional speech (sammuti-sacca) to be speech making use of sammuti-dhamma terms, and conventional truths to be conventional-speech statements that are true. The trouble with this, however, is that it seems that *all* of our speech will involve at least *some* talk of sammuti-dhammas, and, thus, all speech and all truth, as defined here, is at least in part conventional. 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) 20455 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:46am Subject: Re: [Pali] sanna, perception, aperception, consciousness cognizing I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q & a) p. 389 b.bodhi version: "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them." also, on p. 388, on the section of consciousness: "what does it cognize? It cognizes 'this is pleasant'; it cognizes: 'this is painful'; it cognizes: 'this is neither painful nor pleasant' commnent: Seems like the sutta is implying the primary function of vinnana is to differentiate the 3 types of feeling, rather than just a bare awareness of the 6 types of external media coming into contact with the 6 internal sense organs. 20456 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 7 Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 7 We read in the ³Paramatthadípaní², the Commentary to the ³Verses of Uplift² (Udåna), Khuddaka Nikåya, the following explanation of this Sutta [6] : ... Or else there is no one who is clean, no being said to be purified from the stain of evil, through the aforementioned water. Why? Or abundant folk would bathe here. For were there that which is known as purity from evil through submersion in the water and so on as aforementioned, abundant folk would bathe here in the water, just as there would be purity from evil for them all- for the one performing evil acts such as matricide and so on, as well as for any other (creature) upwards from and including fish and tortoises even, such as cows and buffaloes and so forth; but this is not the case. Why? On account of bathing not being an opponent of the root-causes of evil. For surely (something can only be said to be) an opponent of that which it destroys, as is light that of darkness, and knowledge that of ignorance- bathing being no such (opponent) of evil. Therefore the conclusion has to be reached that ³There is no being clean through water². He then says ³In whom there be truth² and so on to indicate the means by which there is, rather, being clean. Herein, In whom (yamhi): in the person in whom. There be truth (saccam): there be both telling the truth and truth as abstinence (from lying speech). Or alternatively there be that which is true (saccam): there be both that which is true in the form of knowledge and that which is true in its highest sense [7] . Dhamma (dhammo): Dhamma in the form of the ariyan paths and Dhamma in the form of their fruitions; in the person in whom all of this is discovered- that is the one who is clean and that is the one who is the brahmin (so suci so ca bråhmano): that ariyapuggala, especially the one in whom the åsavas have been destroyed, is the one who, by way of a purity that is perpetual, clean and the brahmin. But why, in this connection, is truth included separately from Dhamma? On account of the fact of truth being of great service. For instance, the virtues of truth are made manifest in countless sutta passages. The Commentary then refers to different sutta passages, such as: ³Truth is indeed the Deathless word²; ³Truth is, for sure, the sweetest of flavours²; ³In truth, and in the goal and in the Dhamma, are the good established²; and ³Whilst brahmin recluses stationed in the truth² and so on; whilst that which is the converse of the truth is made manifest by way of ³For the person who has transgressed, who is of lying speech, who gets not (even) one thing right² and ³The one who speaks of what did not take place goes to hell² and so forth. The perfection of truthfulness should be developed together with paññå so that the noble Truths can be realized. We need courage so that we are diligent and turn away immediately from akusala. If we are too slow in turning away from akusala, it will later on become more difficult or even too late to do so, as must have happened life after life. Footnotes: 6. This is the Commentary of Achåriya Dhammapala, translated by P. Masefield. Dhammapala is the author of several Commentaries and Subcommentaries, including those to the Commentaries of Buddhaghosa. 7. Truth of paññå, ñåna saccam, and paramattha saccam, ultimate truth. 20457 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James, newcomers and other friends, James, I appreciate the info you gave about Buddhaghosa. It is very nice you did that although you are not a fan of Buddhaghosa. It is useful for the newcomers. You wrote:< I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts.> I would like you to feel confortable and at ease on this list. Do not think of hornels anymore. I want you to feel safe. I just have an observation. You wrote: I think you refer to English editions here, not to Pali. Because I have the whole Sumangala Vilaasinii in Pali here at hand. I have several other co in Pali and quite a number in Thai. He wrote or rather compiled, commentaries to the whole of the Suttanta, the Vinaya, and to the Abhidhamma pitaka. I wholeheartedly agree with what you say: you have to check for yourself what you learn from the scriptures and commentaries. More important than any historical argument. For me the outcome is the opposite to what you experience, but that does not matter. ______________________ This may be of some interest to the newcomers: The more I study the more benefit I get also from the commentaries. I did not know this before, but now with my Pali study I read more and more commentary. For me personally it is an enormous help and reminder for awareness of the elements, the khandhas, the aayatanas, and these are in fact only mental phenomena, nama, and physical phenomena, rupa. So often a sutta passage is very short and may not be clear. I take up the Co and it is clarified. As I said before: surprises every day. Sutta reading is not easy, they are impressive but very compact. I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the Abhidhamma and without the development of vipassana, even if it is only a beginning. And without the commentaries, I see them all in conformity with each other, more and more. At first I did not read commentaries, but in Thailand the suttas are edited each followed by its commentary. I started to buy them every time I was in Thailand. Acharn Sujin, my good friend in the Dhamma in Thailand, also quoted a lot from Co and subco, and gradually I saw their benefit. I did not mean to get so involved with my Pali study and the Pali yahoo list, but it just happened by conditions. Does not everything we think and do proceed according to conditions? And we never know the future. _______________________ James, as I said before, I like very much the way you explain to the Starkids what Buddhism is all about. I am thinking of the newcomers here who might be overwhelmed by Pali terms we use. What you say is very basic. With appreciation, Nina. op 20-03-2003 22:02 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use > the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or > not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that > are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine > the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I > have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is > lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when > someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest > through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects > directly to the person, and, more importantly, the > craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or > speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that > doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. > I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no > matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I > know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, > using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes > back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher > matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… > there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or > evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… > written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, > things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew > this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his > writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. > Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take > care. > > Metta, James > > ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that > is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20458 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: groups of rupa Dear Howard, I appreciate it that you study rupas thoroughly. See below. op 20-03-2003 14:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise > together are called the ³inseparable rupas² (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). > Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, > motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible > object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. It > is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a > person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. > **************************************************** > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion of > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all but > one are subliminal? N: Right, only one rupa at a time is object. Rupas do not float in the air, they do not arise singly. Colour for instance needs the support of the four great elements and other rupas. For example solidity is needed as the foundation of colour. The other rupas in that group are not experienced. I would not use the word subliminal. They are by conditions not objects. It is amazing that certain conditions concur so that a particular object is experienced. For the experience of colour there has to be the coming together of colour and eyesense at the right moment. That is, eyesense rupa must have only just arisen before and still lasting for several moments before it falls away. The same for colour. By conditions these come together and then there is seeing. And the rupas that coarise with colour are not experienced, although they are in one group. H: I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so that > there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > being claimed here. N: We should reduce the qu to: why are there these particular rupas in one kalapa. It has helped me to think in the conventional term of table, this is just an illustration. Table consists of many groups of rupa. When touched, there is the right condition for tangible object: three of the four great elements: solidity, temperature and motion. When I lick the table there is flavour, when smelling, there is odour. There is nutrition: woodworms can eat it. There is colour: the colour can be seen. There is cohesion: it holds the rupas of the table together. Eight kinds of rupas. In the body there are also groups consisting of more than eight. Eyesense is produced by kamma, and it has more than eight. But as I said, only one of them can be experienced at a time. Each citta can experience one object. Either odor, or visible object, or hardness, it all depends on conditions. It is not possible to know all the reasons for what is happening. Kamma conditions you to have this or that experience through one of the senses. it may not be the right time for seeing, but it may be time for hearing. Nina. 20459 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Lars, op 20-03-2003 21:23 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > > one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had > an enlightenment experience, N: I understood this also. Still, I find Buddhaghosa's compilations of old material most helpful, as I wrote. You can see the Co to Rahulovaadasutta I trnls. bit by bit, and next week about sila, samadhi, panna. Nina. 20460 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Larry, op 21-03-2003 02:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for > disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of > relinquishment: N: these are the highest insight knowledges, result of a long, long development. Shall we not rather keep it simple: what is dhamma in our life now? If we do not overreach no reason for disillusionment. Nina 20461 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I think what you stated is the Noble Truth of suffering. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > > > > Hi Kom, > > > > I find your message interesting and wonder if you > > can clarify the > > following points: > > > > 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > > > 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the > unbeloved is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > wanted is dukkha. > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > would agree to these statements. > > kom 20462 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [Pali] sanna, perception, aperception, consciousness cognizing Hi, Frank - In a message dated 3/21/03 12:47:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, fcckuan@y... writes: > I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: > > M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q &a) > > p. 389 b.bodhi version: > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - > these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what > one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these > states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > them." > > also, on p. 388, on the section of consciousness: > "what does it cognize? It cognizes 'this is pleasant'; > it cognizes: 'this is painful'; it cognizes: 'this is > neither painful nor pleasant' > > commnent: > Seems like the sutta is implying the primary function > of vinnana is to differentiate the 3 types of feeling, > rather than just a bare awareness of the 6 types of > external media coming into contact with the 6 internal > sense organs. > ============================ I'm not so sure about this. In dependent arising, we have the following: vi~n~nana -> namarupa -> salayatana -> phassa -> vedana Also, elsewhere, in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, we have vi~n~nana and namarupa being mutually dependent; so vi~n~nana would be the discernment of any materiality or mentality, and not just feelings. Actually, vi~n~nana emerges and reemerges multiple times within a short span of time, now discerning sights, now sounds, and now feelings, thoughts, inclinations and other objects through the mind door. Also, from the Honeyball Sutta, there is the following: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." Now in this case, and this may relate to the sutta you quoted, we have the conditionality-chain: feeling -> perception (or recognition) -> thinking. It seems to me that the feeling arose from an initial discernment (as in the paticcasamupada-chain I gave at the beginning of this post), but the thinking mentioned here involves a reemergence of discernment through the mind-door and which takes as object the original one but now affected by vedana - and that will result in subseqent craving (or aversion) for the object. 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) 20463 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom and all, In addition to the last message, I don't think the word "conventional" or "ultimate" is an accurate modifier for the Four Noble Truths. The four Truths: the truth of dukkha, the truth of the cause of dukkha, the truth of the cessation of dukkha, the truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha, are noble. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Kom, > > I think what you stated is the Noble Truth of suffering. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Dear Victor, [snip] > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > > lamentation, > > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the > > unbeloved is dukkha; > > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > > wanted is dukkha. > > > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > > would agree to these statements. > > > > kom 20464 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 0:06pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, newcomers and other friends, Hi Nina, I will reply in-text to your comments: Dear James, newcomers and other friends, James, I appreciate the info you gave about Buddhaghosa. It is very nice you did that although you are not a fan of Buddhaghosa. (James: I was asked directly who he was, by a very nice and sincere person, so I obliged with the information. I do not hold grudges against Buddhaghosa, personally; he had his own reasons why he did what he did. I wish that I could make it clear to everyone that when I oppose a person's stance on dhamma issues, I am not opposing him or her as a person. But, yet again, that is an assumption you have made about me. Please don't assume this about me.) It is useful for the newcomers. (James: Yes, so that they may reach their own conclusions. I would never dream of keeping people away from Buddhaghosa because I disagreed with him…on some issues. I encourage people to study him...with a skeptical eye.) You wrote:< I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts.> I would like you to feel confortable and at ease on this list. Do not think of hornels anymore. I want you to feel safe. (James: I believe that you are sincere, here. That is a start.) I just have an observation. You wrote: I think you refer to English editions here, not to Pali. Because I have the whole Sumangala Vilaasinii in Pali here at hand. I have several other co in Pali and quite a number in Thai. He wrote or rather compiled, commentaries to the whole of the Suttanta, the Vinaya, and to the Abhidhamma pitaka. (James: There is some confusion here. About this information about Buddhaghosa, I didn't write it. I thought I had made this clear by putting it in quote marks with a link to the Internet source at the bottom, but perhaps I should have also introduced the source at the beginning. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you can bring up these issues with the author and ask him to change the material on the website after you present your input.) I wholeheartedly agree with what you say: you have to check for yourself what you learn from the scriptures and commentaries. More important than any historical argument. For me the outcome is the opposite to what you experience, but that does not matter. (James: Yes, that does not matter. However, this sentiment doesn't completely correspond with some of what you write in the following section.) ______________________ This may be of some interest to the newcomers: The more I study the more benefit I get also from the commentaries. I did not know this before, but now with my Pali study I read more and more commentary. For me personally it is an enormous help and reminder for awareness of the elements, the khandhas, the aayatanas, and these are in fact only mental phenomena, nama, and physical phenomena, rupa. So often a sutta passage is very short and may not be clear. (James: For those with panna [higher wisdom], it will be clear enough.) I take up the Co and it is clarified. (James: Or misinterpreted...but not always.) As I said before: surprises every day. Sutta reading is not easy, they are impressive but very compact. (James: No one said that Buddhism should be easy. IMO, it is better to struggle individually with each sutta to find meaning rather than going to read what someone else thinks about it…and then assume that their interpretation is correct because it is ancient and written in Pali. You will also be surprised by the depth and the wonders of the suttas and the surprises they can offer everyday. What you don't understand one day, will become amazingly clear on another day.) I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the Abhidhamma (James: This I completely disagree with.) and without the development of vipassana, (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and shouldn't be placed together so casually.) even if it is only a beginning. And without the commentaries, I see them all in conformity with each other, more and more. (James: And why is this bad? The suttas should conform to each other… they are each saying the same things in different ways. Each one is like a microcosm of them all. This is their wisdom…truly understand one and you will understand them all. They are wholistic. The Abhidhamma and commentaries aren't like this. They are linear in thought. Is it possible to describe a non-linear concept in a linear fashion? Personally, I think a great deal is lost when you attempt that.) At first I did not read commentaries, but in Thailand the suttas are edited each followed by its commentary. I started to buy them every time I was in Thailand. Acharn Sujin, my good friend in the Dhamma in Thailand, also quoted a lot from Co and subco, and gradually I saw their benefit. I did not mean to get so involved with my Pali study and the Pali yahoo list, but it just happened by conditions. Does not everything we think and do proceed according to conditions? And we never know the future. _______________________ James, as I said before, I like very much the way you explain to the Starkids what Buddhism is all about. I am thinking of the newcomers here who might be overwhelmed by Pali terms we use. What you say is very basic. (James: Thank you for this compliment. I know what you mean and it doesn't bother me...to be of help, that is.... With appreciation, Nina. Metta, James 20465 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groups of rupa Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/21/03 1:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > I appreciate it that you study rupas thoroughly. See below. > op 20-03-2003 14:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise > >together are called the ³inseparable rupas² (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). > >Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, > >motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible > >object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. > It > >is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a > >person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. > >**************************************************** > >Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of > >a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > >single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion > of > >a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > >including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the > >discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > but > >one are subliminal? > > N: Right, only one rupa at a time is object. Rupas do not float in the air, > they do not arise singly. Colour for instance needs the support of the four > great elements and other rupas. For example solidity is needed as the > foundation of colour. The other rupas in that group are not experienced. I > would not use the word subliminal. They are by conditions not objects. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand all of these things as conditions. But I don't conceive of conditions as just "hanging out" in some alleged external world. I see conditions as arising either as actualities which are discerned or as potentialities for future discernment pending the arising of appropriate conditions supportive of their discernment. These latter presently-unobserved conditions are what I CALL "subliminal", but probably the term 'subliminal' isn't really appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------ > It is amazing that certain conditions concur so that a particular object is > experienced. For the experience of colour there has to be the coming > together of colour and eyesense at the right moment. That is, eyesense rupa > must have only just arisen before and still lasting for several moments > before it falls away. The same for colour. By conditions these come > together > and then there is seeing. And the rupas that coarise with colour are not > experienced, although they are in one group. > H: I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > >in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > >experience doesn't seem to be?r that out. (If we close our nostrils, so > that > >there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > >being claimed here. > N: We should reduce the qu to: why are there these particular rupas in one > kalapa. It has helped me to think in the conventional term of table, this is > > just an illustration. Table consists of many groups of rupa. When touched, > there is the right condition for tangible object: three of the four great > elements: solidity, temperature and motion. When I lick the table there is > flavour, when smelling, there is odour. There is nutrition: woodworms can > eat it. There is colour: the colour can be seen. There is cohesion: it > holds > the rupas of the table together. Eight kinds of rupas. In the body there > are > also groups consisting of more than eight. Eyesense is produced by kamma, > and it has more than eight. But as I said, only one of them can be > experienced at a time. Each citta can experience one object. > Either odor, or visible object, or hardness, it all depends on conditions. > It is not possible to know all the reasons for what is happening. Kamma > conditions you to have this or that experience through one of the senses. > it > may not be the right time for seeing, but it may be time for hearing. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree that it can be helpful to think about this matter in terms of a conventional object "out there", such as a table (or that "tree in my garden"! ;-), but it can also be misleading. The conventional object, when based on a well-grounded concept, corresponds to a multitude of interrelated paramattha dhammas, a structured network of interrelated phenomena, but is, in fact, not an existent. The danger in using it to think about kalapas, as I see it, is that it tends to make us believe that such an "object" is a true external existent in which the conditions inhere, whereas the reality (it seems) is merely that the conditions co-occur and are interrelated in lawfully describable ways. It helps me to think about the matter, instead, in terms of co-occurring conditions, some actual (i.e., objects of current discernment) and others potential (awaiting, as it were, the arising of conditions appropriate for their discernment). Perhaps one could think of the potential conditions as not-yet-sprouted kammic seeds. ----------------------------------------------------------- > Nina. > =============================== 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) 20466 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:12pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > NIna:I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the > Abhidhamma > (James: This I completely disagree with.) > >NINA: and without the development of vipassana, > (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of > the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something > disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and > accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with > the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and > shouldn't be placed together so casually.) > > ____________________________ Dear James, Nina didn't explain all the reasons for her statement but I thought you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: """Vipassana is a method of wisdom that searches for truth and peace in diverse ways by observing, inquiring into, and penetrating the nature, the essence, the set order, the absence of being, the selflessness and the ultimately reality of mind and matter. ..... that is, the seeking out and penetration of reality, relies on an ascent through the seven purifications. In both instances, Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical. Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished. Since at the very least one would have to say that there can be no Vipassana without an understanding of mind and matter, surely then it is not possible to separate Abhidhamma and Vipassana.""" http://www.abhidhamma.org/sitagu%20sayadaw.htm RobertK 20467 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > Dear James, > Nina didn't explain all the reasons for her statement but I thought > you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable > Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: < Hi Robert K., I am aware of this quote by Sayadaw (I think it has been quoted before on this list), and I consider it using the same `bait and switch' technique I described. What is written in the Abhidhamma cannot be directly compared to the direct experience of vipassana, it is ridiculous to even state such a thing with the confidence that Sayadaw presents. It is like stating that the written description of eating a meal is just like the actual experience of eating the meal. They cannot be compared and they are not the same thing. The Lord Buddha didn't say, "Listen Monks, you have a choice. You can either meditate and experience reality directly, or you can read the Abhidhamma and get the same experience. I know that some of you aren't keen on meditation, so I am going to give you this choice." It really doesn't work that way. There are no short-cuts. Thank you for pointing this out, however; and I don't mean to imply that you or Nina are purposefully trying to mislead people. But I believe you are doing just that unintentionally. I will present an alternative viewpoint and then we can let members decide for themselves. Metta, James 20468 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:58pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:04 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom and all, > > In addition to the last message, I don't think the > word "conventional" or "ultimate" is an accurate modifier for the > Four Noble Truths. > > The four Truths: the truth of dukkha, the truth of the cause of > dukkha, the truth of the cessation of dukkha, the truth of the way > leading to the cessation of dukkha, are noble. > > Regards, > Victor > I think it is not merely words we want to distinguish, it is the understanding that we aim to bring about. In that sense, I think Howard's explanation elucidates the distinctions between what we can say as conventional and as paramatha. What do you think, Victor? Do you disagree with what Howard explains? Do you disagree on the labelling, or the content, or both? kom 20469 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:13pm Subject: RE: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Dear Howard and Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > > **************************************************** > > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the > > discernment of > > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > > > > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the > > occasion of > > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - > > the > > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > > but > > one are subliminal? > ..... > I wouldn’t put it this way. Like with the tree outside your window when > there is no looking, one cannot say the rupas are subliminal. Simply, > there are no conditions for seeing to see that visible object, or body > consciousness to feel the hardness of the tree and so on. > > In the same way, rupas arising are supported by other rupas in a kalapa, > but it depends on conditions what is experienced at any given moment. In > the Way corner recently we read about the predominance of certain rupas > whilst walking- eg predominance of earth element whilst lowering the foot > and air element while lifting it. It just depends whether there is any > awareness of what ‘appears’, but the rupas arise and fall regardless. > > You ask some other detailed qus on odour and colour, but I need to check > your other post first and get back later (unless someone else like ~KOM~ > can help out in the meantime) because I’m out of time til the beginning of > next week. > As far as I understand it, the citta (and its conascent cetasikas) experiences a single paramatha characteristic at any point of time. So, when odour is experienced, a single characteristic is appearing, even if odour cannot arise by itself---it has to arise with other rupas (as Howard mentioned) also. As far as I understand, there is no subliminal experience of the citta, a citta experiences a single thing, and not anything else at that moment. However, given the speed of the mind, the next series of citta may be experiencing something else. I *speculate* that one of the thing we call subliminal is something that the citta experiences, but we don't conceptualize on what is experienced heavily yet. For example, sometimes I hear somebody speaking, but I don't know the meaning of the speech yet. But once they sound stops, I think back on the sound and conceptualize on the meaning. I think the citta experiences all kind of stuffs all the time, but because they are not paid more attention to the level that it is recalled easily, it is "subliminal." Ever look for something that is right in front of you? Do you see or do you not see? kom 20470 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, Nina, and all, > I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the > Abhidhamma > (James: This I completely disagree with.) I also don't think it is true that one cannot understand the discourses without the Abhidhamma. > and without the development of vipassana, > (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of > the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something > disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and > accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with > the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and > shouldn't be placed together so casually.) I am not an expert in Abhidhamma Pitaka. However, from my exposure to writings and discussions on Abhidhamma, in DSG and elsewhere, I have come to see it as a work in the domain akin to psychology and cognitive science that presents an elaborate model, a conceptual framwork in understanding human mind and cognitive/mental process. I believe that studying Abhidhamma can be a very interesting intellectual enterprise, and I would not deny that one can gain deeper understanding in human mind and cognitive/mental process through studying Abhidhamma. However, I don't think that this understanding per se is requisite to liberation, and I don't think studying Abhidhamma leads to insight/vipassana. Regards, Victor 20471 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable > > Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: > < > > Hi Robert K., > > I am aware of this quote by Sayadaw (I think it has been quoted > before on this list), and I consider it using the same `bait and > switch' technique I described. What is written in the Abhidhamma > cannot be directly compared to the direct experience of vipassana, it > is ridiculous to even state such a thing with the confidence that > Sayadaw presents. It is like stating that the written description of > eating a meal is just like the actual experience of eating the meal. > They cannot be compared and they are not the same thing. The Lord > Buddha didn't say, "Listen Monks, you have a choice. You can either > meditate and experience reality directly, or you can read the > Abhidhamma and get the same experience. I know that some of you > aren't keen on meditation, so I am going to give you this choice." > It really doesn't work that way. There are no short-cuts. >__________ Dear James, I am starting to understand your objections to Abhidhamma. I think the venerable Sitagu Sayadaw didn't mean that merely reading about Abhidhamma equates with vipassana. Rather that the dhammas explained in the Abhidhamma are the same dhammas that arise now and that can be insighted directly. The Abhidhamma, as a simple example, lists 'seeing' and 'sound' and 'aversion' and 'conceit' but simply reading about them is not the same as understanding them directly. It also lists 'nibbana' - as do the suttas - and I guess no one believes that merely by reading Nibbana in the Abhidhamma that they have experienced it. I like this discussion though, as I can think of people who have studied Abhidhamma and then inflate their book knowledge so that they think they have experienced levels of insight. No doubt I overestimate myself on occasion. Robertk 20472 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, Indeed, I think that the words one uses often reflects one's understanding, and difference in even one word can change and/or distort a message. Take the modifiers "conventional" and "noble". When appended to "truth of suffering", "conventional truth of suffering" carries a different message from "noble truth of suffering". In discussing the teaching of the Buddha, I don't think the adjectives and adverbs "conventional", "ultimate", "conventionally", and "ultimately" help to convey clear and truthful messages. I see these words at best as noise that distorts and obscures or at worst as modifier for a straight-out lie such as "there is no human being". Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > I think it is not merely words we want to distinguish, it is the > understanding that we aim to bring about. In that sense, I think Howard's > explanation elucidates the distinctions between what we can say as > conventional and as paramatha. > > What do you think, Victor? Do you disagree with what Howard explains? Do > you disagree on the labelling, or the content, or both? > > kom 20473 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:29pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:55 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > Indeed, I think that the words one uses often reflects one's > understanding, and difference in even one word can change and/or > distort a message. Take the modifiers "conventional" and "noble". > When appended to "truth of suffering", "conventional truth of > suffering" carries a different message from "noble truth of > suffering". > > In discussing the teaching of the Buddha, I don't think the > adjectives and adverbs "conventional", "ultimate", "conventionally", > and "ultimately" help to convey clear and truthful messages. I see > these words at best as noise that distorts and obscures or at worst > as modifier for a straight-out lie such as "there is no human being". > Thanks for the clarification. We will just have to disagree, although clearly, even on what the Buddha truly teaches about the first noble truth (maybe other as well?). kom 20474 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Howard (and Azita) First, since I was quoting from memory in my post, I should set out for the record exactly what CMA says (see below – with apologies for any inaccuracy in my earlier post). Secondly, I would like to know if I have understood the question. I read you as suggesting that perhaps the mindfulness of satipatthana is a condition for the development of concentration of samatha. I think you are drawing attention to the fact that the description given for mindfulness sounds a lot like our idea of the concentration that is samatha. While I can see where you are coming from here, I think we need to be careful about making such a comparison. In a sense it is a case of comparing apples with oranges. The mindfulness being described in CMA is the mental factor of that name, so its characteristic and function are to be understood in the context of a single moment of consciousness. On the other hand, the ‘concentration that is samatha’, in the sense of successive moments of consciousness taking the same object, is a description in conventional terms of several different moments of consciousness. Actually, the concentration that is associated with samatha should in my view be understood in terms of *the high degree of absorption in the object* that occurs at a single moment of consciousness, rather than the fact that *the same object is taken for successive moments of consciousness*. I say this because the latter is not in fact a necessary characteristic of samatha. For those who attained mastery of jhana, for example, moments of jhana may occur momentarily, interspersed among other non-jhana moments. Jon Ch 2. Compendium of mental factors Guide to #5. (2) Mindfulness (sati): The word sati … signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present … . It has the characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object.[18] Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasa~n~naa) or the four foundations of mindfulness. Footnote 18 'Apilaapana', also rendered "not wobbling." The commentators explain that sati keeps the mind as steady as a stone instead of letting it bob about like a pumpkin in water. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > jonoabb@y... writes: ... > > A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > > translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental > factor > > of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > function > > of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > > object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water > rather > > than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). ... > ============================ > It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and > unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a > mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental > factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly > on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as > concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising > of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of > fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this > correctly? > > With metta, > Howard 20475 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Larry I think you touch upon an important point here. Non-contentment can easily be seen as a threat to the monastic life, whereas no such consideration applies as regards the lay-person (although it could I suppose encourage certain any existing tendencies to breach of the precepts). I am not aware of anything in the teachings that says that richness of possessions as such is an obstacle to the development of understanding, let alone that lay folk should dispose of luxury or surplus items. There are plenty of instances in the suttas of wealthy lay individuals who had highly developed understanding (Anathapindika being one such). So no need for any of us to worry about those 'mountains of riches' being heaped up (if only, if only ...) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You asked what I thought about: > > "...contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., disposing with > any luxury items received and retaining only the most basic > requisites." > > I suppose there are differences of suitability for monastics and > lay > people. On the other hand, I don't see any _ultimate_ problem with > heaping up mountains of riches. > > One could also apply this as a remedy. If a person has gotten into > the > habit of constantly complaining about the quality and amount of his > possessions and all the agravation involved in acquiring and > protecting those possessions, perhaps a simpler life would be in > order. > > Larry 20476 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:57pm Subject: Re: Madhura and Ghotamukha Suttas --- Dear Christine, The texts refer to the 84,000 units of Dhamma - 82,000 by the Buddha and 2000 from the monk (usually sariputta). Mahakaccana was the chief disciple in analysis and spoke the madhura sutta - recorded by Ananda. He is also featured in expanding brief statements of the Buddha in other suttas. I think a sutta by Kumara kassapa was also included in the Digha nikaya. There is no subterfuge here - the monks didn't try to say it was the Buddha speaking. The extremely high regard of mahakaccana is probably one of the reasons the Nettipakarana was (honaririly) included in the Tipitaka by the monks in Burma. That, and the milinda panha and Petakopadesa (BTW this is the only work I know of that has been corrupted and there is apparently no unflawed copy to be found - hopefully one day) don't fit as commentaries but are not strictly part of the Tipitaka. They need their own category. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I wondered when I read the Madhura sutta MN 84 and the Ghotamukha > Sutta MN 94 how they came to be included in the Majjhima Nikaya if > they were composed after the Buddha's passing? Are there others like > this? They both begin with the words "(Evam me suttam) Thus have I > heard ..." which was, I thought, an authentication of the text and > signified suttas heard from the lips of the Blessed One. Am I on the > wrong track? > > metta, > Christine 20477 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Group, I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how his writings should be viewed. It seems that when one first comes to this list, the impression gained is that discussion revolves around Commentaries rather than the Suttas. As time goes on, if one sticks at it, it becomes clear that the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning. I can understand that as decades passed and conditions changed, explanations were needed to unpack these meanings. ( For me, it does seem very difficult to conceive of a time when understanding will arise and I'll move out of pre-school.) Of course, it would help if all-of-Buddhism agreed on what was indisputably the meaning of the Buddha's teachings. The comments of James, Nina, RobK, Victor and others, (and given the valued position that the Visuddhimagga and other writings of Buddhaghosa hold in the Theravada tradition), I was curious to look at a few articles critical of Buddhaghosa and the Abhidhamma, on the internet. The first is from a book about the teachings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/ "Buddhadasa's Movement: An Analysis of It's Origins Development & Socia Impact" Ch. 4 'Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism' Quotes: 'From the doctrinal point of view the brunt of Buddhadasa's attack is directed toward Buddhaghosa, one of the greatest Buddhist commentators in the 5th century A.D., who is most acclaimed for providing a commentary and interpretative structure for the Theravada tradition, and the scholastism of the Abhidhamma.' (p. 119) 'He declares that Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist teachings.' (p.120) '... he criticises the Abhidhamma Pitaka, one of the cardinal tripatie scriptures in the Tipitaka: Abhidhamma, Sutta, and Vinaya Pitaka.' 'Buddhadassa insists that Abhidhamma was completed about 1300 years after the death of the Buddha. He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching.' (p. 121) and the second article, is from the Letters of Nanavira Thera : L.79 of 29 December 1963 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett6l.htm He seems to claim Ven. Buddhaghosa and then Nanamoli Thera 'misinterpreted' sutta material, in this instance particularly that about 'cittavithi'. Part of letter 79 contains criticism of the Abhidhamma and states his scepticism that the word 'abhidhamma' used in the suttas means the Abhidhamma Pitaka. If so, than the word 'abhivinaya' would also indicate that we should look for an Abhivinaya as well as a Vinaya. As well, he says, "It is thus wholly to be expected that attempts should be made to secure the authority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (assuming that it is, in fact, a later production) by identifying it with the 'abhidhamma' of the Suttas. Add to this the fact that the Atthasalini and the other commentarial works of the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera are perhaps nine hundred years later than the Abhidhamma Pitaka that they set out to defend, and you will see that if we find internal reason for refecting the books of the A.P. as not authoritiative (i.e. if we find that the texts of these books cannot be reconciled with our understanding of the Sutta texts) there is nothing very much to compel us to accept them as the Buddha's own Teaching." Towards the end of the letter he quotes his teacher Ven. Nayaka Thera and what he views as possibly a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - a teaching that does not lead to awakening "...they, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing the advanced teaching and engaging in cross-questioning, falling into a dark teaching will not awaken.' Anguttara V, viii, 9. It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to hear other's thoughts. metta, Christine 20478 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, op 21-03-2003 17:41 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You > correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly > because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my > slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and > others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause > frustration. N: On the contrary, it is useful and necessary for all of us. Never enough of basics. I appreciated Kom's mail about the truths, anger is always anger, it cannot be kindness. It has its own characteristic. I would like to listen moreto Kom, Sarah and others. In my post to Mike I spoke in short about citta, cetasika and rupa. These are dhammas, realities that have their own characteristic. Different from the long stories we think about, stories of people, events. I shall quote first a little of my "The Preserving of the Teachings", discussions we had in India before. (see Zolag web): Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? Lodewijk finds it too much. It takes a long time to apply it, we often fail. But how beneficial. When we are attached to a person, it is actually clinging to ourselves, to the importance of self. No other religion could teach me this. It is so valuable. At least we see the disadvantage and danger of attachment, and also the way to cling less to self: what we take for person or I are only seeing, hearing and other cittas which experience different objects through different doorways, one at a time. I appreciate Sarah's reminders, she always stresses: not the situation, not the story is real. We get involved with situations and persons. The way out of this distress is knowing the dhamma appearing now. Nina. 20479 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I did not disagree with what you stated on the noble truth of suffering, and I am not sure how we would disagree on the first noble truth. I think what we disagreed on is that I would only use "noble", not "conventional", as the modifier to the truth of suffering. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > Thanks for the clarification. We will just have to disagree, although > clearly, even on what the Buddha truly teaches about the first noble truth > (maybe other as well?). > > kom 20480 From: Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Hi, Jon (and Azita) - Perhaps mindfulness is "remembering to be aware" in the sense of holding at bay, in the moment, the inclination for the mind to seek other pastures. Equivalently, perhaps it is the *tendency* to attend to whatever arises in the moment. I emphasize here a *tendency* because, it is said that in any mind moment there is a single object. If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it? Now, as far as being concentrated, that may be easily answered: To be concentrated *in the moment*, as opposed to the more conventional concentration of staying with the same object from moment to moment to moment, may be a matter of clarity/focus/non-fuzziness, in the same sense as a magnifying glass or a microscope focusses. (This makes ekagatta, it would seem to me, not the same as, but a support for clear comprehension.) But the business of being *mindful* in the moment is more difficult, it seems to me. One is always "mindful" in the moment of the one and only object of consciousness at that moment in the sense of being aware of it - so, I am guessing that mindfulness actually amounts to "the inclination to remain" or, better, the absence of "the inclination to leave" with respect to the object. It would be a kind of satisfaction or patience with whatever should happen to be present, and a willingness to remain with it - sort of an equanimity, with no "felt need" to float away. It makes sense to me that such inclination will foster clarity/focus on whatever object is present, i.e., it will foster one-pointedness, and will also foster calmness. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/22/03 1:00:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard (and Azita) > > First, since I was quoting from memory in my post, I should set out > for the record exactly what CMA says (see below – with apologies for > any inaccuracy in my earlier post). > > Secondly, I would like to know if I have understood the question. I > read you as suggesting that perhaps the mindfulness of satipatthana > is a condition for the development of concentration of samatha. I > think you are drawing attention to the fact that the description > given for mindfulness sounds a lot like our idea of the concentration > that is samatha. > > While I can see where you are coming from here, I think we need to be > careful about making such a comparison. In a sense it is a case of > comparing apples with oranges. The mindfulness being described in > CMA is the mental factor of that name, so its characteristic and > function are to be understood in the context of a single moment of > consciousness. On the other hand, the ‘concentration that is > samatha’, in the sense of successive moments of consciousness taking > the same object, is a description in conventional terms of several > different moments of consciousness. > > Actually, the concentration that is associated with samatha should in > my view be understood in terms of *the high degree of absorption in > the object* that occurs at a single moment of consciousness, rather > than the fact that *the same object is taken for successive moments > of consciousness*. I say this because the latter is not in fact a > necessary characteristic of samatha. For those who attained mastery > of jhana, for example, moments of jhana may occur momentarily, > interspersed among other non-jhana moments. > > Jon > > Ch 2. Compendium of mental factors > Guide to #5. > > (2) Mindfulness (sati): The word sati … signifies presence of mind, > attentiveness to the present … . It has the characteristic of not > wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object.[18] Its function > is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as > guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its > proximate cause is strong perception (thirasa~n~naa) or the four > foundations of mindfulness. > > Footnote 18 > 'Apilaapana', also rendered "not wobbling." The commentators explain > that sati keeps the mind as steady as a stone instead of letting it > bob about like a pumpkin in water. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > >jonoabb@y... writes: > ... > >>A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > >>translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental > >factor > >>of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > >function > >>of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > >>object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water > >rather > >>than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). > ... > >============================ > > It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and > >unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a > >mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental > >factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > >function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly > >on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as > >concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising > >of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of > >fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this > >correctly? > > > >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) 20481 From: nidive Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Christine and All, > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. OK, here's my thoughts... from a sutta... if you don't mind... doesn't matter if you think it's not relevant at all. Sariputta's Lion's Roar [11] 16. Then the Venerable Sariputta went to the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, sat down at one side, and spoke thus to him: "This faith, Lord, I have in the Blessed One, that there has not been, there will not be, nor is there now, another recluse or brahman more exalted in Enlightenment than the Blessed One." "Lofty indeed is this speech of yours, Sariputta, and lordly! A bold utterance, a veritable sounding of the lion's roar! But how is this, Sariputta? Those Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the past -- do you have direct personal knowledge of all those Blessed Ones, as to their virtue, their meditation, [12] their wisdom, their abiding, and their emancipation?" [13] "Not so, Lord." "Then how is this, Sariputta? Those Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the future -- do you have direct personal knowledge of all those Blessed Ones, as to their virtue, their meditation, their wisdom, their abiding, and their emancipation?" "Not so, Lord." "Then how is this, Sariputta? Of me, who am at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, do you have direct personal knowledge as to my virtue, my meditation, my wisdom, my abiding, and my emancipation?" "Not so, Lord." "Then it is clear, Sariputta, that you have no such direct personal knowledge of the Arahats, the Fully Enlightened Ones of the past, the future, and the present. How then dare you set forth a speech so lofty and lordly, an utterance so bold, a veritable sounding of the lion's roar, saying: 'This faith, Lord, I have in the Blessed One, that there has not been, there will not be, nor is there now another recluse or brahman more exalted in Enlightenment than the Blessed One'?" 17. "No such direct personal knowledge, indeed, is mine, Lord, of the Arahats, the Fully Enlightened Ones of the past, the future, and the present; and yet I have come to know the lawfulness of the Dhamma. Suppose, Lord, a king's frontier fortress was strongly fortified, with strong ramparts and turrets, and it had a single gate, and there was a gatekeeper, intelligent, experienced, and prudent, who would keep out the stranger but allow the friend to enter. As he patrols the path that leads all around the fortress, he does not perceive a hole or fissure in the ramparts even big enough to allow a cat to slip through. So he comes to the conclusion: 'Whatever grosser living things are to enter or leave this city, they will all have to do so just by this gate.' In the same way, Lord, I have come to know the lawfulness of the Dhamma. "For, Lord, all the Blessed Ones, Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the past had abandoned the five hindrances, [14] the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; had well established their minds in the four foundations of mindfulness; [15] had duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and were fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment. "And, Lord, all the Blessed Ones, Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the future will abandon the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; will well establish their minds in the four foundations of mindfulness; will duly cultivate the seven factors of enlightenment, and will be fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment. "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20482 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:34am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's > advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. > Hi Christine, I would like to express my gratitude for this scholarly and worthwhile post. Unfortunately, I am somewhat discouraged by your phrase about `playing the devil's advocate' because that means you have already assigned yourself to a `camp', and view this as an adversarial discussion. I try my best not to view it that way and not to encourage it to be approached that way. We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side… the side of truth. With that said, please allow me to make a few specific comments, from my perspective, about your observations. First, your comment, "the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning." This I agree with, but perhaps don't agree with your underlying meaning. To the Lord Buddha, the lessons were quite `off the cuff'. He didn't plan ahead, makes notes, practice the lessons, get feedback, change the lessons, etc., he simply sat down when he felt the time was right, instinctively knew what subject he should address, called his monks to gather around, and gave the lesson. Monks did not interrupt him while he was speaking to ask questions, nor did they ask questions when he was finished. They were far too shy for that to ask questions of such a highly respected person in everyone else's company (but there are a few exceptions). So often, when a lesson was finished, those monks who wanted further clarification of what they just heard would go to the senior monks to explain it to them, according to their accumulations. The explanations would not be a `one-size-fits-all' type of explanation; the Buddha's teachings are far too deep and profound for that. So, keeping this in mind, I would say that there is some value and historical precedent for the commentaries. However, they should not be given the same value, or viewed in the same light, as the suttas themselves. They should also be seen correctly for their limitation: inherently flawed to unilaterally explain the depth of the Buddha's teachings to everyone, regardless of individual accumulations. As far as the Abhidhamma, I have spoken so much against that work that I am starting to sound like a broken record. I, of course, agree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu when he writes, "He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching." Haven't I been crowing this for so long now that some want to make me a candidate for KFC? ;-) Some assume that I just oppose the Abhidhamma because others are so much in favor of it and I just like to be special and noticed. Believe me, that is not my goal or intention. I am noticed enough with such superficial tactics. I genuinely oppose the Abhidhamma because I believe it runs contrary to the Buddha's teachings and I am concerned for those who embrace it. I see in them a false belief that they have attained a special level of panna [higher wisdom] when they haven't achieved anything of the sort. Actually, I would even be so bold as to state that complete ignorance of the Buddha's teachings is better than Abhidhammic learning (So, yes, I would also agree with Ven. Nayaka Thera that it is a `dark teaching' In the `Game of Life', I consider it a `go back seven spaces' card.) But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone…just warn them. Christine, I would hardly state that your understanding of the Buddha's teachings is at the pre-school level! LOL! Give yourself more credit than that! ;-) You, and everyone, have the tools and mental abilities to decide for yourself the truth. That is what the Buddha stated and that is what I believe also. Metta, James 20483 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:46am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 5:39 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > I did not disagree with what you stated on the > noble truth of > suffering, and I am not sure how we would > disagree on the first > noble truth. I think what we disagreed on is > that I would only > use "noble", not "conventional", as the modifier > to the truth of > suffering. > > Regards, > Victor Thanks for more clarification. You were indicating that you disagreed with the explanation of the first truth using the labels conventinal and ultimate, and you later mentioned (or implied) that using such words may bring distortions to the teachings. Perhaps you may want to explain the first truth in the way you understand it? I think this would be useful to many people including myself. Is there anything else in the first truth beyond: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha kom 20484 From: Heather Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:35am Subject: Hello. I am new to this group and new to the teachings of Buddha. What I have learned so far is not much, but it makes more sense to me than anything I have heard before.I just do not know where to begin my journey to enlightenment or where to go for the answers I need. I want to learn as much as I can. 20485 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 0:07pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Christine, I think it will be helpful if you detail the objections venerable Buddhadasa and Venerable Nanavira have. Why is " a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line > with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound > Buddhist teaching.'" (Buddhadasa) and also discuss his belief that the " Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences > showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist > teachings.' (p.120) Also can you give the reasons why the venerable Nanavira and his teacher thought Abhidhamma was a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - > a teaching that does not lead to awakening ".... Did they give reasons or simply write that? RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's > advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. > > It seems that when one first comes to this list, the impression > gained is that discussion revolves around Commentaries rather than > the Suttas. As time goes on, if one sticks at it, it becomes clear > that the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were > carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning. I can > understand that as decades passed and conditions changed, > explanations were needed to unpack these meanings. ( For me, it does > seem very difficult to conceive of a time when understanding will > arise and I'll move out of pre-school.) > > Of course, it would help if all-of-Buddhism agreed on what was > indisputably the meaning of the Buddha's teachings. The comments of > James, Nina, RobK, Victor and others, (and given the valued position > that the Visuddhimagga and other writings of Buddhaghosa hold in > the Theravada tradition), I was curious to look at a few articles > critical of Buddhaghosa and the Abhidhamma, on the internet. > > The first is from a book about the teachings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/ > "Buddhadasa's Movement: An Analysis of It's Origins Development & > Socia Impact" Ch. 4 'Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism' > > Quotes: 'From the doctrinal point of view the brunt of Buddhadasa's > attack is directed toward Buddhaghosa, one of the greatest Buddhist > commentators in the 5th century A.D., who is most acclaimed for > providing a commentary and interpretative structure for the Theravada > tradition, and the scholastism of the Abhidhamma.' (p. 119) 'He > declares that Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences > showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist > teachings.' (p.120) '... he criticises the Abhidhamma Pitaka, one > of the cardinal tripatie scriptures in the Tipitaka: Abhidhamma, > Sutta, and Vinaya Pitaka.' 'Buddhadassa insists that Abhidhamma was > completed about 1300 years after the death of the Buddha. He further > criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line > with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound > Buddhist teaching.' (p. 121) > > and the second article, is from the Letters of Nanavira Thera : > > L.79 of 29 December 1963 > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett6l.htm > > He seems to claim Ven. Buddhaghosa and then Nanamoli > Thera 'misinterpreted' sutta material, in this instance particularly > that about 'cittavithi'. Part of letter 79 contains criticism of the > Abhidhamma and states his scepticism that the word 'abhidhamma' used > in the suttas means the Abhidhamma Pitaka. If so, than the > word 'abhivinaya' would also indicate that we should look for an > Abhivinaya as well as a Vinaya. > > As well, he says, "It is thus wholly to be expected that attempts > should be made to secure the authority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka > (assuming that it is, in fact, a later production) by identifying it > with the 'abhidhamma' of the Suttas. Add to this the fact that the > Atthasalini and the other commentarial works of the Ven. Buddhaghosa > Thera are perhaps nine hundred years later than the Abhidhamma Pitaka > that they set out to defend, and you will see that if we find > internal reason for refecting the books of the A.P. as not > authoritiative (i.e. if we find that the texts of these books cannot > be reconciled with our understanding of the Sutta texts) there is > nothing very much to compel us to accept them as the Buddha's own > Teaching." > > Towards the end of the letter he quotes his teacher Ven. Nayaka Thera > and what he views as possibly a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - > a teaching that does not lead to awakening "...they, being > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing > the advanced teaching and engaging in cross-questioning, falling into > a dark teaching will not awaken.' Anguttara V, viii, 9. > > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. > > metta, > > Christine 20486 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 0:33pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Dear Group, < snip > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to hear other's thoughts. metta, Christine KKT: My opinion is: If you want to be sure about the << authenticity >> ie. whether such and such teachings were really the words of the Buddha then you will have problems because it's impossible to determine their authenticity. But if you try to understand the << spirit >> of the Buddha's teachings then you mind will be free, free to enquire into whatever teachings, even non-Buddhist teachings. Metta, KKT 20487 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hello. Dear Heather, > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather [mailto:brenwyn2002@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 10:35 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Hello. > > > I am new to this group and new to the teachings > of Buddha. What I > have learned so far is not much, but it makes > more sense to me than > anything I have heard before.I just do not know > where to begin my > journey to enlightenment or where to go for the > answers I need. I > want to learn as much as I can. > > Welcome to DSG! I think you have come to the right group; if we already know a lot already, we wouldn't need to study! Here's are some resources that may help: Books written by Nina, a member of DSG: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ebook.html Posts about different topics which may help with answering some questions: http://tinyurl.com/2c0k Tipitaka Reference Sites: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html Other helpful links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links As you probably have already noticed, the literature on the Buddha's teaching is vast. We may feel overwhelmed. However, if we keep in mind that the reason that we study the dhamma is to understand the truth (of life, which is verifiable), and to follow the teachings, then it doesn't matter where we start, or how slowly we understand, as long as the understanding grows and the wholesome mental states develop. I personally would start with Nina's books, since she has publications of different types, one of which you may like. kom 20488 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi KKT & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: phamdluan2000 [mailto:phamdluan@a...] > > But if you try to understand > the << spirit >> of the Buddha's > teachings then you mind > will be free, free to enquire > into whatever teachings, > even non-Buddhist teachings. > > And if you are trying to understand the truth, then you can investigate if what is being said is truth, since truth withstands scrutiny and the test of time... kom 20489 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Robert and All, The stimulus for my post was those by other members, but principally it was Nina's suggestion in a post to James - Message 20427 of Friday March 21, 2003. "Asking questions is useful, it is one of the conditions for enlightenment ...... Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them." I had read something of Nanavira's writings a couple of years ago, and I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. Upon unearthing the references, I thought them worth presenting in light of Nina's invitation above. I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my original post? (The letter 79 by Nanavira Thera and Ch. 4 of the book on Buddhadasa's teachings.) Nanavira Thera has a note that says: "abhidhamma: Although various disciples are sometimes said to discuss abhidhamma and abhivinaya amongst themselves, in fact the Suttas nowhere describe the Buddha himself as teaching either abhidhamma or abhivinaya to either humans or deities. This suggests that perhaps the prefix abhi- might best be taken in this instance not as 'higher' or 'advanced' but as 'extended', and to understand that the monks sometimes discussed dhamma and vinaya in their own terminology rather than in the terminology used by the Buddha. See in particular A. VI,60: iii,392f." The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and is itself is 35 pages long: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm I don't presently have time to read all the writings and letters of Nanavira or the writings of Buddhadasa, to summarise their thoughts for the list, I had assumed that some members of the list would be familiar with them and able to comment. So much of Buddhadasa's writings are not yet translated into English. I'm told that he has been given five Honorary Doctorates by Thai universities. His books, both written and transcribed from talks, fill a room at the Thai National Library and influence all serious Thai Buddhists metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- 20490 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:51pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Swee Boon, and all, Thank you for the sutta. It's not that I think it is irrelevant, it is just that, being an Australian :-), I'm not very good at hints and allusions. I need to be told straight out what's on your mind. I enjoy your posts Swee Boon, even if we may be disagreeing - and I'm not so sure if this is the present case. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: 20491 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, If you want an explanation on the noble truth of dukkha, I would recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca1.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > Thanks for more clarification. You were indicating that you > disagreed with the explanation of the first truth using the > labels conventinal and ultimate, and you later mentioned (or > implied) that using such words may bring distortions to the > teachings. Perhaps you may want to explain the first truth > in the way you understand it? I think this would be useful > to many people including myself. Is there anything else in > the first truth beyond: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association > with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is > dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha > > kom 20492 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:06pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, James: I am somewhat discouraged by your phrase about `playing the devil's advocate' because that means you have already assigned yourself to a `camp', and view this as an adversarial discussion. I try my best not to view it that way and not to encourage it to be approached that way. We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side… the side of truth. ***Christine: Don't be discouraged James - I am not arguing with anyone, just putting up (other people's) thoughts that may have a bearing on the topic. In the end, it is truth that matters, not whether any individual was right or wrong. I don't have a 'preferred result', just a desire to know a 'result beyond question'. (not sure of my chances here :-)). -------------------------------- James: With that said, please allow me to make a few specific comments, from my perspective, about your observations. First, your comment, "the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning." This I agree with, but perhaps don't agree with your underlying meaning. To the Lord Buddha, the lessons were quite `off the cuff'. He didn't plan ahead, makes notes, practice the lessons, get feedback, change the lessons, etc., he simply sat down when he felt the time was right, instinctively knew what subject he should address, called his monks to gather around, and gave the lesson. ***Christine: Agreed -------------------------------- James: Monks did not interrupt him while he was speaking to ask questions, nor did they ask questions when he was finished. They were far too shy for that to ask questions of such a highly respected person in everyone else's company (but there are a few exceptions). So often, when a lesson was finished, those monks who wanted further clarification of what they just heard would go to the senior monks to explain it to them, according to their accumulations. The explanations would not be a `one-size-fits-all' type of explanation; the Buddha's teachings are far too deep and profound for that. ***Christine: No quarrel with this. --------------------------------------------- James: So, keeping this in mind, I would say that there is some value and historical precedent for the commentaries. However, they should not be given the same value, or viewed in the same light, as the suttas themselves. They should also be seen correctly for their limitation: inherently flawed to unilaterally explain the depth of the Buddha's teachings to everyone, regardless of individual accumulations. ***Christine: No quarrel with this either. _____________________________ James: As far as the Abhidhamma, I have spoken so much against that work that I am starting to sound like a broken record. I, of course, agree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu when he writes, "He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching." I genuinely oppose the Abhidhamma because I believe it runs contrary to the Buddha's teachings and I am concerned for those who embrace it. I see in them a false belief that they have attained a special level of panna [higher wisdom] when they haven't achieved anything of the sort. Actually, I would even be so bold as to state that complete ignorance of the Buddha's teachings is better than Abhidhammic learning ***Christine: This is worth discussing James - aren't there any teachings of the Buddha that speak about elements, bases and groups? I think, perhaps, there are. Isn't this is a large part of Abhidhamma teachings? Maybe it is just that for some of us, different parts of the Teachings are more attractive. We incline more to some ideas than others. We feel more comfortable with applying some parts of the Tipitaka than others. Would it be worth looking for suttas that teach the same things as the Abhidhamma, even if the word Abhidhamma isn't mentioned? ----------------------------- James:(So, yes, I would also agree with Ven. Nayaka Thera that it is a `dark teaching' In the `Game of Life', I consider it a `go back seven spaces' card.) But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone…just warn them. ***Christine: It seems that it was Nanavira Thera who implied this - to clear up any incorrect impression I have given, I'll quote the para. I was referring to here (as well as in the post to RobK): "The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." Metta, James -------------------- Always good to discuss things with you James and to hear your reflections, understanding and ideas - Metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 20493 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:08pm Subject: Re: Hello. Hi, I would recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Heather" wrote: > I am new to this group and new to the teachings of Buddha. What I > have learned so far is not much, but it makes more sense to me than > anything I have heard before.I just do not know where to begin my > journey to enlightenment or where to go for the answers I need. I > want to learn as much as I can. 20494 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi KKT and Kom, and all, KKT: But if you try to understand > the << spirit >> of the Buddha's > teachings then you mind > will be free, free to enquire > into whatever teachings, > even non-Buddhist teachings. Kom: "And if you are trying to understand the truth, then you can investigate if what is being said is truth, since truth withstands scrutiny and the test of time..." Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is still the same one that existed when I joined this List - the Process. Or Lack Thereof. The big thing going for formal sitting meditation is there is something (a method) to do - go to a particular place and sit in a certain position for a specified length of time, and do a, then b and then c. Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are accessories to own and arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and shapes, shawls, candles and incense if wished. Places to congregate with others who are like minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to talk. There is a sense of support in being assured you are making progress and encountering difficulties that others have overcome. There is a sense of belonging. But right now for me - I read the suttas and study other texts, I take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend Dhamma discussions with others - I really have no idea if I am on the main road and accumulating anything wholesome. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" 20495 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:40pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as > he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. > Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has > mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. > > I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my > original post? > The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late > Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat > through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, > however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage > from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that > a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that > is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark > teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha > dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." ____________ Dear Christine, Thanks for giving the expanded quote by Nanavira. It still doesn't clarify for me why he believed this. Is there some point you feel is convincing that he has made somewhere? I'm sure we could find a hundred monks who don't like Abhidhamma - but it doesn't help much unless they give reasons and discuss it. ____________ > > Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were > taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and > is itself is 35 pages long: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf > > "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the > Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own > Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the > title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction > between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching > using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that > uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real > encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." > This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: > http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm _____________ Thanks for this. Fortunately I have this book or a later edition(not with me right now) and have made notes. I will add some here: I read Practical Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada)by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. There is no self persisting over lives. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada, because of his brahmin (hinduistic) background. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I can add more if you like, Christine. Anyway I think venerable Buddhadasa's belief that the ancient commentaries and Buddhaghosa believed in a soul that transmigrates is quite mistaken. To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each moment. It is so real and helpful. I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears through the senses is merely different objects. Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the pain. All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. This is basic Abhidhamma. RobertK 20496 From: Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Christine - In a message dated 3/22/03 11:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is still the same one that > existed when I joined this List - the Process. Or Lack Thereof. The > big thing going for formal sitting meditation is there is something > (a method) to do - go to a particular place and sit in a certain > position for a specified length of time, and do a, then b and then c. > Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are accessories to own and > arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and shapes, shawls, candles > and incense if wished. Places to congregate with others who are like > minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to talk. There is a > sense of support in being assured you are making progress and > encountering difficulties that others have overcome. There is a > sense of belonging. > But right now for me - I read the suttas and study other texts, I > take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend Dhamma discussions with > others - I really have no idea if I am on the main road and > accumulating anything wholesome. > metta, > Christine > ============================ Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, but also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? Why not use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, cultivating calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of phenomena? And also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to a task that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises without attachment? And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? Why not do that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha statues, a special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow meditators - though these are all okay.) 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) 20497 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:11pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi James, ***Christine: This is worth discussing James - aren't there any > teachings of the Buddha that speak about elements, bases and > groups? I think, perhaps, there are. Isn't this is a large part of > Abhidhamma teachings? > Maybe it is just that for some of us, different parts of the > Teachings are more attractive. We incline more to some ideas than > others. We feel more comfortable with applying some parts of the > Tipitaka than others. > Would it be worth looking for suttas that teach the same things as > the Abhidhamma, even if the word Abhidhamma isn't mentioned? > ----------------------------- Hi Christine, I keep resolving not to discuss this issue anymore, but I keep coming back to it. I am not sure if I have weak resolve or it is my karma to discuss this issue…but I am leaning more toward believing the latter. I know, for a fact, that my posts on this matter upset some of the members of this group, which I don't like to do. When they get upset, I get upset. Not only that, I don't like to see people upset. But I believe that the truth is more important than their or my feelings, and should take precedent. Yes, there are some suttas which discuss elements (but not bases and groups, like that found in the Abhidhamma), but what is important is the context in which these matters were discussed. First, the Buddha taught that it was important to be aware of the Four Great Elements so that one could be aware of how they manifest in the body and subsequently the mind. However, this was only a minor part of his teaching and he didn't give it the emphasis that you will find in the Abhidhamma. The Buddha stressed the ignorance of desire and how to eliminate it, not how the universe or the mind is composed. Second, the Buddha spoke about elements in order to contradict mistaken notions held by many of his monks who came from a Brahmin background (Vedic religion). Unfortunately, these talks weren't successful enough because after the Buddha died these mistaken notions continued, were combined with elements of Buddhism, and resulted in the formulation of the Abhidhamma Pitaka we know today. I have already posted several posts concerning why I believe the Abhidhamma Pitaka is mistaken with its notions of reality (remember the `Rupa is Rubbish' series? That was a hoot! ;-), but, for the sake of argument, let's just say that I am wrong. Let's say that everything in the Abhidhamma is correct and it correctly describes the realities of mind and matter. There is still one question that begs to be answered: So what? So what about nama and rupa; so what about cittas and cetesikas; so what about mind doors and sense consciousnesses? Knowing these things aren't going a make a person any more enlightened than classes on chemistry, physics, and psychology…and isn't that what this is all about? If it doesn't lead to enlightenment, what point is it? It doesn't have any point and its result is to make people believe they know more than they actually do. It is silly and saddening when I see people sincerely seeking answers, happiness, and peace and they are given a lot of theories of primitive physics and psychology falsely labeled as Buddhism. That is not going to help anyone and it is not the truth. Let me end with the words of the Buddha, "I only teach suffering and the end of suffering." I'm sorry, but I don't see where the Abhidhamma Pitaka falls into that paradigm. I mean no offense to anyone and I only hope to help people. Metta, James 20498 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me what you understand, or what I could learn from you. If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I have another, and neither may be even close to what the Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't explain what the non-distorted version to be. I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting from the texts. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:59 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > If you want an explanation on the noble truth of > dukkha, I would > recommend the page > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca1.html > > Regards, > Victor > 20499 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is > still the same one that > existed when I joined this List - the Process. > Or Lack Thereof. The > big thing going for formal sitting meditation is > there is something > (a method) to do - go to a particular place and > sit in a certain > position for a specified length of time, and do > a, then b and then c. > Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are > accessories to own and > arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and > shapes, shawls, candles > and incense if wished. Places to congregate with > others who are like > minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to > talk. There is a > sense of support in being assured you are making > progress and > encountering difficulties that others have > overcome. There is a > sense of belonging. > But right now for me - I read the suttas and > study other texts, I > take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend > Dhamma discussions with > others - I really have no idea if I am on the > main road and > accumulating anything wholesome. > metta, My opinion is that the Buddha's teachings lead to knowledge, comprehension, and detachment. Hence, the best gauge in "progress" is, do we understand the dhammas, as they are occurring now, better than before we listened to the teaching of the Buddha? Do we have attachments in the self even more, or less? Do we have more attachments to the different practices than ever before? Whenever there is mindfulness mindful of the reality, we should be gladdened, for that is the path, the only path. Whenever there is attachment to mindfulness or to wisdom, we should know that this is not the path, but the cause of all sufferings. Whenever there is attachment to the wrong practice, we should leave it immediately, for if we do not leave this, we might be lost for a long time. The understanding (and not just words, nor stories, nor just thinking, nor just repeating to oneself) is the key. Association with a wise person who knows the true dhamma is the key. It is better to be alone, with the right understanding, than within a group of people with wrong views, even if we may like them or like how things go. Ultimately, we are alone in this path, except that very rarely, we have good friends that help us along. kom ps: I do have a sense of belonging to the group I am affiliated with in the bay area, but you can see too that this sense of belonging is again, not the path. Belonging may help to assuage our current unhappiness or loneliness, but it is not the way, as the Buddha has taught it. 20500 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me what you understand, or what I could learn from you. If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I have another, and neither may be even close to what the Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't explain what the non-distorted version to be. I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting from the texts. kom YES SIR!!!! (Sorry moderators, couldn't resist) Sukin. 20501 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Mike What happens after death is not something that I find occupies my mind much at all. My thinking is that unless death marks the end of everything (i.e., extinction), it must be followed by 'rebirth' of some sort, and this I accept as the more likely position. There is no way of knowing anything about the nature of the realms (heavenly or hell) into which one may potentially be reborn, but the description given in the teachings is a plausible one (I put it no higher than that). 'Faring according to deeds' is how it is often expressed, and this is my 'working hypothesis'. In the Buddha' s description of things there is no 'promised land' nor any indication of the likelihood of being reunited with one's loved ones. Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jonothan Abbott > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:53 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... > > > Others present at my mother's bedside placed importance on > reassuring > > her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited > with my > > late father, and so on. > > Is this reminiscent to you of the idea of rebirth in deva realms, > etc? Do > you tend to take the latter (or former, for that matter) literally, > or as > myth or metaphor, or...? > > A new can of worms? > > mike 20502 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 2:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard and Chris, Long time no write Howard :-). When I read Chris' original message, I thought to myself, " Why does Chris want 'road signs'? " But more importantly I thought, "why does she want to 'read the suttas and study other texts, take Pali lessons, go to weekend Dhamma discussions with others'"?! By this I mean, why have a grasping attitude toward the Teachings giving rise to the idea that certain things have to be done to attain it? I compared this to the idea about 'formal meditation'. So when I saw this post of yours, I feel compelled to reply. Hope you do not mind the tone:-). My comments are between yours: > ============================ > Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, but > also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? ============================ Sukin: Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what would prompt those dhammas to arise?! ============================ Why not > use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, cultivating > calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of phenomena? ============================ Sukin: What is significant about this 'bodhi tree' that you ask Chris to think about? Is this one of the objects conducive to jhana? How does one 'observe rise and fall of phenomena' with the attitude that *this* is the place (bodhi tree or otherwise) to do so? Can one be intent on observing phenomena even now, how more difficult it would be to do so when obsecured by the idea of time and place? Lobha attaches to everything, the goal, the person doing, the place, the time. ======================== And > also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to a task > that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises without > attachment? ======================== Sukin: But there is still *someone* doing the noting, no? And who can control attachment? And if attachment itself can be observed, wouldn't wanting to do something 'without attachment' possibly condition a turning away from attachment and hence developing more ignorance of it? ======================== And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, > attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? ======================== Sukin: Can *we* choose to observe 'impermanence'? Is not this the function of sati and panna? Wouldn't a projected idea of impermanence with little accumulated panna be risking the chance that wrong view increases? ======================== Why not do > that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha statues, a > special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow > meditators - though these are all okay.) ======================== Sukin: Are they really okay? How can I go around carrying all that and expect to come to understand the truth of anicca, dukkha and anatta? ======================== > With metta, > Howard ======================== Sukin: Just to let you know Howard, otherwise most of the time I am in agreement with what you have to say :-). Best wishes, Sukin. 20503 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Howard You said: "If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it?" This is a good question and an interesting area to discuss. First, as regards the mental factor of mindfulness (sati), we need to remember that this arises only with wholesome moments of consciousness (kusala citta). It is absent at any moment of unwholesome consciousness or resultant consciousness (akusala citta or vipaka citta). Thus it has nothing to do with the fact that there is but 1 object for each moment of consciousness. If, for example, there is ignorance (moha) accompanying the moment of consciousness, then there is no mindfulness. Even when the citta is kusala, there are levels of wholesomeness and so also levels of mindfulness. Mindfulness of the level of satipatthana arises with the citta that experiences directly a characteristic of a presently arising dhamma. As regards the mental factor of ekagatta (concentration), this we are told arises with every moment of consciousness, so it can be akusala as well as kusala (or vipaka). Your particular area of interest is the role of ekagatta and other factors in the case where successive moments of consciousness take the same object. We need to remember here that that situation can occur with akusala consciousness as well as with kusala consciousness; in other words, there is nothing *inherently* wholesome in the fact of successive moments of consciousness take the same object. Furthermore, the mere fact that there is concentration on one of the 40 objects of samatha bhavana does not make the mindstate kusala (where is the panna in mere concentration?). Samatha bhavana (the development of tranquility) is something different from anything so far mentioned. It is a level of panna (wisdom) that arises together with calm/tranquility (another wholesome mental factor). Although it is capable of leading to degrees of absorption in the object, this can only occur if panna has been developed to the stage where it can discriminate keenly between kusala and akusala at any moment. So it may not be helpful to think of samatha bhavana in terms of concentration on a particular object, since that does not give any indication of the importance of the kusala aspect, especially panna. I am aware this is a sensitive and controversial area. I hope I have managed to explain why, in my view, samatha bhavana and ekagatta should not be thought of as being in any respect synonymous, and why both are different from mindfulness. And finally, my 'usual disclaimer', namely, nothing here is intended to downplay the importance of samatha bhavana in the teachings; I am simply trying to distinguish what is from what isn't ;-). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > Perhaps mindfulness is "remembering to be aware" in the sense of holding at bay, in the moment, the inclination for the mind to seek other pastures. Equivalently, perhaps it is the *tendency* to attend to whatever arises in the moment. I emphasize here a *tendency* because, it is said that in any mind moment there is a single object. If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it? Now, as far as being concentrated, that may be easily answered: To be concentrated *in the moment*, as opposed to the more conventional concentration of staying with the same object from moment to moment to moment, may be a matter of clarity/focus/non-fuzziness, in the same sense as a magnifying glass or a microscope focusses. (This makes ekagatta, it would seem to me, not the same as, but a support for clear comprehension.) But the business of being *mindful* in the moment is more difficult, it seems to me. One is always "mindful" in the moment of the one and only object of consciousness at that moment in the sense of being aware of it - so, I am guessing that mindfulness actually amounts to "the inclination to remain" or, better, the absence of "the inclination to leave" with respect to the object. It would be a kind of satisfaction or patience with whatever should happen to be present, and a willingness to remain with it - sort of an equanimity, with no "felt need" to float away. It makes sense to me that such inclination will foster clarity/focus on whatever object is present, i.e., it will foster one-pointedness, and will also foster calmness. With metta, Howard 20504 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Sarah] Dan Thanks for the interesting analysis of the Smv on this difficult area. While I sympathise with your reading of a 'contradiction', this is obviously not the accepted position on this text. The passage that follows is taken from CMA (as quoted by Larry in a post of his last year). I can only assume that the point to be drawn from the interpretation given by the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya is a point other than the one you draw (no suggestions of my own at the moment -- I need to spend some time looking at it). Jon [With thanks to Larry for taking the trouble to key in this important passage] ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Guide to par. 17, ch. IV: Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesirable (anittha), the moderately desirable (ittha, also called itthamajjhatta, desirable-neutral), and the extremely desirable (ati-ittha). While the desirable object is thus subdivided into two, all undesirable objects are comprised within a single class called simply "the undesirable." According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, contends that when a person considers a desirable object to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently of the person's personal preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants." Whether on a given occasion one experiences an undesirable, a moderately desirable, or an extremely desirable object is governed by one's past kamma. Thus the object experienced provides the opportunity for kamma to ripen in the form of resultant states of consciousness (vipakacitta). The resultant cittas accord with the nature of the object spontaneously, without deliberation, just as a facial reflection in a mirror accords with the features of the face. Through the force of unwholesome kamma one encounters an undesirable object, and thus the resultant cittas in the cognitive process by which that object is cognized will be generated by the maturation of that unwholesome kamma. In this case the sense consciousness, reception, investigation, and registration cittas are necessarily unwholesome-resultants (akusalavipaka). The accompanying feeling is always equanimity (upekkha), except in the case of body-consciousness, which is accompanied by pain. Conversely, a desirable-neutral or a very desirable object is encountered through the force of wholesome kamma, and the resultant cittas in the cognitive process will be generated by the maturation of that wholesome kamma. In this case the same four resultant positions will be occupied by wholesome-resultants (kusalavipaka). These cittas will generally be accompanied by equanimity, except that body-consciousness is accompanied by pleasure and, in the experience of an extremely desirable object, investigation and registration are accompanied by joy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I don't disagree with most of what you say about > desirable/undesirable sense object. However, the first 1/3 of the > Smv > explanation contradicts both us and the second 1/3. I wouldn't be > so quick to say there is a contradiction in the text if it weren't > structured explicitly to point out the dispute, which seems to read > like: "I think that ittha/anittha can be understood via the > predilections of the average man because he (unlike rulers and > peasants) can properly distinguish between agreeable and > disagreeable. But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya disagrees. He > thinks > the ittha/anittha aspect can only be understood by how, say, the > sound is actually heard (vipaka) rather than how it is perceived > and conceived (javana/impulsion)." This "But so-and-so said" > construction > is not uncommon in the commentaries. Isn't its function to point > out where there is disagreement about interpretation? Otherwise, > why "but"? ... 20505 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Robert How are you? Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward ideas of Buddhadasa. I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- minded backward people. Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without carefully studying the message. I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as > he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. > Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has > mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. > > I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my > original post? > The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late > Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat > through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, > however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage > from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that > a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that > is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark > teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha > dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." ____________ Dear Christine, Thanks for giving the expanded quote by Nanavira. It still doesn't clarify for me why he believed this. Is there some point you feel is convincing that he has made somewhere? I'm sure we could find a hundred monks who don't like Abhidhamma - but it doesn't help much unless they give reasons and discuss it. ____________ > > Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were > taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and > is itself is 35 pages long: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf > > "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the > Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own > Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the > title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction > between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching > using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that > uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real > encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." > This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: > http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm _____________ Thanks for this. Fortunately I have this book or a later edition(not with me right now) and have made notes. I will add some here: I read Practical Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada)by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. There is no self persisting over lives. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada, because of his brahmin (hinduistic) background. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I can add more if you like, Christine. Anyway I think venerable Buddhadasa's belief that the ancient commentaries and Buddhaghosa believed in a soul that transmigrates is quite mistaken. To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each moment. It is so real and helpful. I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears through the senses is merely different objects. Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the pain. All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. This is basic Abhidhamma. RobertK Weight Age Gender Female Male 20506 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:28am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi Suan, > Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > ideas of Buddhadasa. I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. > I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of > Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. > > Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- > minded backward people. > > Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to > the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without > carefully studying the message. Oh no ... > I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the > position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, > yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to > commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). I wonder do such people accumulate great akusala kamma to send them to the woeful states of existence. Assuming that Buddhaghosa had taught the real Dhamma and that the Abhidhamma is really the true ultimate doctrine, would not that be equivalent to slandering the Buddha? For it was said "one who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha". Although the Buddha and probably Buddhaghosa had become extinct in parinibbana, do you think committing such "wrong speech" accumulates great akusala kamma? I also have objections to what Buddhadasa taught about nibbana. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20507 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Jon (and Mike) - In a message dated 3/23/03 4:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Mike > > What happens after death is not something that I find occupies my > mind much at all. My thinking is that unless death marks the end of > everything (i.e., extinction), it must be followed by 'rebirth' of > some sort, and this I accept as the more likely position. There is > no way of knowing anything about the nature of the realms (heavenly > or hell) into which one may potentially be reborn, but the > description given in the teachings is a plausible one (I put it no > higher than that). 'Faring according to deeds' is how it is often > expressed, and this is my 'working hypothesis'. > > In the Buddha' s description of things there is no 'promised land' > nor any indication of the likelihood of being reunited with one's > loved ones. > > Jon > =========================== I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final paragraph, I do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' previous lives. 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) 20508 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Sukin (and Christine) - It seems to me that the gist of your reply below is included in the paragraph: Sukin: Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what would prompt those dhammas to arise?! Now, I understand you to be saying that there is no partticularly Buddhist practice at all, and that my neighbor who knows nothing of the Dhamma is already doing what needs to be done .. conditions just need to somehow develop. Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, and think about that. Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended differ radically. As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don't know. I was merely responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that Chris engages in any number of activities of her choosing. I made some suggestions that I hoped might be helpful ... that's all. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/23/03 5:14:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukin@k... writes: > > > Hi Howard and Chris, > > Long time no write Howard :-). > When I read Chris' original message, I thought to myself, " Why does > Chris want 'road signs'? " But more importantly I thought, "why does she > want to 'read the suttas and study other texts, take Pali lessons, go to > weekend Dhamma discussions with others'"?! > By this I mean, why have a grasping attitude toward the Teachings > giving rise to the idea that certain things have to be done to attain it? I > > compared this to the idea about 'formal meditation'. > So when I saw this post of yours, I feel compelled to reply. Hope you do > not mind the tone:-). My comments are between yours: > > >============================ > > Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, > but > >also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? > ============================ > Sukin: > Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should > start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? > If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what > would prompt those dhammas to arise?! > ============================ > Why not > >use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, > cultivating > >calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of > phenomena? > ============================ > Sukin: > What is significant about this 'bodhi tree' that you ask Chris to think > about? Is this one of the objects conducive to jhana? How does > one 'observe rise and fall of phenomena' with the attitude that *this* is > the place (bodhi tree or otherwise) to do so? Can one be intent on > observing phenomena even now, how more difficult it would be to do so > when obsecured by the idea of time and place? Lobha attaches to > everything, the goal, the person doing, the place, the time. > ======================== > And > >also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to > a task > >that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises > without > >attachment? > ======================== > Sukin: > But there is still *someone* doing the noting, no? And who can control > attachment? And if attachment itself can be observed, wouldn't wanting > to do something 'without attachment' possibly condition a turning away > from attachment and hence developing more ignorance of it? > ======================== > And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, > >attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, > and > >emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > ======================== > Sukin: > Can *we* choose to observe 'impermanence'? Is not this the function of > sati and panna? Wouldn't a projected idea of impermanence with little > accumulated panna be risking the chance that wrong view increases? > ======================== > Why not do > >that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha > statues, a > >special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow > >meditators - though these are all okay.) > ======================== > Sukin: > Are they really okay? How can I go around carrying all that and expect to > come to understand the truth of anicca, dukkha and anatta? > ======================== > >With metta, > >Howard > ======================== > Sukin: > Just to let you know Howard, otherwise most of the time I am in > agreement with what you have to say :-). > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > > /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) 20509 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: Buddhadasa Hi Christine, I am not a fan of Buddhadasa and I don't appreciate his teachings at all. In fact, I think that his teachings is the actual 'dark teachings'. I do not have much knowledge on his teachings. But I do know that he does not accept the reality of rebirth and he thinks that nibbana comes with this life and is the elimination of the defilements. My question then is: if there is no rebirth and this life is the only one, what is the purpose of nibbana? He claims that nibbana is the elimination of the defilements. That one experiences nibbana temporarily when defilements are suppressed temporarily. If that is the case, then when one dies, does not defilements "die" too. That means that when a person dies, he is/becomes nibbana? If that is so, why bother about nibbana at all? I do not see any lawfulness of the Dhamma in his dark teachings. It only brings on more contradictions. In my opinion, his dark teachings lean to the side of annihilism (and he has the audacity to say that Buddhaghosa teaches eternalism). That aside, I also know that I do not have direct personal knowledge of the virtue, meditation, wisdom, abiding and emancipation of either Buddhaghosa or of Buddhadasa. But if I have direct personal knowledge of the lawfulness of the Dhamma, then I will not be swayed by the opinions of either Buddhaghosa or Buddhadasa. For had not the Buddha said: "...Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to benefit & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them." If I pursue the line of thinking of Buddhadasa, it leads to only more stress and more perplexing questions. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20510 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, ---------------------------------------------------------- And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? ---------------------------------------------------------- Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I *feel and know* what you are trying to convey by the above. I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study group seems to have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration practice. Even though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a certain level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20511 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:05am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Suan, > > > Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > > ideas of Buddhadasa. > > I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. Hi NEO and Suan, I want to address both of you with one post. First, it is hypocritical to the extreme to state that "Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without carefully studying the message." Do you both not see how this is glaringly hypocritical? Perhaps you don't so let me spell it out. This statement (and others of the same nature in these two posts) is supporting a `view of conceit' that equates a person's `message' or `ideas' with the person himself. It is not feasible to state that it is wrong to criticize Buddhaghosa as a person without listening to his ideas, and then turn around and do just that to those who oppose some of the ideas of Buddhaghosa (like myself) by referring to them as a `class of backward people'. Although I do have to give you kudos for the cleverness of crouching such a personal insult in such a seemingly innocuous manner ;-) (hint: irony). Also, you cannot scare me, and shouldn't try, with allusions and innuendos that I (and the other `backward people' ;-) are going to go to hell for opposing some of the views of Buddhaghosa. The Christians tried that with me for many years and it never worked ;- ). What determines a person's rebirth in a hell realm is intent, and, even if I am mistaken, my intent is far more pure than the both of yours who aim at character assassination and attempted silence with hints of supernatural punishment. Also, Robert K's post was not the unilateral disqualification of all of the views of Buddhadasa that you both seem to purport it as being. He simply questioned some of Buddhadasa's interpretations using his own analysis. Personally, I didn't find it conclusive in any regard because he didn't quote the actual words and analysis of Buddhadasa, but he did quote the actual words of Buddhaghosa. That is not a fair or comprehensive comparison. To paraphrase one and then direly quote the other may be a misrepresentation of both and more strongly of the views of Buddhadasa; which I am not saying with all certainty that that is what occurred. I don't have the inclination to study both of these scholars in-depth and present my own findings on the matter. Unless either one of you care to do that, we are back at where we started. Finally, you both make a false assumption that one has to be thoroughly familiar with every single aspect of the Commentaries and the Abhidhamma in order to reach any conclusions about them. Both of those works are so vast that no one could say with certainty that they are thoroughly familiar with either body of work, even if they are completely in favor of them. Your position is like stating that one cannot believe the teachings of the Lord Buddha until that person is fully enlightened. Of course that is not necessary. It is quite possible to reach conclusions about something with only partial knowledge of it. As always, it was a pleasure writing to the both of you. Please don't continue to make this discussion such a strong adversarial one; that isn't beneficial to anyone (I hope that isn't what this post does…but I felt these things needed to be stated.). Take care. Metta, James 20512 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & Other, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Hi Robert and All, I was exposed to V. Buddhadhassa's work thru my parents' interests, so I am by no mean an expert on what he teaches. However, from my brief glimpses of his work, I have the following impressions: 1) his teachings, especially when it comes to rebirth, is substantially different from what's in the 3 tipitakas. To believe that what he teaches is right, one needs to believe in the supposition that the tipitakas have been heavily doctored to include fragments of other beliefs (you can see how much the texts refer to rebirth: this seems to amount to major overhaul, not just convenient modifications). He believes in the aberration in all three tipitakas, not just the commentaries or the abhidhamma tipitakas. 2) To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be? The venerable would explain it, "it is what it is". Although this sounds very alluring and calming, this points to spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. 3) To believe in no rebirth also negates the explanation of kamma and its results. He sometimes explained the results of kamma to mean what we receive in this very life. If you believe this, then there are people who commit evils, but who will receive no results, and there are people who receive (good and bad) results, without causes. Kamma that are conditioned by attachments (and therefore, wouldn't necessarily condition anger or anxiety, something he views as the punishment of this very life) may bear no fruit if the authority doesn't catch the crooks and punish them. People who are born rich and beautiful, miserable and disadvantaged, are put there without cause: stuffs happen. I don't think there are much disagreements that intellectual understandings about the dhamma alone cannot bring about enlightenment. It is the disagreement of what brings about the understanding at the pati-pati (practice) level, that is usually in questions. Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati level is the same way as any other realities: they are conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for further development, and may very well lead us into the wrong practices. kom 20513 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, Hope you are not upset with me. Let me explain the background from which my reaction arose. A friend had written off-list expressing what I thought was confusion with regard to the disagreements expressed by different members here on dsg on different issues. He also said that he found no cause for confusion reading the direct words of the Buddha. This is why I quickly reacted to Kom’s message to Victor by showing my approval to what he wrote. I too was thinking about how each person reads the text and thinks that he understands it as it should be understood. All so simple, all so clear, no need for the commentaries!! Yes there was dosa, especially when I see that people prefer Nanavira and Buddhadasa to Buddhaghosa. As you probably know I don’t read anything but these posts on dsg. But once I did pick up one of the commentaries (forget which one) and read two pages from it. I remember that I felt much joy and gratitude towards the author and realized that without the commentaries I would not have come to understand the original message. I also thought about the last time someone mentioned and quoted Nanavira, I had the impression that this person was probably trained in western philosophy, this was reflected in the way he chose to question and the conclusions he would then make. There was a particular style there. Of course I am grateful to him, because it set me thinking about how we all are limited by our peculiar method of inquiry. In fact I think many times, asking a question, we already choose an answer we would like to hear. But of course I should be watching my own mind. With regard to Buddhadasa, I had once made the conclusion that he mostly “reactedâ€? to what he saw in the general Thai public. In the case of Buddhaghosa, I think he was blaming the wrong person. I think the cause for his reaction was the the general Thai buddhists’ trend to misinterpret not only Buddhagosa’s writings, but the Teachings in general. Many Thais do have the influence of Brahmanism, but is this the Visudhimagga’s fault? I hope you now understand Howard. But yes, we do disagree, and I would like to proceed along with this if you don’t mind. Comments are in between. Howard: • Now, I understand you to be saying that there is no partticularly • Buddhist practice at all, and that my neighbor who knows nothing of the • Dhamma is already doing what needs to be done .. conditions just need to • somehow develop. There is a hearing or reading about reality, one of the characteristics of which is Anatta. And one hears about conditions and how complex is the cause for the arising of any dhamma. How well one understands this depends on many conditions one of which is one’s accumulations. This ranges on the one hand Sariputta and Bhaiya who immediately understood from just a few words to the other extreme someone such as the Pope, who interprets Buddhism as being a pessimistic religion based on his misunderstanding of the Noble Truth of Dukkha. Did Sariputta and Bahiya do anything to attain enlightenment, ie. with this object in mind? Would you say that their attitude would have been the same as your neighbor’s? Conditions need to be developed, not randomly but also not capable of being directed and controled by anything but the conditions themselves. Certainly not by what we think and wish to be. Howard: • Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is • read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, • and think about that. I wouldn’t say this either, because the important first step is pariyatti, which is the actual moment of intellectual understanding. ‘Reading’ is a conventional activity, it can be done with complete ignorance and attachment. If one thinks that this activity per se would lead to insight, then I object to it as I do to formal meditation. But of course the description is needed, in this case then, if one has the correct understanding of the purpose of the Teachings, then the words can condition sati and sampajanna to arise. And here I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude that once sati has arisen, I can then direct my mind to cause more sati to arise, either by listening or reading more or by trying to direct my mind towards the arising phenomena. Howard: • Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best • be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended differ radically. • As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don’t know. I was merely • responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that Chris engages in • any number of activities of her choosing. I made some suggestions that I • hoped might be helpful ... that’s all. I don’t know how far the misunderstanding is, but in the case of mentioning about Chistine’s activities, I was not pointing to the activities themselves, but to the attitude towards those activities, whatever they are. My objection is towards a sudden encouragement of sakyaditthi even if this be with the intention of loosening it. I do not think we can think of acquiring something for ourselves and expect to decrease lobha in the process. Similarly I do not think that engaging in silabattaparamasa can lead to the wearing away of sakyaditthi. Please let us pursue this Howard, and I would like others to join in as well. If one or both of us are wrong, we should know, don’t you think? With metta, Sukin. 20514 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:43am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Christine and all, Here is my thoughts about the place of the Abhidhamma Pitaka: First of all, I don't see the Abhidhamma Pitaka as part of the Dhamma and Discipline. The Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation. I can discern this taste of liberation in the discourses and the Vinaya. I also discern it in some of the writings on the Teaching of the Buddha. My exposure to Abhidhamma Pitaka is second-handed (or third or fourth). It is mostly through writings or discussions in DSG or elsewhere. From what I read about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I have come to see it as an elaborate conceptual system that aims to describe, explain and classify mental phenomena. To me, the "taste" of this sytem is different from that of the Dhamma and Discipline. In other words, I see the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Dhamma-Discipline in two different domains with different focuses. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, [snip] > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. > > metta, > > Christine 20515 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 0:30pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- It is not feasible to state > that it is wrong to criticize Buddhaghosa as a person without > listening to his ideas, and then turn around and do just that to > those who oppose some of the ideas of Buddhaghosa ( _________________> Dear James, Swee Boon and Suan, Thanks for the comments about my post. I wrote most of it about 18months ago and this was mostly a paste job. While I think venerable Buddhadasa's comments about the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa are mistaken I also think we should not be gentle when disagreeing. Otherwise people react rather than consider. So I sympathise with what James said above. ________ > Also, Robert K's post was not the unilateral disqualification of all > of the views of Buddhadasa that you both seem to purport it as > being. He simply questioned some of Buddhadasa's interpretations > using his own analysis. Personally, I didn't find it conclusive in > any regard because he didn't quote the actual words and analysis of > Buddhadasa, but he did quote the actual words of Buddhaghosa. That > is not a fair or comprehensive comparison. _______________ Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when he noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that he wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. People can read the visuddhimagga and take it wrongly, but that is not the fault of the Vis. Here is an article by Buddhadasa that has some worthwhile points I think. http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm INSlGHT, BY THE NATURE METHOD ""One thing must be noticed, however: the intensity of concentration that comes about naturally is usually sufficient and appropriate for introspection and insight, whereas the concentration resulting from organized training is usually excessive, more than can be made use of. Furthermore, misguided satisfaction with that highly developed concentration may result. While the mind is fully concentrated, it is likely to be experiencing such a satisfying kind of bliss and well- being that the meditator may become attached to it, or imagine it to be the Fruit of the Path. Naturally occurring concentration, which is sufficient and suitable for use in introspection, is harmless, having none of the disadvantages inherent in concentration developed by means of intensive training. In the Tipitaka, there are numerous references to people attaining naturally all states of Path and Fruit. This generally came about in the presence of the Buddha himself but also happened later with other teachers. These people did not go into the forest and sit, assiduously practicing concentration on certain objects in the way described in later manuals. In these cases, keen, penetrating insight came about quite naturally. These examples clearly show that natural concentration is liable to develop of its own accord while one is attempting to understand clearly some question, and that the resulting insight, as long as it is firmly established must be quite intense and stable. It happens naturally, automatically in just the same way as the mind becomes concentrated the moment we set about doing arithmetic. Likewise in firing a gun, when we take aim, the mind automatically becomes concentrated and steady. This is how naturally occurring concentration comes about. We normally overlook it completely because it does not appear the least bit magical, miraculous, or awe inspiring. But through the power of just this naturally occurring concentration, most of us could actually attain liberation. We could attain the Fruit of the Path, Nirvana, arahantship, just by means of natural concentration. So don't overlook this naturally occurring concentration. It is something most of us either already have, or can readily develop. We have to do everything we can to cultivate and develop it, to make it function perfectly and yield the appropriate results, just as did most of the people who succeeded in becoming arahants, none""""" 20516 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 0:52pm Subject: Re: Parameters The Buddha declared "I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering." Hi Mike et al (Kom, Victor, Howard, Sukin), Thanks, Mike. It was well worth the wait! There is much in your response that requires careful analysis, this is only my first attempt at that. In view of the lively concurrent discussions, I would like to stipulate that I mean no disrespect to anyone, and especially none to the Buddha. Specifically, my questions are just attempts to understand your attitudes and viewpoints. M: "I'm not aware of one, though, that contains even one of even the most conventional expressions of the eight path factors--much less all eight of them or the incredible elucidation of them in the Tipitaka." "Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What an amazing and unique insight." "The other three noble truths I would agree are unique to Buddhadhamma, but not implicitly (if by that you mean sort of tautologically)--I mean I really don't think any of them are to be found elsewhere (except where borrowed from Buddhadhamma)." "I think that all manner of teachings can be more or less relevant to lots of different things--I just don't know of one that I find relevant to the four noble truths and conditioned origination." D: I had offerred the solution to suffering, including unsatisfactoriness of existence, as one common denominator. Yes, what you point out may be unique to Buddhism. Each religion has aspects that are unique, and none are completely similar. The question however, is whether we should concentrate only on the differences, at the expense of the similarities. The answer illuminates the parameters of understanding about what we are, what the universe is, and myriad other mysteries. Let me repeat this portion which is worth spending some thinking capital on: The answer illuminates the parameters of understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> So, I think it is again an issue of terminology, view, parameters, and ultimately ... belief." Here we disagree. The uniqueness of the four noble truths is not a matter of 'terminology, view, parameters and ultimately ... belief.'-- they are unique quite outside these considerations. As for belief, for my part, I don't 'believe' in the Buddhadhamma. I accept it as a working hypothesis because it explains more, more satsifactorily, than anything else I've discovered so far. If by belief you mean something like 'blind faith', the Buddha discouraged this sort of thing as I understand it. D: I have never found so much aversion to the word 'belief' as on dsg!! No, I do not mean blind faith, whatever that really means. Theologicians of other religions would never admit 'blind faith' either. Most intelligent believers, explore, test etc. yet still have to accept a set of views, within set parameters, using a certain terminology. Accepting what we cannot immediately verify to be true, is my understanding of belief in this context. Take Nibbana, is there or is there not belief in it? Take liberation, is there or is there not belief in it? Belief is what we all require to make sense of the immediately unknowable, to hold out a construct that somehow lends order to the apparent chaos. Coincidentally, it is the mother of all concepts!!! Now, if you want to say you do not 'believe' that's okay with me, but I reserve the right to wonder ;-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: ".......When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them..." D: Knowing for yourself, is a common motif of many religions. Once we accept the basic premises, begin to 'believe' as it were, we begin to 'know' within that construct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> I guess what I am looking for is a view about other teachings not overly restricted by the parameters of one's own > dominant belief. Perhaps even this is not easily possible, let alone true objectivity." I don't see (my perception of) the absence of the four noble truths from other teachings as being an overly restricted view, or as being restricted at all. I do see this as the distinction between Buddhadhamma and religions and other teachings, though. I think this is quite a valid distinction. D: The view that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other religions, seems to inhibit objective consideration of the latter. I hope I am reading you correctly here, Mike. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. D: Now available on DVD - skilfully adapted I am told. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: d: > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of Buddhadhamma properly understood though, in my opinion. D: Really? The dialogue on Buddhaghosa just today may suggest otherwise! Of course the caveat of being properly understood, would apply to all religions, presumably protecting any of their believers from Cruel, irreligious piety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> What struck me there was that mutually > exclusive beliefs of both parties, provided no bridge to aid > understanding. > Needless to say both thought they were right. > What therefore follows is a showcase for kilesa and kamma! If you're suggesting that the absence of a 'bridge to aid understanding (between the parties?) is the source of the following evil, I think this is an error (no offense). People who understand each other perfectly well (in the conventional meaning of 'understanding') are capable of the of the greatest horrors. I think, for example, that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein understand each other perfectly well, speaking conventionally. Understanding in the sense of pa~n~naa is something entirely different, of course. D: In the play, the refusal to identify with the other's point of view, resulted in horrors beyond their imagination. The history of religions gives ample examples of this phenomenon. By understanding I mean more than perceiving the insults thrown back and forth, the capabilities of the adversary etc. if that is what you imply by conventional. I mean the ability to see oneself in the shoes of the other. To have compassion for the other, not just pity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: I wouldn't say this; every day I endeavour to have fun, to 'be good', to make a living, to stay well etc. I also try to understand (in a conventional way) what's happening in the world socio- economically and even a little about physics and so on. It's true that I have no interest in religion, though. In fact, I quite dislike religion (akusala, I know!). By religion I mean, roughly, superstitious belief in the possibility of influencing events by means of the supernatural (or the petitioning of supernatural beings). D: I apologize Mike. By saying the only focus of your endeavor, I meant as in focussing your religious sense, rather than the totality of life, if it is safe to make that distinction. I think that all religions have the core of truth. What then happens, is the onion- like layering on of superstition, ritual, xenophobia, and most importantly, misinterpretation. I also have no time for belief in influencing events by petitions/supplications/penances, none in ghosts, devils, angels, heaven, hell etc. This however, does not give sufficient reason to reject the core teachings of most religions. I believe that each core provides a unique aspect of truth and reality - parts of the mosaic of existence. I know what I say is unconventional, but there you have it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble truths? D: This illustrates the issue of parameters. Yes, I do think/believe that "............" a.k.a 'unconditioned reality' exists. Whether inside or outside of the 4NT, is a matter of view and parameters, part of which I am trying to explore with you. Is it safe to conclude that Nibbana is only achieved by the path taught by the Buddha? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: To me, one of the most striking (and delightful) aspects of Buddhadhamma is the way that it illustrates that the preoccupations of everyone, everywhere are unsatisfactory, impermanent and empty. I've deliberately equivocated 'proliferation' (papa~nca) with preoccupation here--hope I'm not twisting your meaning: "Dependent on the eye....... D: I presume you mean that the preoccupations of everyone are just proliferation. I am not sure that I can answer this intelligently or accurately. All I can say is that billions are striving for some experience of the unconditioned reality in their own ways, and I personally cannot just ascribe that to a mental dead-end for all of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: d: > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? Not quite sure what you mean here. D: This may require a whole separate response. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike, this does NOT specifically apply to you, but is a general question for contemplation by everyone: Do we run the risk of mana, by easily (or reactively) considering other beliefs relatively inferior to our own? It is indeed a pleasure to interact with you, Mike. I don't think we are very distant at all in our general understanding. :) u.w. dharam 20517 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon (and Suan, and Robert) - Wow! Hellfire and damnation! Sign me up for the revival meeting! In a message dated 3/23/03 9:28:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Suan, > > >Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > >ideas of Buddhadasa. > > I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think so as well! Robert is always to-the-point, measured, moderate, and insightful. As far as Budhhadasa Bhikkhu is concerned, I like some of his stuff, and am not keen about other stuff of his. So what? I am not the Grand Inquisitor, nor am I aware of anyone else who fills that role. Geez, where are all the witches? I'd love to have a good witch-burnin' party! ----------------------------------------------- > > >I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of > >Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. > > > >Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- > >minded backward people. > > > >Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to > >the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without > >carefully studying the message. > > Oh no ... > > >I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the > >position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, > >yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to > >commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). > > I wonder do such people accumulate great akusala kamma to send them to > the woeful states of existence. Assuming that Buddhaghosa had taught > the real Dhamma and that the Abhidhamma is really the true ultimate > doctrine, would not that be equivalent to slandering the Buddha? For > it was said "one who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha". Although the > Buddha and probably Buddhaghosa had become extinct in parinibbana, do > you think committing such "wrong speech" accumulates great akusala kamma? > > > I also have objections to what Buddhadasa taught about nibbana. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > =============================== With fundamentalist fire-and-brimstone 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) 20518 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon and all - In a message dated 3/23/03 5:43:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > > Hi, Swee Boon (and Suan, and Robert) - > > Wow! Hellfire and damnation! Sign me up for the revival meeting! > ============================= While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. 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) 20519 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Sukin - Your post is a lengthy one, and so I snipped all but the part I think requires immediate reply. In a message dated 3/23/03 12:50:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Hope you are not upset with me. > ======================== Not at all. We are fine!! :-) 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) 20520 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Me Again! Dear James, It's me again Janice! Thanks for answering my questions. Now here are another few questions! How old is the Buddha now? Do you pray in the temple every once a week?(at least) Do you take any classes in the temple? For a change I shall share a poem with you- YELLOW WITH AGE See how old paper withers and looks Ancient old photographs dusty old books Watch how old leaves, linens and skin Alter to mirror the changes within Mark how with age things gradually mellow React to the air and oxidize yellow. Metta, Janice 20521 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:54pm Subject: Again! Dear Kom, Thank you for answering my questions! Lately, I am quite upset about the war which had just started in Iraq! Here are a few questions: Do you believe in war? do you support it? Do you believe in the laughing Buddha? Do you follow the mindfulness path? Do you go to the temple every week? Metta, Janice 20522 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:57pm Subject: JANicE~>>! Dear Janice, Hello! I'm Kiana and I was suprised and happy that you wrote me a letter and gave me a happy belated Birthday wish! I remember you! You are the cute girl who studies in Mrs.Abbott's Friday class and I saw you before! I have to say 'Happy Birthday" to you too! On March 5th, was your birthday, is it? Now is the time to answer your questions. THat book "The British Museum-Buddha" is interesting because it tells many differnce ideas of Buddha, and there are really many Buddhas in the world! You can try to borrow that book in Mrs.Abbott's class! You will know more about them! Metta,Kiana 20523 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 86 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html In the same way, eye is eye-base; visible object is materiality-base; seeing is mind-base; feeling and so forth, the associated things, are thing-base. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four bases. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Likewise, eye is eye-process; visible object is materiality-process; seeing is eye-consciousness-process; and the things beginning with feeling associated with eye-consciousness are mind-process. Thus, looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four processes. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Exactly, in the manner already stated, eye is support-condition; visible object is object-condition; adverting is condition of proximity, contiguity, decisive-support, absence and disappearance; light is condition of decisive-support and those beginning with feeling are conascence-condition. Thus looking straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the front is seen in the combination of these conditions. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? [Tika] With the words: light is the condition of decisive-support the conditionality of seeing is stated through the Suttanta method, through the way of illustrated discourse, discursively, indirectly. [T] Conascence-condition too belongs to just seeing. This is (given as) only an example owing to the obtaining also of conditions of mutuality, association, presence, non-disappearance and so forth. Here, in this way, by reflection on the aggregates, bases, processes, and conditions, too, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood. 3. Clear comprehension in the bending and the stretching of limbs Sammiñjite pasarite = "in bending and in stretching." In the bending and the stretching of the joints. The consideration of purpose and lack of purpose in regard to any contemplated act of bending or stretching, and the taking up of that which is purposeful, after not bending and stretching according to merely the mind's inclination, is clear comprehension of purpose. In this matter, a person who experiences pain every moment due to standing long with bent or stretched hands or feet does not get concentration of mind (mental one-pointedness), his subject of meditation entirely falls away, and he does not obtain distinction (absorption and so forth). But he who bends or stretches his hands and feet for the proper length of time does not experience pain, gets concentration of mind, develops his subject of meditation and attains distinction. Thus the comprehension of purpose and non-purpose should be known. Clear comprehension of suitability is the comprehension of the suitable after considering the suitable and the non-suitable even in a matter that is purposeful. In this connection, the following is the method of explanation: It is said that on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine, while young bhikkhus were rehearsing the doctrine, young bhikkhunis standing at the back of the bhikkhus were listening to the rehearsal. Then a young bhikkhu came into bodily contact with a bhikkhuni while stretching out his hand, and, by just that fact, became a layman. Another bhikkhu in stretching his foot stretched it into fire and his foot got burnt to the bone. Another stretched his foot on an ant-hill and was bitten in the foot by a poisonous snake. Another bhikkhu stretched out his hand till it rested on the pole of a robe-tent, a ribbon-snake on the pole bit the hand of that bhikkhu. Therefore the stretching of one's limbs should be done in a suitable and not an unsuitable place. This should be understood here as clear comprehension of suitability. [T] Just by the showing of the tribulation of non-comprehension of that, the felicity of comprehension is made clear; thus here, the illustration of these should be understood. [T] In the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine = In the terrace of the great relic shrine known by the name of Hemamali, at Anuradhapura, in Lanka, built by the king Dutthagamini. [T] By just that fact, became a layman = By reason of coming into bodily contact with a female, that bhikkhu having become filled with longing for sense-delights turned to the lower life of the world. [T] On the pole of a robe-tent = On a pole fixed to the roof of a tent covered with robes. [T] It is said by the commentator that bhikkhus having made a robe-tent were in that tent rehearsing the doctrine even on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine. It is said by the commentators, the elders Ananda and Dhammapala, that the ribbon-snake is a snake-species found in Lion Island. 20524 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Nina and all, I'm a little bewildered by the section on clear comprehension. Are the seven parts of this section concerned with insight, aka "clear comprehension" (sampaja~n~na) in four ways, i.e., purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion, into the body in the practice of body mindfulness (kaya anupassana)? Purpose, suitability, and resort seem to be concerned with maintaining purity and could possibly be characterized as "awareness". This adds another dimension to insight. Larry 20525 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: _______________ > Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. > As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book > that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when he > noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the > misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that he > wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. Hi Robert K, Oh, my apologies, I didn't clarify this enough. What I meant to say is that you don't directly quote where Buddhadasa explains his reasoning and evidence for why Buddhaghosa inadvertently supports the positions of atta and, therefore, incorrectly presents karma and dependent origination; but you do quote some material from Buddhaghosa that states there is no self (showing that he at least, in those examples, supported anatta), in opposition to a position of Buddhadasa's that you have not presented in its entirety. Granted, you do quote Buddhadasa directly, but not anything that relates to his main point. You quote where he lays the groundwork for his argument, and then where he follows up after his argument, but not the main argument itself. I still have no idea how Buddhadasa justified this position against Buddhaghosa. Surely he didn't just state it, not offer any evidence, and that was the end of that? My point was that I am depending on you to prove your case: Buddhadasa made accusations that were unsupported or incorrect. I don't see how you did this. It shouldn't be up to me to look up this two works and find out for myself what you haven't presented. I believe that if someone takes up the goal of convincing people of something, it needs to be presented in a fair and complete way. Granted, you aren't being paid for this so you don't have to do anything. But I also don't have to believe you unless you follow through with a balanced presentation. That was all I was saying. Metta, James ps. The comments that Buddhadasa might have been reacting to how the Buddhadharma is incorrectly presented in Thai society is not supported with any type of evidence and is a generalization that is unfair to both Buddhadasa and Thai society. 20526 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:59pm Subject: Re: Parameters Hi Mike, I have a (hopefully humorous) postscript caveat to add to my last sentence in my prior message: "I don't think we are very distant at all in our general understanding.....but then, how long is a piece of string??" :) You were not clear on my question: "Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs?" By this I meant to ask if it were possible to find sufficient common ground, between the all too well encapsulated understandings - religious, philosophic and scientific etc. if each steadfastly insists on its own unique superiority, as indeed many adherents maintain. Not only is theirs right, but the ONLY right one, and others be damned. That is often the real-world situation. Those less certain are left with sa.mvega (thanks, Mike!). May I explore this issue using an analogy? Advance apologies to solar worshippers/heliophiles. An advanced member of a group studies, contemplates, discusses and proclaims that everything is dependant on the Sun. All life, heat and light, the seasons, the weather, all cycles of existence (metaphorically) revolve around the Sun. Now to a large degree, we have to agree that this is (conventionally) true, verifiable, and constant over time. It can also be viewed an issue of parameters and belief. Later, others of that group, insist that only sufficient exposure to the Sun allows any individual to fully understand the profound nature of this revelation. Some others insist that frequent sunburns are the key. All other prior, and subsequent, constructs are inferior because they do not expound these stark truths about 'reality'. So, those who speak about the importance of air, water, nutrition, gravity etc. for example, are off the mark. Being off the mark, these others will be condemned to cold, dark ignorance and other ignoble outcomes. The above analogy can be applied to almost any contemporary religion or philosophy. If we are honest, we can see how this sort of process operates. The problem is not with the initial observation, the truth; but it lies with those who come later and insist on qualifiers leading to exclusivity. These people cannot reconcile well-encapsulated internally consistent beliefs, with other beliefs, that may also be true. All or none. After so much human effort and understanding, it would be a shame if we miss this simple point - that we are looking at different aspects of the same Truth. Since many of us pursue further understanding to shed ignorance, I am concerned about the artificial limiting of knowledge based on, shall we politely say, premature closure. Premature closure that leads people to the delusion that they are on THE ONLY path to correct understanding, and eventually "..........". IMHO there is much to be understood, within and outside of, any one particular teaching or field of understanding. Keeping a truly open mind seems to be just a basic prerequisite. Keeping an open mind also obliges one to consider the opposite view carefully, and without too much aversion. No place for mana here! Not because of any injunction not to be conceited, but because of a humble understanding of how easily even the intelligent can be fooled. Hope this overlong explanation helps to clarify. u.w. dharam 20527 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:18pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > _______________ > > Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. > > As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book > > that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when > he > > noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the > > misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that > he > > wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. > > > Hi Robert K, > > Oh, my apologies, I didn't clarify this enough. What I meant to say > is that you don't directly quote where Buddhadasa explains his > reasoning and evidence for why Buddhaghosa inadvertently supports > the positions of atta and, therefore, incorrectly presents karma and > dependent origination; but you do quote some material from > Buddhaghosa that states there is no self (showing that he at least, > in those examples, supported anatta), in opposition to a position of > Buddhadasa's that you have not presented in its entirety. Granted, > you do quote Buddhadasa directly, but not anything that relates to > his main point. You quote where he lays the groundwork for his > argument, and then where he follows up after his argument, but not > the main argument itself. I still have no idea how Buddhadasa > justified this position against Buddhaghosa. Surely he didn't just > state it, not offer any evidence, and that was the end of that? _______________ Well I tried to summarize his arguments fairly . It ran to many pages so I couldn't quote them all. Unfortunately the book is up in Japan but I have a few more notes so might add these later. I think I could write even more on points where I agree with Buddhadasa, but my aim in this case was to respond only to his criticisms of Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga. __________ > Metta, James > ps. The comments that Buddhadasa might have been reacting to how the > Buddhadharma is incorrectly presented in Thai society is not > supported with any type of evidence and is a generalization that is > unfair to both Buddhadasa and Thai society. _______ In the original letter from Christine she gave this link: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf ""Buddhadasa further indicates that there are a great many aspects of profound teachings most people do not understand because they are familiar only with everyday language. Moreover, when the Tipitaka is interpreted in terms of everyday language it is incomprehensible. He observes that the confusion between Buddhism and popular beliefs, and traditional formulations of Thai Buddhism consisting of miracles, and supernatural accounts, result because the Buddhist doctrine is not interpreted in terms of dhamma language. ..[..]. That is, for Buddhadasa, in the deepest sense of traditional interpretation of Thai Buddhism, the form of everyday language which seems to be foundamentally misguided, is based on the standards of everyday and dhamma language. [..]Buddhadasa is concerned with the significance of dhamma language, and firmly maintains that everyday language is not the Buddhist language. .... Moreover, notes Buddhadasa, the Tipitaka contains both possible meanings of the doctrine. There are many examples in the Tipitaka which show that Buddha Himself taught dhamma using the two levels of meaning. [...]As a result, his concept is more than a means employed by Buddhadasa to criticize particular ideas and practices within Thai Buddhism. [..]Buddhadasa points out the example of the majority of Thai Buddhists who do not understand the aim of merit making, thus they make merit and expect something in return in the form of rewards such as fortunes, happiness in this life and the next life. [....]Buddhadasa's criticism of Thai Buddhism is a part of his attempt to return to original Buddhism. Further, it can lead us to a better understanding of the religious situation in Thailand. [...]Buddhadasa criticizes the education of Thai Sangha as superficial. [...]In Buddhadasa's view the Sangha is preoccupied with prestige, position, and comfort and they have little interest in the highest ideals of Buddhism. Most of the monks are more concerned with building new temples and governing the Sangha hierachy than teaching the dhamma to the people. He strongly criticizes those monks who practice the magical art of fortune-telling or soothsaying for their own ends and he looks askance at a mechanistic use of merit-making and rituals that aim for the attainment of an immediate reward. Buddhist teaching is then capitalized for fortune and status. The strict monastic disciplines are diverted for prestige and fame and so Buddhism becomes a vehicle.. [..]Buddhadasa does not agree with the government policy of propagation of Buddhism. He criticizes that the government....""" RobertK 20528 From: All There Is Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg]War, (Janice) Hello Janice, With so many gifts that the humanity is presented every day, it still has to return to the destruction. Keep remembering that the deepest evil has the highest good attached to it. The change has begun. The powers will shift, the attitudes will alter, the hearts will solidify in love. It is necessary to walk through darkness to appreciate the light. Anchor the vision of a brighter world in your hearts and so will be done Source 20529 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Howard, Christine and Sukinder, I'll take up that invitation. For me I think people should do as they wish to do and not feel constrained or exhorted to do or not do this or that. I remember meeting with A. Sujin about a year after we first met and feeling a little guilty when I recounted that I sometimes went to a zen center where we did sitting, slow walking and chanting; felt like I was letting the "theravada' down. She picked up on this and said "Why? Don't you think awareness can occur while you are sitting or walking slow?" Nina van Gorkom wrote in buddhism in daily life: "One is first confronted with the practice of Buddhism when one sees different customs of the Thais, such as giving food to the monks, paying respect to the Buddha image or reciting the 'precepts' on special occasions such as Uposatha Day [Uposatha Day is the day of 'fasting' or 'vigil' which laypeople usually observe four times a month (the days of the new moon, full moon and the two days of the half moon) by undertaking moral precepts and by visiting the temple]. In the beginning I thought that these customs were mixed with many things which are not essential for the practice of Buddhism. For example, I did not see how the presenting of eggs to the statue of the Emerald Buddha could have anything to do with the practice of Buddhism. However, even such popular beliefs can teach us something about the practice of Buddhism. There are many levels of understanding the Buddha's teachings. The people who present the eggs to the statue of the Buddha express their confidence in him. This is a wholesome act which will bear its fruit accordingly. However, the people who present the eggs may not realise that it is their respect to the Buddha which will bring them a good result and not the eggs presented to him. They may not clearly see which cause will bring them which result. They would receive greater benefit from their act of paying respect to the Buddha if this were done in a more meaningful way. They could, for example, pay respect to the Buddha in abstaining from ill deeds, in serving other people, in learning more about the teachings of the Buddha and in helping other people to understand the teachings as well. """ It is always - as Nina says - seeing clearly 'which cause brings which result'. If I sit or walk slowly or light incense or chant it can be with a confused understanding that focuses on the ritual and calm that comes with this, rather than the actual present moment. But awareness can also arise during these activities if there are sufficient supporting conditions. Also I used to believe that if someone studied enough of the Tipitaka (especially the Abhidhamma and commentaries, Howard;)) they would sooner or later develop wisdom that should lead to increasing direct insight into the present moment. However, through meeting someone (no one on this list) I came to see that just studying Abhidhamma won't necessarily lead in the right direction at all. It was like holding a mirror up so that I could see my own faults. So while reading or considering Dhamma it is only beneficial if there is kusala at those moments. Sometimes I might read with a subtle hoping - that I can progress. Or an attachment to the teachings. These are simply tanha -a papanca - that actually prolong samsara. One is going in the wrong direction even while doing an outwardly kusala activity. Or there might be conceit "I understand" - another papanca. Or ditthi of some degree. And if there is not awareness of the difference between genuine kusala and 'outward' kusala then one will go in the wrong direction for a long time. Even if there is kusala while studying this is still only at the level of pariyatti unless it goes deeper to actually insight the present moment. RobertK -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: >> > Howard: > • Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is > • read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and > the commentaries, > • and think about that. > > I wouldn’t say this either, because the important first step is > pariyatti, which is the actual moment of intellectual > understanding. ‘Reading’ is a conventional activity, it can be done > with complete ignorance and attachment. If one thinks that this > activity per se would lead to insight, then I object to it as I do to > formal meditation. But of course the description is needed, in this > case then, if one has the correct understanding of the purpose of the > Teachings, then the words can condition sati and sampajanna to > arise. And here I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude > that once sati has arisen, I can then direct my mind to cause more > sati to arise, either by listening or reading more or by trying to > direct my mind towards the arising phenomena. > > Howard: > • Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best > • be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended > differ radically. > • As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don’t > know. I was merely > • responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that > Chris engages in > • any number of activities of her choosing. I made some > suggestions that I > • hoped might be helpful ... that’s all. > > I don’t know how far the misunderstanding is, but in the case of > mentioning about Chistine’s activities, I was not pointing to the > activities themselves, but to the attitude towards those activities, > whatever they are. My objection is towards a sudden encouragement of > sakyaditthi even if this be with the intention of loosening it. I do > not think we can think of acquiring something for ourselves and > expect to decrease lobha in the process. Similarly I do not think > that engaging in silabattaparamasa can lead to the wearing away of > sakyaditthi. > Please let us pursue this Howard, and I would like others to join in > as well. If one or both of us are wrong, we should know, don’t you > think? > With metta, > Sukin. 20530 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 ---Dear James, Christine and all, I add some more about ven. Buddhadasa's book on Paticcasamuppada. As I said I don't have it with me so am working off an old letter I wrote: On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the 9th paragraph): "therefore his[Buddhaghosa] explanation took on the appearance of spanning three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming into the present birth and from the present going over into the future birth" Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we are at odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence of all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the Buddha that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't last for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from life to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with many points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think it is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the ancients really taught this perverted doctrine: There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga xvii 133-175. It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible. There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, due to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness (called cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different from other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - but it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not exactly the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from hearing consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of experiencing an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called patisandhara (rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of consciousness Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now, simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death, (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive it. But truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because different kamma will produce results. Here are some pertinent quotes: XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called death (cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the next becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from the previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it clear that that is exactly NOT what happens. 164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , or its like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies Identity and otherness" 302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya vinnana) prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." 280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors, revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as having no beginning" 303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' Also consider an earlier letter where I noted that Buddhaghosa also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" (see dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness does not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the course of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs about this. ====== Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals and so forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone is a state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in hell exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable Buddhadasa notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) and at other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the human plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal plane. The other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually see, hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist. Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no humans, no animals no "us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena - arising and passing away. In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which Ven. Buddhadasa quotes) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours. Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree. The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is usually no opportunity for pleasant results. Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of various kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of these states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced after entering the coffin".Endquote I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise in this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view to the real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make one terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life now - which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and how the factors of the dependent origination work their ways. RobertK 20531 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, sorry if this is double. op 21-03-2003 17:41 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You > correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly > because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my > slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and > others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause > frustration. N: On the contrary, it is useful and necessary for all of us. Never enough of basics. I appreciated Kom's mail about the truths, anger is always anger, it cannot be kindness. It has its own characteristic. I would like to listen moreto Kom, Sarah and others. In my post to Mike I spoke in short about citta, cetasika and rupa. These are dhammas, realities that have their own characteristic. Different from the long stories we think about, stories of people, events. I shall quote first a little of my "The Preserving of the Teachings", discussions we had in India before. (see Zolag web): Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? Lodewijk finds it too much. It takes a long time to apply it, we often fail. But how beneficial. When we are attached to a person, it is actually clinging to ourselves, to the importance of self. No other religion could teach me this. It is so valuable. At least we see the disadvantage and danger of attachment, and also the way to cling less to self: what we take for person or I are only seeing, hearing and other cittas which experience different objects through different doorways, one at a time. I appreciate Sarah's reminders, she always stresses: not the situation, not the story is real. We get involved with situations and persons. The way out of this distress is knowing the dhamma appearing now. Nina. 20532 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & All, >It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. ..... I'd also like to contribute to this busy thread with a little more background information, comments and questions. When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems that all paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS transl by W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa’s own writings. The account in the Culavamsa is the oldest historical account of Buddhaghosa and all modern accounts seem to be directly or indirectly based on this. It was compiled by Dhammakitti at a later date. The Mahavamsa (and Culavamsa) are the well-known ‘Chronicle of Sri Lanka’. So, looking directly in the Culavamsa now, led me add a few details and questions. Buddhaghosa had ‘learnt’ the entire Tipitaka in India and become so named because “his speech (resounded) through the earth like (that of the) Buddha” <‘speech’ in Pali, ‘ghosa’>. We read that he was instructed to go to Sri Lanka because only the text without the commentary was available by this time (5th century AD) in India. On the other hand “the commentary in Sihala tongue is faultless. The wise Mahinda who tested the tradition laid before the three Councils as it was preached by the Perfectly Enlightened one and taught by Sariputta and others, wrote it in the Sihala tongue and it is spread among the Sihalas. Go thither, learn it and render it into the tongue of the Magadhas . It will bring blessing to the whole world.” Mahinda was of course the great arahant son of King Ashoka who introduced Buddhism to Sri lanka. ..... Qu: Why would Buddhaghosa be selected and sent to perform this task if a) his direct knowledge of the Teachings were not fully apparent and b) if it were not true and obvious to the wise arahants in India that the commentaries in Sri Lanka should be preserved and made available? ..... Buddhaghosa settled at the Mahavihara in Anuraddhapura. We read that the Mahavihara was “the abode of all pious (people)” and in “the great practising house” learned the commentary in Sihala tongue and asked for all the texts to compose and translate his commentary. Naturally, the Theras, I assume consisting of large numbers of arahants still, wished to test him out before handing over any of the precious texts for a re-write or translation. They gave him two verses and he was able to sum up “the three Pitakas together with the commentary” to write the Visuddhimagga, with apparent ease. He called the community “who was versed in the thoughts of the Enlightened One” and began to read by the Anuradhapura Bodhi tree. We read that the devas caused the book to disappear twice in order to show people his greatness and twice he rewrote it effortlessly and identically. There were no differences at all when the lost books reappeared. The community were delighted with the result and cried out “without doubt this is Metteyya!” and handed him the three Pitakas and full commentary to work on and so he “rendered the whole of the Sihala commentaries into the tongue of the Magadhas, the original speech of all.” Furthermore we read “all the teachers of the Theravada accepted it as the original text.” He then returned to India. ..... Qu: accepting this account as correct, why would these Theras as guardians of the only original commentaries, be so delighted and accept the Visuddhimagga and other commentaries, written by a complete foreigner unless they were correct and scrupulously faithful to the Sihala commentaries handed down from Mahinda’s time? They were also immediately accepted in India, Burma and all places where Theravada was taught. ..... This account of Buddhaghosa also conforms with Buddhaghosa’s own comments, especially those about the origins of the works such as the Visuddhimagga. He also mentions that the Sihala commentaries were composed by Mahinda and preserved in Sri Lanka. In the introduction to the Atthasalini, he says he will reveal the explanation of the meaning of the Abhidhamma as chanted by Maha Kassapa and the other Theras (at the First Council) and rechanted (at the Second Council) by the Arahants before Mahinda brought it to Sri Lanka. He continues to say he will explain all the meanings, word by word, unmixed by opinions from followers of other Nikayas. He mentions the Sihala commentaries by name in places. B.C.Law in “The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa”, pub. by Pilgrims Book, adds that “Mahinda was merely a translator into Sinhalese, and Buddhaghosa, a retranslator into Pali. Buddhaghosa himself frankly admits in his prologues to several commentaries that he annotated those passages only which were not commented upon by his predecessors, and the rest: he only translated.” ..... Qu: Surely if any of the comments given in his introductions were incorrect in any detail, there would be many a Thera to object. After all, the Mahavihara Theras had preserved the Sihala commentaries very carefully to date and knew them thoroughly. ..... B.C.Law’s writes that after his funeral, “Brahmins and other persons took the relics, buried them in sacred spots near the Bodhi tree and erected stupas over them.” In other words, during his life and immdediately afterwards, he was held in the highest regard for his writings and has been known as the greatest Theravada commentator ever since in all Theravada countries. ..... Qu: If the enlightened theras at the time and immediately after Buddhaghosa’s life in Sri lanka, India and elsewhere had such reverence and respect for his writings and immediately accepted them as, in effect, the word of the Buddha, why is it so difficult for modern writers and teachers to do so? ..... From Nanamoli’s introduction to the Visuddhimagga, we read his translation of Buddhaghosa’s prologue to the 4 Nikaya commentaries in which Buddhaghosa says; “(I shall now take) the commentary, whose object is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and most excellent Long Collection (Digha Nikaya)...set forth in detail by the Buddha and by his like (i.e the Elder Sariputta and other expounders of discourses in the Sutta Pitaka) - the commentary that in the beginning was chanted (at the First Council) and later rechanted (at the Second and Third), and was brought to the Sihala Island by the Arahant Mahinda the Great and rendered into the Sihala tongue for the benefit of the islanders, and from that commentary I shall remove the Sihala tongue, replacing it by the graceful language which conforms with Scripture and is purified and free from flaws. Not diverging from the standpoint of the elders residing in the Great Monastery (in Anuradhapura), who illuminate the elders’ heritage and are all well versed in exposition, and rejecting subject matter necessarily repeated, I shall make the meaning clear for the purpose of bringing contentment to good people and contributing to the long endurance of the Dhamma.” ..... Qu: These commentaries have been passed down with the other texts 1,500 years since Buddhaghosa, contributing to “the long endurance of the Dhamma” by those confident about their value. Should we not read and consider very carefully, not to mention develop more understanding, before adding a nail in the coffin of these texts? Qu: The comments i read about the mahavihara Theras in Aunradhapura at the time suggest they had great wisdom and probably included large numbers of arahants. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? ..... Nanamoli quotes examples from other texts by Buddhaghosa which show that he went to great pains to ensure “there is no sentence here that might conflict with the text or with the commentaries...”. Further, according to Nanamoli, “there is only one instance in the Vism where he openly advances an opinion of his own, with the words ‘our preference here is this’ (ch X111, 123).....The rarity of such instance and the caution expressed in them imply that he himself was disenclined to speculate an felt th need to point the fact out when he did. He actually says ‘one’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be acceptd if it accords with the Suttas’ (DA 567-68)...” ..... If these comments were untrue, why wasn’t it pointed out by his contemporaries? ..... Finally, I’d like to quote extracts from the postscript of the Visuddhimagga, conc., p742.(These are similar to comments at the end of other texts, such as the Atthasalini and presumably have always been included with the texts): 1.“This Path of Purification was made by the elder who is adorned with supreme and pure faith, wisdom and energy, in whom are gathered a concourse of upright, gentle, etc qualities due to the practice of virtue, who is capable of delving into and fathoming the views of his own and others’ creeds, who is possessed of keenness of understanding, who is strong in unerring knowledge of the Master’s Dispensation as divided into theree pitakas with their commentaries, a great expounder, gifted with sweet and noble speech that springs from the ease born of perfection of the vocal instrument, a speaker of what is appropriately said, a superlative speaker, a great poet, an ornament in the lineage of the elders who dwell in the Great Monastery, and who are shining lights in the lineage of elders with unblemished enlightenment in the superhuman states that are embellished with the special qualities of the six kinds of direct-knowledge and the categories of discrimination, who has abundant purified wit, who bears the name Buddhaghosa conferred by the venerable ones, and who should be called ‘of Morandacetaka.” ..... 2.Buddhaghosa’s words included in the Sinhalese texts only: “By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this And any other still in hand So may I in my next becoming Behold the joys of Tavitimsa Glad in the qualities of virtue And unattached to sense desires, By having reached the first fruition, And having in my last life seen Metteyya, Lord of Sages, Highest Of persons in the World, and Helper Delighing in all beings’ welfare, And heard the Holy One proclaim The Teaching of the Noble Dhamma, May I grace the Victor’s Dispensation By realizing its highest fruit.” ..... Qu: Surely this is not someone who would tell any untruths and if any of these comments were incorrect, why weren’t they pointed out by the Theras in Sri Lanka and elsewhere? Metta, Sarah ====== 20533 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi... Hi Darcy, Thank you for introducing yourself and it’s great to hear that you enjoy all the posts so much and also learn a lot. If you find some posts too technical in the beginning, you may wish to ignore these. I’d also be glad to hear where you live and are studying. We look forward to any further comments or questions you may have. Metta, Sarah ===== --- Darcy wrote: > Greetings to all, > > My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce myself to the group. > I'm a non-traditional university student studying history and > languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, they are wise and > compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a great deal, both > from posts here and on a few other groups I joined. Thank you. :-) > > Metta, Darcy 20534 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:54pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ---Dear James, Christine and all, > I add some more about ven. Buddhadasa's book on Paticcasamuppada. Hi Robert K, Thank you for this very thorough explanation. I am now convinced that Buddhadasa had it wrong about a strong misrepresentation of anatta to be found in the Visuddhimagga. If it was that strong there would be stronger evidence of it, which, as you clearly show, there isn't. I also agree with you that heaven and hell realms can be represented by states of mind in the here and now, but they are actual realms of varying degrees of materiality which exist. This is what the Buddha taught, on many occasions, and I don't believe he was speaking metaphorically. When he used metaphors to explain things, he made that abundantly clear with follow-up standard discourse. So Buddhadasa places entirely the wrong emphasis when he writes about these things; which I believe he was doing purposefully because he didn't believe they exist. However, this still doesn't make me rush to embrace Buddhaghosa's writings. I have my own reasons. One other question, this part of what you write I don't agree with, and I am not sure if they are your thoughts of if they come from somewhere else: "Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree." It was my understanding that the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality of the mind's reaction to a mental stimulus was the function of mental activity (consciousness) and not the result of karma. That such reaction is caused by desire and that when desire ceases those types of reactions also cease. In other words, karma isn't deterministic and can be changed. Is this also your understanding; is this an Abhidhamma slant on things? Metta, James 20535 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa(correction) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I recounted that I sometimes went to a > zen center where we did sitting, slow walking and chanting; felt like > I was letting the "theravada' down. She picked up on this and > said "Why? Don't you think awareness can occur while you are sitting > or walking slow?" >________ 00ps that should have been 'fast walking' 20536 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:51pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Hi Robert K, > > Thank you for this very thorough explanation. I am now convinced > that Buddhadasa had it wrong about a strong misrepresentation of > anatta to be found in the Visuddhimagga. If it was that strong > there would be stronger evidence of it, which, as you clearly show, > there isn't. I also agree with you that heaven and hell realms can > be represented by states of mind in the here and now, but they are > actual realms of varying degrees of materiality which exist. This > is what the Buddha taught, on many occasions, and I don't believe he > was speaking metaphorically. When he used metaphors to explain > things, he made that abundantly clear with follow-up standard > discourse. Dear James, Yes, that's what I think too. ________ So Buddhadasa places entirely the wrong emphasis when he > writes about these things; which I believe he was doing purposefully > because he didn't believe they exist. _____________ __________ I think venerable Buddhadasa writes brilliantly on many aspects of Dhamma - but he seemed to go to extremes here. ___________ However, this still doesn't > make me rush to embrace Buddhaghosa's writings. I have my own > reasons. __________ Yes, no problem, all things in good time. (Or is that "all good things in time?") __________ > > One other question, this part of what you write I don't agree with, > and I am not sure if they are your thoughts of if they come from > somewhere else: > > "Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good > kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. > At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of > past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant > to some degree." > > It was my understanding that the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or > neutrality of the mind's reaction to a mental stimulus was the > function of mental activity (consciousness) and not the result of > karma. That such reaction is caused by desire and that when desire > ceases those types of reactions also cease. In other words, karma > isn't deterministic and can be changed. Is this also your > understanding; is this an Abhidhamma slant on things? ___________ This is a complex part of Abhidhamma that recently RobM, Dan and others have been discussing. Essentially as you say the reaction to the stimulus is caused by roots such as desire. This happens almost instantly. But the very instant of seeing, or hearing etc. is vipaka (result of past kamma) and occurs immediately before the reaction. The reaction itself is new kamma. So I think our understanding is close or the same here. There is a section in the Abhidhammathasangaha (available as a web book called Manual of Abhidhamma by narada thera)about this very point you make. RobertK > > Metta, James 20537 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine & All, > > >It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > > his writings should be viewed. > ..... > I'd also like to contribute to this busy thread with a little more > background information, comments and questions. > Hi Sarah, I have a couple of questions for you which are actually leading questions because I believe I know the answers. I only ask them to give you and others pause for thought: Since the original commentaries were composed before the completion of the Abhidhamma, how is it that they contain that work by name with a lot of analysis of it…attributed to the original commentaries? Why is it that the original commentaries, written in their mother tongue, disappeared and Buddhaghosa's was the only version remaining after his translation? They were of great historical value, why and how did they disappear? Why does Buddhaghosa state with 100% confidence that he only translated the commentaries (with some annotations of his own) while modern scholars find at least one glaring example when he inserts his own opinion into the commentaries? These are questions which beg to be answered. Okay, I will just let out what issues I have with Buddhaghosa. Personally, whenever I read sections of the commentaries, I sense that Buddhaghosa was nervous, pressured, guilt wracked and afraid while he wrote them. Of course, I could be wrong. (No need to comment on this.) Metta, James 20538 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Sarah, Thansk for this wonderful letter explaining the historical background. However where you write: Buddhaghosa's words included in the Sinhalese texts only: "By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this And any other still .." I remember reading an article that suggested this was added by a scribe who copied the original Visuddhimagga onto palm leaves. It been such a laborious job he considered it high merit (which it was). That is the reason for it not been in other versions such as the Burmese. RobertK 20539 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend > to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. > Hi Swee Boon, There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed towards a selected object. There can be the idea of directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. ************* > Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I > *feel and know* > what you are trying to convey by the above. > > I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study > group seems to have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration > practice. ------------------ "Seems to have a tendency" is putting it mildly. It has become a major preoccupation here to clarify the differences between samatha and vipassana development and to point out that a certain third type of practice relates neither samatha nor vipassana. This third type includes being mindful of (concentrating on), daily activities; eg, 'while you are washing the dishes, know you are washing the dishes.' Relying on populist writers and meditation teachers, many Buddhists wrongly assume such 'vipassana meditations' are described somewhere in the Pali Canon. When they finally learn their mistake, through sources like dsg, it can be the greatest single discovery of their lives (as it was for me). Others are less pleased to be disillusioned. --------------------- > Even though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a > certain level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. -------------------- If you know of any vipassana developing techniques found in the ancient texts, please say so; these discussions are valuable to all of us. Kind regards, Ken H > Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I *feel and know* > what you are trying to convey by the above. > > I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study group seems to > have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration practice. Even > though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a certain > level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. > > I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting > intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 20540 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi RobertK, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > --- Dear Sarah, > Thanks for this wonderful letter explaining the historical background. ..... ....and many thanks to you and everyone else for your stimulating and helpful comments on this thread. Just a quick note back:- ..... > However where you write: > Buddhaghosa's words included in the Sinhalese texts only: > > "By the performance of such merit > As has been gained by me through this > And any other still .." > I remember reading an article that suggested this was added by a > scribe who copied the original Visuddhimagga onto palm leaves. It > been such a laborious job he considered it high merit (which it was). > That is the reason for it not been in other versions such as the > Burmese. ..... This is interesting. I don’t know if there is any note about it in the PTS or Pali editions of Vism. Nanamoli simply puts: “The following verses are only in Sinhalese texts” and that was what I used. I presume those verses were still said to be written by B.? Do you know (or Nina or anyone) who the first postscript note (“This Path of Purification was made by the elder....etc”) is ascribed to? Also the similar one in Atth.? In Atth. instead of the verses you refer to above, we read: “By grace of this, the book I wrote, Into Metteyya’s presence am I come. Within the Refuges established Upon the Sasana I take my stand. May mother, father, teachers, they who wish me well And they who do not, give me happy thanks And long safeguard the merit I have won! ------ May there be success! May there be welfare!” ..... The PTS footnote says: “These last seven lines are not in the Burmese texts, but are in the PTS edition, presumably transcribed from the three Sihalese MSS, used by the editor......It is quite possible that we have here the author’s coda to this book, so I have translated and inserted the lines. (The last two sentences are probably additions by a scribe)” Looking at the epilogue and postcript of the Sammohavinodani (Masefield transl): In the Epilogue by B., he says (brief extract): “I started to compose, and which has got the name “Dispeller of Delusion’ Because it can dispel delusion Concerning the most cryptical of meanings, Has now arrived at its conclusion without mishap, and it has drawn the substance From the ancient commentaries With forty recital sections in the Pali;......” This is followed by the postcript about Buddhaghosa’s qualities, (similar to the others and included as part of the text) and then the following verses, also included as text (with no note to indicate it is included in some manuscripts): “May it continue here to show the way to purity of wisdom To clansmen seeking for the means To ferry them across the worlds For just as long as in the world Shall last that name “Enlightened One”, By which, thus puriied in mind, Is known the Greatest Sage, World Chief.” ..... I’ll be glad to hear any more clarification about the various manuscripts, postscripts and epilogues. Metta, Sarah ============== 20541 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, Thanks for your comments and further questions (even if you have other answers in mind;-)) --- buddhatrue wrote: > I have a couple of questions for you which are actually leading > questions because I believe I know the answers. I only ask them to > give you and others pause for thought: Since the original > commentaries were composed before the completion of the Abhidhamma, > how is it that they contain that work by name with a lot of analysis > of it…attributed to the original commentaries? ..... These are good and difficult questions and I believe the answer in brief (from the old texts and commentaries themselves) is that the nucleus of both was established in the Buddha’s life or at the First Council. However, there is no doubt that Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala and other commentators added details and references from the Tipitaka and other commentaries - cross-referencing and so on. Likewise, though I understand the nucleus of the Abhidhamma dates from Sariputta and back to the Buddha himself, as we know, one of the texts, the Katthavatthu is added at a later stage. I understand that the ancient commentaries that Mahinda would have translated into Sinhala on arrival from India would have been of any of the Pali commentaries added from the Buddha’s life until perhaps the time of King Asoka (his father), so it isn’t surprising to me that they refer to the Abhidhamma in detail. If you have an example or two in mind, that would be interesting to look at in more depth. I’m not a historian or at all knowledgable on these points, but it’s fun pulling out texts and I think it’s important to clarify to some degree. ..... Why is it that the > original commentaries, written in their mother tongue, disappeared > and Buddhaghosa's was the only version remaining after his > translation? They were of great historical value, why and how did > they disappear? ..... The reason given is that Buddhaghosa’s works were immediately so highly regarded and all-inclusive and Pali became the language in Sri lanka for the study of the Teachings so that gradually the Sinhala texts just disappeared through neglect in effect. Maybe it didn’t occur to the Theras that a time would come when the authenticity of Buddhaghosa’s works would be challenged;-)Unfortunate, I agree. ..... >Why does Buddhaghosa state with 100% confidence > that he only translated the commentaries (with some annotations of > his own) while modern scholars find at least one glaring example > when he inserts his own opinion into the commentaries? ..... I think as Nanamoli states, his own opinions are so occasional (eg one in Vism, one in MN-A etc) and so clearly pointed out by Buddhaghosa, that it’s clear these are exceptions to the rule. I’m not sure if you are referring to any other examples by modern scholars. If so, pls let us know so we can check. ..... >These are > questions which beg to be answered. > > Okay, I will just let out what issues I have with Buddhaghosa. > Personally, whenever I read sections of the commentaries, I sense > that Buddhaghosa was nervous, pressured, guilt wracked and afraid > while he wrote them. Of course, I could be wrong. (No need to > comment on this.) ..... I’ll just very briefly slip in a comment to say that what you present and sense here is quite contrary to what Buddhaghosa himself says and what I understand from the Culavamsa about the ease and joy in his work and indeed the extraordinary quantity and speed of writing. Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you so much in one letter to a StarKid for telling us more about your temple. I hadn’t realized it was the same one where there were the terrible murders a few years back and it is really inspiring to read about how the community has managed to pick up and continue, playing such an important role in the area. Pls also know that even if one or two 8 year old children find some of your letters difficult, they are often the ones that others find most useful and inspiring(eg 19998 to Janet about the stages and going to the temple). Finally, thanks for sharing these sentiments which I fully agree with: “We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side…the side of truth.” ================================ 20542 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Mike) - ... > =========================== > I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your > final > paragraph, I do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some > manner with > one's loved ones. People with related kamma and experiences and > accumulations > tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - > sometimes as > friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes > child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the > Sutta > pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's > and others' previous lives. > > With metta, > Howard I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the texts-- (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in the future life to those involved, or (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be wished for. Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us now were no doubt also close to us then. But is this apparent, and are the details of that association of any real significance to us? As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a particular person. Jon 20543 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, --- bodhi342 wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. .... You may it easy for us all;-) ..... > I agree that gaining and relinquishing demonstrate a preoccupation > with self. That is the correct diagnosis, but clinging is probably > present in most people trying to make their way in various > religions. The pity is that their not fully understanding this > factor may prevent them from going the 'full distance', and therefore > prematurely jump ship. .... I quite agree. Back to lobha as the cause of suffering. ..... > > I like the extension of the gardener analogy to diminishing > blindness - it helpfully further develops the model. I think it is a > useful representation of the journey fo understanding. ..... thanks - it was a bit unusual for me to write like that but I appreciate your encouragement a lot. ..... > I think I hold more utility for describing structure to the blind > than you may, particularly if it tries to represent 'reality' and > therefore prevent the blind person from bumping, tripping or slamming > into some of those 'realities'. ..... Good points. Again, I don’t think we can set any rule about how much theory is necessary. Accumulations for reading, listening and so on are so different as Sukin points out so well in his Lion’s Roar posts;-) Some blind gardeners might not even get out of bed without a fair amount of description, whilst others prefer to jump out, bump and trip and then ask for more guidance and description. ..... > D: I (think I)understand what you say about Anatta here. However, > how many really pursue the Buddha's Teachings with that clearly in > perspective all along? I do not mean to underestimate others, but > ask this question honestly and humbly. There is a necessary distance > between theory and practice until the later stages. It is during > these earlier stages, where the risk for disgruntlement may arise. ..... To my mind, the theory and practice have to work together from the very beginning. Again as Sukin just wrote to Christine, it’s a question of the attitude and undestanding whilst lying in bed, listening to the theory or planting the garden or bumping and tripping. Disgruntlement has to also be known as just another conditioned dhamma. I don’t wish to underplay the difficulty, but surely it is the clinging to self and to pleasant states that conditions the disgruntlement about disgruntelment when it arises? ..... > I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a > little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel > this, although I would be interested to find out their views. ..... Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? ..... > It may be that many people approach religions (this and others) > looking for refuge. My point is just that, they risk disgruntlement, > if there is not some degree of understanding about the necessary > changes in mentality in seeking that refuge. ..... Perhaps it comes back to expectations again. If we have the idea there will be a revolution of personality or an easing of all we find difficult in life, then the seeds for disgruntlement are being planted. Perhaps this is what you mean about the “necessary changes in mentality in seeking that refuge”. > Sarah, thanks for a very stimulating and instructive conversation. .... I always find a lot of depth in your comments too. Now I’ll sit back and enjoy your continuing conversations with Mike, Nina and others;-) Metta, Sarah ======== 20544 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Ken - You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of pariyatti. By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is planted, a "recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to pay attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its nature (as impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as useful, harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of the akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, attention can be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. What makes the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention to "do the right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and fail to act on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature (I forget the Pali) would rightly apply to us. Conventional volition is important. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/24/03 2:07:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > >Hi Howard, > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- > >And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend > >to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > >emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. > > > > > Hi Swee Boon, > > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. > /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) 20545 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/24/03 3:56:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes, first quoting Howard: > People with related kamma and experiences and > >accumulations > >tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - > >sometimes as > >friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes > >child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the > >Sutta > >pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's > >and others' previous lives. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the > texts-- > (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in > the future life to those involved, or > (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be > wished for. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with both points. ------------------------------------------------- > > Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life > is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us > now were no doubt also close to us then. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Correct. ---------------------------------------------------- But is this apparent, and> > are the details of that association of any real significance to us? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Usually no, but sometimes yes. Some people may actually remember. Others may have the sense of knowing another person "always", and there may be suggestive evidence to back that up, but, certainly, without clear memory, this is quite indefinite. As far as significance, I would say there is little if any. ---------------------------------------------------- > > As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed > the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a > particular person. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: In most cases, it would indeed be attachment that leads to the reuniting. But other sorts of connection could also (on rare occasions) play a role I would think, with the connection among the Buddha, Sariputta, and Moggallana a case in point. --------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20546 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) Hello Robert, In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be transferred to, for the leaving person. Source 20547 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken and all, I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate is a rather useless division. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. How are the situations of association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved, and not getting what is wanted to be classified? Are they conventional or are they ultimate? Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? by whom the object is selected? Regards, Victor > Hi Swee Boon, > > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. > [snip] > > Kind regards, > Ken H 20548 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hello John, >> I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final paragraph, I >> do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved >> ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to be >> reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, >> sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, >> sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that >> indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' previous >> lives. >> >> With metta, >> Howard The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion of the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another member of that family and in this case it will happen. > I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the > texts-- > (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in > the future life to those involved, or > (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be > wished for. > > Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life > is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us > now were no doubt also close to us then. But is this apparent, and > are the details of that association of any real significance to us? > > As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed > the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a > particular person. Source 20549 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love (Sarah) Hello Sarah > To my mind, the theory and practice have to work together from the very > beginning. Again as Sukin just wrote to Christine, it’s a question of the > attitude and undestanding whilst lying in bed, listening to the theory or > planting the garden or bumping and tripping. Disgruntlement has to also be > known as just another conditioned dhamma. I don’t wish to underplay the > difficulty, but surely it is the clinging to self and to pleasant states > that conditions the disgruntlement about disgruntelment when it arises? It is a good assumption that theory and practice need to be together. To use other terminology, Knowledge needs to be experienced in order to learn the truth. Knowledge without experience is nothing more than thinking. To use the analogy of the blind person; if the one that lays there hears everything described in detail and remembers it word for word, he will still not be sure if he is or is not going to bump into the realities. It is the one that jumps up hits the realities that now knows, what they are. It would be more likely to think that it is the lack of knowledge or understandable information that causes disgruntlement as well as the lack of experience of the knowledge. >> I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a >> little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel >> this, although I would be interested to find out their views. > ..... > Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? One needs to realize that at the time of Buddha's lessons, there were concepts that were incomprehensible. These concepts needed to be explained in a pictorial way, through examples and actions. These are always open for a different understanding of different people. There are virtually no translations that do not carry the feelings, knowledge and belief of the translator. Finally a written word is notorious for not conveying the meaning that is intended by the speaker. Such important parts as voice intonation and body language have no way to be recorded. Hence, what may bo meant as a pun may be taken very seriously in written form. This may have happened even in the scriptures. It is also the very reason why Buddha had left everything open to personal exploration. Source 20550 From: bodhi342 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Nina, Thanks for this series of explanations. (Sorry for the delay, thought I ought to respond to Mike's slightly earlier post.) N: She (A. Sujin) also reminded me: ³There is no Lodewijk, there is just our own world of thinking, thinking of Lodewijk. When we were born we were alone. When seeing, we are alone, there is just citta that sees. We are alone because there is no self. Seeing arises and then thinking of the world of concepts and this hides the reality of seeing, visible object and the other realities.²> Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? D: Yes, Nina, very hard indeed! It runs counter to the most basic of (conventional?) understanding/experience/knowledge. Yes, we are born alone, we die alone, and some may live alone too. However, rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to swallow. Why is it hard? The 'proper' answer is because of clinging to the idea of self. Okay. While, I can identify with the insignificance of self, in relation to a larger scheme (concept or reality); it is a revolution to completely negate self (mine or that of others). This negation seems to me to be a mental construct, itself a concept that one can possibly come to accept, given sufficient belief and concentration on such a view. Is it verifiable? Sukin gets frustrated trying to get this across to me, and I feel bad for him, but however much I try to reconcile such a view, I fail. His stock answer is insufficient accumulations. Okay.... That response however, can also be understood in context of my post to Mike about internally consistent understandings. "You do not understand about the Sun, because you are not sunburnt enough!". But this is removed from what others would consider a valid explanation. I am afraid, I am completely with Lodewijk, on this one, and I must say I do assume he exists. He exists, just like your father does. Is it possible to lead a social life without accepting the existence of yourself and others? Is it honest to lead a social life, if one rejects the existence of others? This understanding of anatta seems to me to be an extreme iteration of the realization that overattachment and over-clinging to self is delusionary and counterproductive. You may say, why not go the whole hog? That does not appear to be the middle-path choice. Talking about middle-path, if everything is conditioned, why did the Buddha advise choosing the middle alternative? Will stop here, and await your response. Hopefully we can discuss the rest of your post later. Thanks for your patience. u.w. dharam 20551 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your comments and further questions (even if you have other > answers in mind;-)) > Hi Sarah, Thank you for the answers. Yes, you are correct, they do not match what I have in my mind, but that is neither here nor there. I cannot prove what I think, or answer your other questions, without doing an intense study into the writings of Buddhaghosa, which I do not want to do, for obvious personal reasons. Perhaps, hopefully, in the future, this will not always be the case. Thank you for your kind comments regarding the letters of the Star Kids and don't worry, Janice's post did not discourage me or bother me in the least. Perhaps you could contact me off list and alert me to the posts addressed to me that I have not replied to thus far (I know there was one with a question asking if the Buddha could walk! :-) And I have lost track of it...and maybe some others.) Metta, James 20552 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Everyone, I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I hope I'm not being out of place... ...SNIP... > > The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is > for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete > the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances > would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular > place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion of > the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. > However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another > member of that family and in this case it will happen. > ...SNIP... This thread confuses me on 2 points. 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. Therefore, how would there be an eternal "me" to be reborn again and again? I always thought that the reincarnation was more that the imprint of our actions / desires continue, but it would not be in any concrete "that was me" form. 2.) In the quote above, is the suggestion that the entire function and flow of the universe is to push us all to Enlightenment? That seems like quite an "order" to things. So, who/what makes this decision to put a specific person into this or that baby(?) to further his/her Enlightenment? Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or unwelcomed. As always, I appreciate any and all insights you all can give. Peace, Dave 20553 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Swee Boon, op 23-03-2003 16:30 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting > intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. N: We have to verify them when they arise in life. It is one of the conditions for direct awareness. It is food for the growth of right understanding. I am impressed by the level of the discussion on Buddhaghosa. I like to quote what Kom wrote: And Rob K wrote: Understanding develops very slowly, but we can see the benefit of even a little understanding. Nina. 20554 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello. Dear Heather, Welcome here. I like what Kom writes. See my remarks below. op 22-03-2003 22:40 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > Welcome to DSG! I think you have come to the right group; if we already know a lot already, we wouldn't need to study! We may feel overwhelmed. > However, if we keep in mind that the reason that we study > the dhamma is to understand the truth (of life, which is > verifiable), and to follow the teachings, then it doesn't > matter where we start, or how slowly we understand, as long > as the understanding grows and the wholesome mental states > develop. N: My books Kom spoke about are actually not my own thoughts, they are based on many conversations with my good friend in the Dhamma, Acharn Sujin. She gives us deep teaching, a teaching which is rare, it takes time to absorb. Time and again I need remarks and questions from others as reminders of reality, and these also help me to absorb the teachings, little by little. I need to go back to basics all the time. I also translate A. Sujin's works, such as the perfections the Bodhisatta developed, you find here on dsg. It is now on truthfulness. I like translating, I find that this works on me and reminds me of what we have to develop. The other series: Dhamma Issues is very detailed, I just translate these for the archives of the Dhamma group in Bangkok, but some people like to read these. They are answers to questions different people may have. Kom helps me a lot whenever I cannot find the translation of the Thai word. Success with your studies, Nina. P.S. Kom, how is the bay area, did Jack bring good reminders from Thailand? 20555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear James, op 23-03-2003 07:11 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: N: Nina: O.K. I find that too, not trying to persuade others. In another post: < The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and shouldn't be placed together so casually.> Good point. Today I like to touch on this point with personal examples. Last time during the discussions in Thailand I found this became much clearer. It needs a longer explanation, and pertains to what you wrote: begs to be answered: So what? So what about nama and rupa; so what > about cittas and cetasikas; so what about mind doors and sense > consciousnesses?> You touch on important points, saying it very directly. Good points again. I try to explain by means of examples. Why is A. Sujin always speaking on seeing and visible object, about six doorways? We had problems with my very old father."There is only seeing and visible object, or thinking of a story." Only one moment at a time and then it is gone. The story is only in one moment of thinking. Each moment is so short, all objects are so insignificant. What does this have to do with my father and our problems? Everything. Here are the basics, it is reality, it is truth. And it works I find. The situation can be really difficult, but a beginning of realizing that there is only hearing or sound, instead of my father's harsh voice, his shouting, is beneficial. We can gradually learn that there are in our life only nama and rupa: realities that experience and realities that do not experience. We do not have to name them nama and rupa, they have different characteristics and any name will do. We have to know their characteristics when they appear in life. Not the book, not the classifications, only characteristics that directly appear and can be known by panna, when there is awareness of them one at a time. Yes citta and cetasikas, they are both nama, they are important, I find. A. Sujin explains: understanding, panna has to go through all realities. Attachment is a cetasika and we have to learn and we can learn that there is much more attachment than we ever thought. She reminds us of our subtle attachment that we may not notice ourselves, by asking us questions. "Do you like to have awareness?" as I mentioned before. We learn that it is conditioned, there it is again, we can even laugh about it. We have to learn about our ignorance: moha. This is ignorance of realities, of citta, cetasika and rupa. Ignorance of the four noble Truths. Moha arises with each akusala citta, and before I never knew this. Only the Buddha taught this. It is so basic. Ignorance blinds, it is so dangerous. Then there is conceit, the point you brought up before. It can arise on account of any object, but there is ignorance together with conceit, we are blind. You are really worried that the Abhidhamma leads to believing that one knows what one does not know. As I mentioned before, the late Phra Dhammadaro used to say: the dhamma is sobering up. One has conceit, but at least realizes it. Only the arahat has eradicated it, thus, of course we have it. Lots of it, clinging to the importance of self. Yes, it must appear in our writing and speech, I am so glad you remind me of this. A reminder by a Dhamma friend is so useful. But we learn through the Abhidhamma that there are so many moments which change very fast. Cittas are extremely fast. Example: when I was in Thailand I said, every time I come here I realize that I know so little. Many different moments while saying that: Look how humble I am (conceit), or saying it with worry (dosa or aversion, akusala again) or: sincerely realizing that direct understanding of realities is so difficult and that we are only beginning. No, the Abhidhamma should not lead to taking for understanding what is not understanding. Pretending to ourselves that we know , while in reality we do not know. It shows how complex the Abhidhamma is, but, it helps. It is subtle and deep. We need many times of listening and considering. But I have to add: also sutta and vinaya, all three parts of the Tipitaka help us. The Abhidhamma teaches more in detail about citta, cetasika, rupa, the processes. Enough for today. I cannot explain all aspects at this moment. But what is the use of study if we do not apply it now? Is there akusala now, ignorance now? The whole of the Tipitaka is for practice. It is a learning process for our whole life, no expectations to directly realize the truth immediately. We have to practise some music for my father who is heavily depressed and only music helps him. A next time some more. Nina. 20556 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I > hope I'm not being out of place... > > ...SNIP... Hi Dave, If you don't mind, I am going to offer my input in regards to your question. I am not a fully enlightened one, however, so my answer isn't going to be as skillful as what you would find in the suttas of the Lord Buddha. I know that rebirth is difficult to understand because there is such a strong idea of a self in all of us and corporal reality gives us the impression that we have a self. We see babies born, grow up, and die. It all seems very natural and to support the idea that there is nothing else going on there…but that is illusion. Have you ever seen one of those `morphing' videos which are popular nowadays? In those videos, through the capabilities of video transitions, you will see one person seamlessly change into another person and then another person and then another person. That is a good mental construct for what rebirth is like. There is one `continuum of conditions' that will manifest different forms over many different lifetimes in many different realms. In this realm, close to the animal realm, this manifestation needs to start out as a baby first, grow up, get old, and die. However, in other realms this isn't the process at all. The manifestation will appear as the size it will always be, doesn't significantly age, until it just ends. And to the entities in that realm, that is fully natural and they couldn't imagine entities appearing a babies coming out of other entities, etc. To them, that would be bizarre to the extreme and far fetched. As far as the question if the universe, or karma, naturally leads all of these entities to enlightenment: that is a false belief. The Buddha taught that this process will continue indefinitely if awareness of reality isn't achieved. And as far as this argument concerning if these continuums manifest together, in different ways, for lifetime after lifetime: that may or may not be true, it again depends on conditions. The Buddha told many stories of his previous lives that he spent in the company of his current companions…and Ven. Ananda seemed to keep springing up with him in many of them. So, that isn't far fetched nor does it support the idea of a soul or atta, but it isn't terribly important either. When the two or more continuums interact in the future (or `another time', as time isn't a uniform constant), the conditions are different and there usually isn't memory of the past interactions. I hope this clears up the issue somewhat for you. I am sure some others on this list can add in other ways to improve your understanding. Metta, James 20557 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, All There Is wrote: > Hello Robert, > > In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be > transferred to, for the leaving person. > > > Source ____________ Dear Source, This is quite complex. According to the texts there are three types of death. Ultimate death is happening every moment that citta (consciousness ) arises and passes away. Conventional death is the usual death, and final death is the death of an arahant when there are no more conditions for rebirth. You asked about conventional death. If we take the human realm: To be born as a human the condition was some degree of good kamma. So that condition couldn't result in an animal birth. Let's look at the possibility of a time in the future when there are no humans - what would then happen to a being whose kamma was of a type that should condition human birth? According to the texts there are also other beings that we can't see - devas and others- whose birth is also the result of good kamma. Some of these beings are said to be very close to humans (in kammic result) and so it might be that one was born as one of these lower devas (or higher goblins). These beings don't need the seed of mother an father because the matter is conditioned by the kamma or citta itself. Apart from that there are said to be an infinite number of beings in the 10,000 fold universe so one might be born even somewhere outside earth (I guess) if there was no suitable matter here. This is all open to debate as - just going on some very brief descritions in the texts. RobertK 20558 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 3/24/03 9:25:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > But is this apparent, and> > >are the details of that association of any real significance to us? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Usually no, but sometimes yes. Some people may actually remember. > Others may have the sense of knowing another person "always", and there may > > be suggestive evidence to back that up, but, certainly, without clear > memory, > this is quite indefinite. As far as significance, I would say there is > little > if any. > ======================== My reply here was unclear. My sentence "Usually no, but sometimes yes" pertained to whether it is apparent that the people close now were probably close to us in previous lives; it did *not* refer to whether there is any significance to that continued association. 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) 20559 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- > > Hi Dave, > > > As far as the question if the universe, or karma, naturally leads > all of these entities to enlightenment: that is a false belief. The > Buddha taught that this process will continue indefinitely if > awareness of reality isn't achieved. ___________> _________ Dear Dave, I was just going to reply to your useful question when I saw this by James. It is a clear an accurate answer I think. It may not be as comforting as believing everyone will get enlightened sooner or later no matter what. But the Dhamma presents the truth(I believe) - not what we wish things were. RobertK 20560 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:29:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Ken and all, > > I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate > is a rather useless division. > > Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved > is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. > > How are the situations of association with the unbeloved, separation > from the loved, and not getting what is wanted to be classified? Are > they conventional or are they ultimate? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you here, Victor. The dukkha, the mental distress/dissatisfaction that arises is as real as real can be, and, moreover, what it is useful to recognize is that it arises as the result of clinging to what we perceive as people and things, regardless of what their "ultimate" status may be. (Of course, more directly, we cling because we are reacting to pleasant experience with a craving that habituates into clinging, and this fact is to be seen by looking a bit more microscopically at what actually arises in the mind, and its nature. That, as I see it, requires going beyond concepts of things and directly "seeing".) ------------------------------------------------ > > Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? > by whom the object is selected? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Speaking conventionally, the "whom" is you and me. I consider that terminology a shorthand for what is actually going on, a useful shorthand. You, perhaps, don't think of it that way. Okay. :-) ------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== 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) 20561 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, "Source " - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:44:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, Source@a... writes: > Hello John, > > >>I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final > paragraph, I > >>do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved > >>ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to > be > >>reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, > >>sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, > >>sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that > >>indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' > previous > >>lives. > >> > >>With metta, > >>Howard > > The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is > for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete > the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances > would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular > place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion > of > the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. > However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another > member of that family and in this case it will happen. > ============================ While, of course, you are perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, I think that what you write above is an expression of what some call "life lessons" and is closer to new age philosophy or theosophy than it is to the Dhamma. Also, as an aside, I do not presume that one encounters the same "beings" in consecutive lifetimes. 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) 20562 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi Dave, I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's teaching. The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I > hope I'm not being out of place... > [snip] > > This thread confuses me on 2 points. > > 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of > Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. Therefore, how > would there be an eternal "me" to be reborn again and again? I > always thought that the reincarnation was more that the imprint of > our actions / desires continue, but it would not be in any > concrete "that was me" form. > > 2.) In the quote above, is the suggestion that the entire function > and flow of the universe is to push us all to Enlightenment? That > seems like quite an "order" to things. So, who/what makes this > decision to put a specific person into this or that baby(?) to > further his/her Enlightenment? > > Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or > unwelcomed. As always, I appreciate any and all insights you all can > give. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20563 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 2:32:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. > > The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's > teaching. > > The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. > The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================== I understand liberation to be two-fold: The liberation from tanha (both craving and aversion) and the liberation from avijja. 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) 20564 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, All There Is > wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be > > transferred to, for the leaving person. > > > > > > Source > ____________ > Dear Source, > This is quite complex. Apart from that there are said to be an infinite number of beings in > the 10,000 fold universe so one might be born even somewhere outside > earth (I guess) if there was no suitable matter here. > This is all open to debate as - just going on some very brief > descritions in the texts. > RobertK Hi Robert and Source, If I may add my impressions, I believe this question is moot because the universe is a 'closed system'. In other words, the potentiality for 'death' in one area would not occur without the potentiality for 'birth' in a different area. Think of it like a teeter-tooter, one side doesn't go down without the other side going up. This is my understanding and may be mistaken. The Buddha didn't discuss this subject a great deal because it can result in 'conceptual fantasy.' However, people nowadays are not like people in his time and I believe we need more explanation to inspire resolve. Metta, James 20565 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Robert, Howard, James, Kom, Sukin, Swee Boon, Sarah, Victor and all, Thanks for your posts in the interesting Buddhaghosa thread. I'm taking my time to reflect upon them all and may respond to some points later in the week. metta, Christine 20566 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hello Victor, Dave and All, Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and how it has been misconceived? I have always been taught that Anatta "no-soul" or "no-self" is a cornerstone of the Buddha's Teaching. I understand that this is the most difficult teaching to accept as it is incomprhensible to some, and terrifying to others to consider that no permanent entity exists. At times it is both incomprehensible and terrifying to me, but, at other times it is beginning to feel O.K. - even a relief. The problem is, I fluctuate. :-) I'm satisfied with this excerpt from the longer definition in Nyanatiloka Thera's dictionary: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm "anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that walks on the Eightfold Path." I find the last six paragraphs of the long Alagagaddupama Sutta to be quite excellent in teaching about No-self. Majjhima Nikaya 22 'The Simile of the Snake' http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm I am also familiar with: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 'Anatta-lakkhana Sutta' "The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" http://www.vipassana.com/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.php metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. > > The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's > teaching. > > The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. > The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor 20567 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:00pm Subject: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Dave (and all), I promised to provide you with a layman version of dependent origination. Sorry for the delay, but it is a much more difficult task than I thought and I have been caught up in making a living. In fact, the Buddha said that Dependent Origination was the most complex part of the teaching. Here are my comments on the first seven links; I hope that this stimulates some discussion. Each link of the chain of Dependent Origination depends on the existence of the previous link, but it is not a "cause and effect" type of relationship. We do not say that a seed caused a tree to grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is something that must exist before the next factor can arise. The first link in the chain is "ignorance". Ignorance is the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world. Ignorance prevents one from seeing the true nature of things. However, ignorance should not be considered as the "causeless first-cause of the world". Ignorance arises because it is habitual. Whenever we do something, two things happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. With ignorance as a factor, conditions can allow "kammic actions" to arise. Kammic actions are the second link in dependent origination. Kammic actions mean any willed activity (all willed activities create kamma). We can see that kamma and dependent origination are not totally separate. Our actions spring from our habits. It is easy to see that habits based on ignorance (not seeing things as they truly are) can lead to negative kammic actions rooted in ignorance. Habits based on ignorance can also lead to positive kammic actions. For example, conceit or vanity can motivate one to do good things. With kammic actions as a factor, conditions can allow "consciousness" to arise. Consciousness is the third link in dependent origination. Kammic actions create kammic seeds, each with a potential (but not inevitability) to mature when other conditions allow. Kammic seed mature at two different time; at the moment of rebirth, a kammic seed with mature to determine the nature of your next existence (a new "rebirth-linking consciousness"). Kammic seeds also mature throughout our lifetime. Whenever something happens to us, this is because a kammic seed has matured. In the process of seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic seed maturing. With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any of our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body is weakened and you can see it on their faces. With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can allow "contact" to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For example, "visual contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable (physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Metta, Rob M :-) 20568 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, Dave and All, > > Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you > tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you > tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and > how it has been misconceived? Hi Christine, I can't speak for Victor, but I can speak for myself. I think maybe I know where he is coming from by recalling my own experience. I had the hardest time, for the longest time, with the concept of `no- self' because I didn't understand it. The reason I didn't understand it is because it is explaining what there is not, not what there is. A definition using the negative is not very effectual or clear. Not only that, the term `no self' assumes that there is already a firm concept of `self' which everyone holds and can agree on…but there isn't. It wasn't until I came across the definition of anatta as really meaning `no essence' that I then understood. You see, I am not sure I have a very strong sense of self in the first place. I seem to be more the people I come into contact with, who have a strong sense of self, than my own, individual self. So I had a very hard time with the concept with the way it was traditionally presented. Also, I believe some people mistakenly cling to this concept and create what I call a `Self Non-Self'. They are quite bizarre in their thinking and seem to have an over-fixation on `disappearing'. They remind me of the Cheshire Cat in "Alice In Wonderland" ;-). To some extent, Victor is correct. The Buddha didn't say that there is no self because that can become a quagmire of fixed views. He said that there is no permanent essence to anything...including what some view as themselves. Metta, James 20569 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, > op 23-03-2003 07:11 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > N: Nina: not think of different camps, Dear Nina, Thank you so much for this post. It is filled with compassion. I wish you well with your father and appreciate the example you demonstrate. So often, even in the midst of our deepest practice, the common needs of those we love call us away. I wish you strength in your time of difficulty. Now is not the time to discuss these deep subjects at length; there are other needs more pressing for you. But let me state, with all confidence, that I have the highest respect for your personal motives and appreciate the honesty in which you present them. I realize that this may appear differently to some based on my past posts, but that is not important. While I do not and never will agree with everything you teach, I sincerely agree with the spirit with which you teach it. Metta, James 20570 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:51pm Subject: Fw: [Soroptimists] Fwd: Announcement: Vietnam Travel Warning Dear Everyone, I normally don't like to pass messages around, but this is of such serious import that it was necessary to send it on. Please act accordingly, Betty > > > Announcement: Vietnam Travel Warning > > Dear AMCHAM Members, > > The following announcement was received from American Citizen Services, US > Embassy, Bangkok. > > ****************************** > > This Travel Warning is being issued to alert U.S. citizens that the Department > of State has authorized the departure, on a voluntary basis, of family members > at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and the Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City. Due > to health concerns in Vietnam regarding the presence of Severe Acute Respiratory > Syndrome (SARS), the lack of adequate medical care and facilities, as well as > non-availability of commercial means of medical evacuation for SARS patients, > the Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer non-emergency travel to > Vietnam at this time. U.S. citizens in Vietnam should consider departing. This > Travel Warning supersedes the Public Announcement of March 21, 2003. On March > 22, 2003, the Department of State authorized the departure of family members, on > a voluntary basis, at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and the Consulate > General in Ho Chi Minh City. These facilities remain open to provide the full > range of services to American citizens and the general public. > > Because of reduced availability of adequate medical facilities, the Department > of State has suspended official travel to Vietnam until further notice. The > level of medical services in Hanoi is now ramatically diminished by the closure > of the only adequate hospital facility and reduced operations by the two main > outpatient facilities due to the SARS mergency. At present, no commercial > carriers are willing to transport patients with SARS. Even non-lethal medical > conditions are difficult to address because clinics are making initial > assessments by phone or screening patients outside the clinic facilities. On > March 21, 2003, the Department of State imposed restrictions on official travel > to Vietnam. The Department recommends that American citizens defer all > non-emergency travel to Vietnam, especially if traveling with young children, > until medical services have returned to normal. > > > > The Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi is located at 6 Ngoc Khanh, Ba > Dinh District, telephone number (84-4) 831-4590; after hours emergency telephone > number (84-4) 772-1500; fax (84-4) 831-4578. Additional information may be found > on the Embassy website at http://usembassy.state.gov/vietnam/. > > The U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City is located at 4 Le Duan, District > 1, telephone (84-8) 822-9433; fax (84-8) 822-9434; website > http://www.uscongenhcmc.org. > > For the most up-to-date information regarding SARS, American citizens are > advised to monitor the website of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention > at http://www.cdc.gov and the website of the World Health Organization at > ttp://www.who.int. > > For further information on travel to Vietnam, U.S. citizens should also consult > the Department of State's Consular Information Sheet for Vietnam, and the Fact > Sheet on SARS which are located at http://www.travel.state.gov. > > Regards > Judy A. Benn > Executive Director > American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand > > Tel: +66 (0) 2251-9266/7 > Fax: +66 (0) 2651-4472 > Email: execdirector@a... > Website: www.amchamthailand.com > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > >> > > 20571 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, Well, who is not speaking conventionally? The mental distress/dissatisfaction is not the only type of dukkha. Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna break. Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling does not last forever. Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > I agree with you here, Victor. The dukkha, the mental > distress/dissatisfaction that arises is as real as real can be, and, > moreover, what it is useful to recognize is that it arises as the result of > clinging to what we perceive as people and things, regardless of what their > "ultimate" status may be. (Of course, more directly, we cling because we are > reacting to pleasant experience with a craving that habituates into clinging, > and this fact is to be seen by looking a bit more microscopically at what > actually arises in the mind, and its nature. That, as I see it, requires > going beyond concepts of things and directly "seeing".) > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? > > by whom the object is selected? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Speaking conventionally, the "whom" is you and me. I consider that > terminology a shorthand for what is actually going on, a useful shorthand. > You, perhaps, don't think of it that way. Okay. :-) > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 20572 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi Christine, I find your question kind of funny. I am not sure what "this email" you are referring to. I assume "this email" refers to the message I am typing now. If you asked me "who is typing this email?" I would answer "I am typing this email." Eye is not my self. Ear is not my self. Nose is no my self. Tongue is not my self. Body is not my self. Intellect is not my self. They are not mine. They are not what I am. They are not my self. The problem with Nyanatiloka Thera's definition of anatta is that he assume self as self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This assumption makes the definition invalid. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, Dave and All, > > Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you > tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you > tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and > how it has been misconceived? > I have always been taught that Anatta "no-soul" or "no-self" is a > cornerstone of the Buddha's Teaching. I understand that this is the > most difficult teaching to accept as it is incomprhensible to some, > and terrifying to others to consider that no permanent entity > exists. At times it is both incomprehensible and terrifying to me, > but, at other times it is beginning to feel O.K. - even a relief. > The problem is, I fluctuate. :-) > I'm satisfied with this excerpt from the longer definition in > Nyanatiloka Thera's dictionary: > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm > "anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last > of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The > anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental > phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything > that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real > ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central > doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of > Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific > Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist > teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, > more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, > but the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only > by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, > or 'Teacher of Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this > impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in > reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of > arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no > separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be > able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths > (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, > his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that > performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his > personality that walks on the Eightfold Path." > > I find the last six paragraphs of the long Alagagaddupama Sutta to be > quite excellent in teaching about No-self. > Majjhima Nikaya 22 'The Simile of the Snake' > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm > I am also familiar with: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 'Anatta-lakkhana > Sutta' "The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" > http://www.vipassana.com/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.php > > > metta, > Christine 20573 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:56:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Well, who is not speaking conventionally? > > The mental distress/dissatisfaction is not the only type of dukkha. > > Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna break. > > Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling > does not last forever. > > Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to them > or not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I disagree. Something is unsatisfactory onlty with respect to a person who finds it unsatisfactory. When it is okay that that things not remain, there is no dukkha in their not remaining. It is exactly tanha and upadana that are the cause of dukkha. For an arahant, dukkha is ended. ------------------------------------------------- > > Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more > microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all conditioned dhammas, in cultivating disenchantment, and in letting go. This requires the development of mindfulness, sharp concentration, calm, and clear comprehension. It requires the direct seeing of what is and what is not. --------------------------------------------------- > > One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of > mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is commonplace observation that people age, get ill, and die, that we lose what we have and that we don't get what we want. That the world is a "place of woe" is well understood by many people. It's a biggy in Catholicism, for example. But that ordinary conventional knowledge, useful as it is, just doesn't do the job. What is required is to see that at the finest level, nothing remains for even a moment, that everything is empty, without essence, fleeting, and ungraspable, and that attempting to grasp the ungraspable is dukkha. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > ============================== 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) 20574 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: confession and forgiving Dear Howard, Do you know that I so much appreciate your attitude, this is as the Buddha taught. The monks had to make confessions of transgressions, and we also can do that to each other, it is kusala. It is also Abhidhamma applied. We realize more our different cittas. As I said to my friends, I become emotional when there are strong discussions on Abhidhamma. It is actually dosa, aversion. Why? conditioned by lobha. When things are not the way we want to, or people are not the way we want to, aversion, dosa arises. I am just glad to learn this, and see it. Now all this because of your apology, and I did not even know what it was about. I was reflecting about forgiving and confession and how beautiful and complete the Dhamma is. With appreciation, Nina. op 23-03-2003 23:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ============================= > While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with annoyance, and > I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. > > With metta, > Howard 20575 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa, history Dear Sarah, I greatly appreciate your post on Buddhaghosa and will keep this in my files. Thank you very much, Nina op 24-03-2003 06:41 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: >> It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how >> his writings should be viewed. > 20576 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Dear Larry op 24-03-2003 02:22 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little bewildered by the section on clear comprehension. Are the > seven parts of this section concerned with insight, aka "clear > comprehension" (sampaja~n~na) in four ways, i.e., purpose, suitability, > resort, non-delusion, into the body in the practice of body mindfulness > (kaya anupassana)? Purpose, suitability, and resort seem to be concerned > with maintaining purity and could possibly be characterized as > "awareness". This adds another dimension to insight. N: Non delusion is mentioned at the end: no self, Only elements, thus, also in the section on mindfulness of body: both nama and rupa are the objects of mindfulness and understanding. What use is it to only know rupa and not discern it as different from nama? Sati sampajanna is needed for this. As to bending and stretching, I remember A. Sujin explaining this to me, this is also a level of understanding: know what is suitable for the body. it conditions nama. Never sit too long, you get stiff. Do not torture yourself. The monks also have to walk now and then, not sitting the whole day. Nina. 20577 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Dear Dave, what you wrote is completely as I see it. I can find myself in your words. You wrote: Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or unwelcomed. N: On the contrary, any question is good and helpful for all of us. Nina. op 24-03-2003 18:58 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of > Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. (snip) > 20578 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Again! Dear Janice, Thx for writing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > Thank you for answering my questions! Lately, > I am quite upset about the war which had just started > in Iraq! Believe me, I know a few people who are upset about this war, but we can learn something out of this upset. You see, whenever we hear or see something we don't like, we won't like it too much, and sometimes, we will even be upset over it. When you see somebody you don't like, do you feel annoyed or unhappy because of the seeing? Because of seeing, there can be either happiness, or upset on the account of seeing. In this case, you see the images of the war, hear about its stories, and then get upset. The more you think about it, the more you are likely to be upset. If you know this, you can find some other peaceful things to think about. Try thinking about being extra nice to your friends and family, and being extra nice to your friends and family. That may bring you (temporary) peace. > Here are a few questions: > Do you believe in war? The Buddha teaches that violence cannot end violence; violence only begets more violence. Even if we think this is true, sometimes we are still violent anyway. I think this war will bring more violence, hatred, and division among people. > do you support it? No. > Do you believe in the laughing Buddha? No, the real Buddha was said to smile only, never laugh. This is because laughing is born out of our attachment to something. Since the Buddha has no attachment, then there can't be a laughing Buddha (except in statutes and such). > Do you follow the mindfulness path? I believe this path is the only way out of suffering. I follow it whenever there is mindfulness. > Do you go to the temple every week? No, I do go to dicussions about the Buddha's teachings every week, though. Janice, how do you like what you learn about Buddhism so far? kom 20579 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:07pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear Nina & James, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] I very much appreciate this post, but will include only to the section I would like to add. > You are really worried that the Abhidhamma leads > to believing that one knows > what one does not know. As I mentioned before, > the late Phra Dhammadaro used > to say: the dhamma is sobering up. One has > conceit, but at least realizes > it. Only the arahat has eradicated it, thus, of > course we have it. Lots of > it, clinging to the importance of self. Yes, it > must appear in our writing > and speech, I am so glad you remind me of this. A > reminder by a Dhamma > friend is so useful. But we learn through the > Abhidhamma that there are so > many moments which change very fast. Cittas are > extremely fast. > Example: when I was in Thailand I said, every > time I come here I realize > that I know so little. Not only studying the abhidhamma can bring conceit and false belief that we know a lot, studying the Sutta and the Vinayana (and other things as well). Don't we feel sometimes, on the account of knowing (only) one sutta, feel that I know this sutta and this other person doesn't? Conceit is so prevalent. That's why I find A. Sujin's reminder about the purpose of studying the dhamma so helpful. We study the stories about the dhamma so that we understand better, so that it becomes a condition to know dhamma that is arising now, not book knowledge. We don't study for the purpose of praise or reputation (because we know things that other people don't), but we study for the knowledge of the realities, and for taming the kilesa. Are we now discussing about dhamma for the sake of winning an argument, or for showing off that I know something that other people don't? If we are, then we should learn that this, too, is a conditioned reality, but it is reality that we should not develop, but a reality that we should "let go". There is still a long way to go: only arahants have eradicated this kind of defilement. Abhidhamma, and the suttas, can be helpful reminders to us about how little we still know about the true realities... kom 20580 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob, Speaking as a layman, this is a noble effort but unconvincing and confusing. First, what are you talking about; the evolution of several moments of consciousness or what? Diagramatically, it reads as: ignorance > kamma > consciousness > mind & matter > sense bases > contact > feeling... But kamma, consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, contact, and feeling are all already fully functioning in ignorance. Where's the evolution? How can there be consciousness without sense bases first? What is the difference between consciousness and mind? Does kamma condition consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, contact and feeling? How do you know? These are just a few questions off the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with more, but this is a good beginning you have made. Maybe if we wrestle with it some more you could come up with a lesson plan. It's very thought provoking. Larry 20581 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Howard, You wrote: ----------- > You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of pariyatti. > By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is planted, a > "recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to pay > attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its nature (as > impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as useful, > harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of the > akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, attention can > be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. --------------- My thoughts exactly. In fact, I feel a fraud writing to dsg, proclaiming the wondrousness of the Dhamma -- how much of my day is actually spent overcoming akusala tendencies? Precious little. -------------- > What makes > the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention to "do the > right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and fail to act > on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature (I forget > the Pali) would rightly apply to us. -------------- I haven't noticed that term but I'm sure it applies to me. Where you use the word 'intention,' I think 'determination' (as in the Perfection), might be better, but we are still in agreement. -------------- Conventional volition is important. ----------------- It was too good to last:-) I think conventional volition is no volition at all. Whenever we do something right (or wrong), it is due to paramatta volition, not conventional volition. We don't know when kusala dhammas are about to arise but after they do, we invent stories to explain how WE were responsible. Determination to make Right Understanding our own, [not just the property of our teachers], is primarily important. But, I'm afraid it, [determination],arises when the conditions for its arising are present; conventional determination has no say in the matter. Kind regards, Ken H 20582 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:27pm Subject: War Hi James, I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was involed in a big middle school musical performance these few weeks. We had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott. The musical is called "Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat". Its a really nice movie as well,have you watched it before? Im sure the Nazis weren't bad or evil people. It's just the different influence around different people. What do you think of the war going on with America and Iraq? Do you agree with war or do you disagree with war? I'm kind of in the middle because if they don't dont start a war, the Iraq people won't know what's right and what's wrong but if they start a war, a lot of innocent people will die. Different people have different perceptions about stuffs. What will the Buddhists think about war? Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and Catholics? Take care, Love, JoJo~* 20583 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:29pm Subject: What is the most popular religion? Dear James, Thanks for your reply and I'm really glad that you answered my question! In Hong Kong, there is this terrible desiese that doesn't have a cure YET and its called " SARS Pneumonia". A lot of people here has it and some people already died. :'( I hope that they find a cure soon. I liked your funny quotes! HAHAAAA How old was Goethe when he died? And when was he born? I bet he must be REALLY old . . . hahaa* Is high school the same thing as Secondary? Well I'm in grade 6 (Year 7). I just got two new guinea pigs! One called Tiger and the other one is called Lion. I have a question, What does metta mean?!?!?!? You always say "metta James" Does it mean from? What language is it in? I also have another question, what is the most popular religion? From Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont Some of my funny quotes: Do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by you again? Why do you have to practice to be perfect when nobody can be perfect? Always remember that you are unique, just like everybody else. ----------------END---------------- hahaaaa...well I have lots more, to much so I can't write them all 20584 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Victor, You wrote: ------------ > I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate is a rather useless division. > Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. > -------------- You were not persuaded by Kom's answer to this question in message 20443; I don't know what I could possibly add. Kom began: "From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know about death being suffering, illness being suffering, parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's profound?" Do you agree with this Victor? Surely you must agree that the simple statement, "death is suffering, illness is suffering, . ." is banal.(?) Don't you agree there must be infinitely more to the noble truth of suffering than the banality of conventional truth? As Kom says, conventional truth is "the truth that can be denied"; "what kind of truth is that?" To put it mildly, our conventional world lacks certainty. We can't even say, eg, "stinking, putrid filth is unpleasant," without fear of contradiction (from ten billion flies, at least). Don't you long for certainty in the world? In absolute reality, everything is certain, absolute; there is no relative, subjective, deniable truth. Quoting again: "Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they are, and how very little we really know about them, then we begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound and unique to the Buddha's teachings." (end quote) So, Victor, having read most of Kom's post again, do you still think that conventional/ultimate is, "a rather useless division?" I will not accept 'yes' for an answer :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20585 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:31pm Subject: WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Everybody, WARNING! This letter is going to be extreamally boring, because it is full of questions. If you don't want to be bored to death then don't read this! . . . are you sure you still want to read it? oh well . . . if you are bored don't blame me! ------------------------------boring questions----------------------------are you ready? ------------------- 1. Who was the first Buddhist westerner? 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? 3. Why is an elephant so holy in Thailand? 4. When was the Buddha born? 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About the Prince) 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? 7. What percent of the world is Buddhist? 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? 9. Are there a lot of western Buddhists? 10. This letter is boring right? --------------------------END-------------------------- Haha! Don't tell me I didn't warn you! From Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont PS: hahaaaaaaaa . . . I'm not going to be writing many of this type of letter so often, so if you read this, you are VERY lucky! 20586 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Ken - In a message dated 3/25/03 1:24:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > You wrote: > ----------- > > You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of > pariyatti. > >By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is > planted, a > >"recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to > pay > >attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its > nature (as > >impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as > useful, > >harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of > the > >akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, > attention can > >be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. > > --------------- > > My thoughts exactly. In fact, I feel a fraud writing to > dsg, proclaiming the wondrousness of the Dhamma -- how > much of my day is actually spent overcoming akusala > tendencies? Precious little. > > -------------- > > What makes > >the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention > to "do the > >right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and > fail to act > >on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature > (I forget > >the Pali) would rightly apply to us. > > -------------- > I haven't noticed that term but I'm sure it applies to > me. Where you use the word 'intention,' I think > 'determination' (as in the Perfection), might be better, > but we are still in agreement. > -------------- --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I think also that 'determination' is better. --------------------------------------------------- > > Conventional volition is important. > ----------------- > > It was too good to last:-) I think conventional volition > is no volition at all. Whenever we do something right > (or wrong), it is due to paramatta volition, not > conventional volition. We don't know when kusala dhammas > are about to arise but after they do, we invent stories to > explain how WE were responsible. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not putting any "we" into this. Don't let my terminology cause a problem. So-called conventional volition possibly comprises a host of things including desire and including the more neutral chanda. Chanda, of a *good* sort, is pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote of "conventional volition". It is described by Nyanatiloka as follows: > > > As a good quality it [chanda] is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) > and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the 4 right efforts (s. padhána): "The > monk rouses his will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the > 4 roads to power (s. iddhipáda). > BTW, notice the conventional speech "The monk rouses his will"! --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Determination to make Right Understanding our own, [not > just the property of our teachers], is primarily > important. But, I'm afraid it, [determination],arises > when the conditions for its arising are present; > conventional determination has no say in the matter. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, we walk to the store when the conditions for doing so are in place. That includes our determination to do so. If that determination were not there, we would not go. When there is the determination to attend mindfully to what arises from moment to moment, that determination, that decision, will come to mind from time to time and we *will* attend mindfully to what arises. But without the intention and determination to do so, we would simply coast through life in a state of unmindfulness - basically in a daze. Whether we call this "conventional volition" or "making a decision" or "making a vow" or "practicing right intention" or "rousing one's will" - whatever we call it, and whatever it is, *it is important*. Whether it is a complex of paramattha dhammas or is, itself a single paramattha dhamma, *it is important*. Without it there is no walking the path. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================ 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) 20587 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:27am Subject: Arahants Dear All, As this seems to be the time for raising questions about any sticky points, may I, with respect, ask about Arahants? Many times in discussions the approval and support of Arahants, or the presence of Arahants, is seen as putting beyond question the fact that someone, some teaching, some action, is faultless. A few months back, I was searching the Tipitaka and related texts on the Internet for teachings on 'peace' and 'non-violence'. I came across what I consider to be an incomprehensible view (when attributed to Buddhists) of a Just War - times when war is acceptable, and classes of persons it is acceptable to kill. I have been thinking about this ever since - particularly now, with my country involved in this war on the Iraqi people. The Mahavamsa, written in the 6th century AD by a Buddhist monk portrays the Sinhalese King Dutthagamani Abhaya as the National Hero who defeated the Tamil King Ellala and unified the whole of Ceylon. Though Buddhism infinitely values human life as being a condition from which nibbana could be attained, Mahavamsa made a virtue of killing in defence of Buddhism. Indeed, the Mahavamsa even has an oft-repeated story of how the killing of Tamils during the drive to unify the country didn't really count as killing because, as non- Buddhists, they were less than human beings. "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story raises another confusion for me. Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? metta, Christine 20588 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: temples --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > You know you said about the temple you go to.Is there > anything like going to the temple every Sunday? So > Buddhists are really different to both Christians and > Jews, where they sing to thank for the blessing or > anything similar. > > You said that said people go to the temple to > meditate. When you meditate what do you have in mind? > > Thanks for the poems! > > Metta > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary! Yes, at my temple they have special services every Sunday where many in the Asian community come to chant with the monks, listen to a dharma talk, and then eat lunch. I have been to the temple on a few Sundays. I don't like to go to the temple when there are a lot of people there. As a rule, I avoid crowds. I usually prefer to go to the temple on Saturdays or during the week…and for special events. When I meditate I first pay attention to my breathing in and out…so that I can observe what my body and my mind are really like. When my mind is more settled and focused, after about 20 or 25 minutes of paying attention to my breath, I then mentally scan my body from the top to the bottom, and then from the bottom to the top. I notice how my body feels on the surface of the skin, and underneath the skin. All during this process I mentally follow the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati: Attention) that the Buddha taught: Mindfulness of the Body (Position), Feelings (Senses Contact), Mind (Thinking, Planning and Fantasy), and Mental Activity (Consciousness). In order to keep track of all of these things, I have to keep very still and not move a single muscle in my body. Moving will disrupt my attention to these things. I also keep my eyes half open so that my mind doesn't think it is time to sleep ;- ). I sit like this, paying attention to these things, on the bare floor, for usually 45 minutes to an hour total each time. Then I stand and do walking meditation…which is the same as above but it is walking very, very slowly…paying attention to each move. Imagine walking so slow that it takes 10 minutes to get from one side of a room to the other, then you will have a good idea of what it is like. So you see, even though meditation may seem boring and easy, it really isn't either one. There are too many things to try to notice for it to be boring and it isn't easy to notice all of them. But the benefits of meditation are very great! Thanks for writing and study hard in school! Metta, James Ps. You are very welcome for the poems, but things are a little too serious in the world right now for me to send more funny poems. Maybe next time. :-) 20589 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, What is impermanent is dukkha. "The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all conditioned dhammas". One of the three characteristics of conditioned dhammas is that conditioned dhammas are dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > > I disagree. Something is unsatisfactory onlty with respect to a person > who finds it unsatisfactory. When it is okay that that things not remain, > there is no dukkha in their not remaining. It is exactly tanha and upadana > that are the cause of dukkha. For an arahant, dukkha is ended. [snip] > The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all > conditioned dhammas, in cultivating disenchantment, and in letting go. This > requires the development of mindfulness, sharp concentration, calm, and clear > comprehension. It requires the direct seeing of what is and what is not. [snip] > It is commonplace observation that people age, get ill, and die, that > we lose what we have and that we don't get what we want. That the world is a > "place of woe" is well understood by many people. It's a biggy in > Catholicism, for example. But that ordinary conventional knowledge, useful as > it is, just doesn't do the job. What is required is to see that at the finest > level, nothing remains for even a moment, that everything is empty, without > essence, fleeting, and ungraspable, and that attempting to grasp the > ungraspable is dukkha. > ----------------------------------------------------- > [snip] > With metta, > Howard 20590 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom Dear Kom How are you? Thank you for your break-down of Buddhadasa's situation. At first, I thought, from the writing of Robert K, that his problems were limited to his misunderstandings of Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma. Now, from what you wrote, his problems turned out to be far worse than I previously thought. Did the Thai Sangha disrobe him for his misunderstandings of Pali Tipi.taka? If he questioned Pali Vinaya Pi.taka, he was no longer a Theravada monk because it amounted to him having lost confidnece and trust in Vinaya which demands a monk's total trust and faith (saddhaa). When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of Theravada Sangha. In short, he must be disrobed. My impression is that his ideas came from Mahayana teachings (for example, one is already good, so no need to do anything). This type of attitude can also be traced back to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Buddha's stamement on the radiant mind/ luminous mind, which has been discussed many times on this list. Now, the double standard of this ideologically corrupted and unsound monk, Buddhadasa, who no longer should remain in the Theravada Sangha! He criticized Pali commentaries via Buddhaghosa, yet he let himself influenced by Mahayana-like ideas. If my characterization of him were correct, then he was guilty of double standard because Mahayana schools totally rely on the teachings of their founders who are later interpreters or commentators of the Buddha's teachings. In short, his stance amounted to substituting Pali commentaries with Mahayana commentaries. Or worse still, he apparently was guilty of wanting to substitute Pali commentaries with his own misunderstandings and wrong interpretations. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: Dear Christine & Other, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Hi Robert and All, I was exposed to V. Buddhadhassa's work thru my parents' interests, so I am by no mean an expert on what he teaches. However, from my brief glimpses of his work, I have the following impressions: 1) his teachings, especially when it comes to rebirth, is substantially different from what's in the 3 tipitakas. To believe that what he teaches is right, one needs to believe in the supposition that the tipitakas have been heavily doctored to include fragments of other beliefs (you can see how much the texts refer to rebirth: this seems to amount to major overhaul, not just convenient modifications). He believes in the aberration in all three tipitakas, not just the commentaries or the abhidhamma tipitakas. 2) To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be? The venerable would explain it, "it is what it is". Although this sounds very alluring and calming, this points to spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. 3) To believe in no rebirth also negates the explanation of kamma and its results. He sometimes explained the results of kamma to mean what we receive in this very life. If you believe this, then there are people who commit evils, but who will receive no results, and there are people who receive (good and bad) results, without causes. Kamma that are conditioned by attachments (and therefore, wouldn't necessarily condition anger or anxiety, something he views as the punishment of this very life) may bear no fruit if the authority doesn't catch the crooks and punish them. People who are born rich and beautiful, miserable and disadvantaged, are put there without cause: stuffs happen. I don't think there are much disagreements that intellectual understandings about the dhamma alone cannot bring about enlightenment. It is the disagreement of what brings about the understanding at the pati-pati (practice) level, that is usually in questions. Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati level is the same way as any other realities: they are conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for further development, and may very well lead us into the wrong practices. kom 20591 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: War JoJo, Just a quick point, but Catholics ARE Christians. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: ...SNIP... > Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and > Catholics? > > Take care, Love, > JoJo~* > 20592 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi, Christine - In a message dated 3/25/03 4:28:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a > series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him > on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy > war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This > enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and > advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object > the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After > his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives > sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints > or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can > there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great > armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the > commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to > salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been > sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with > wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to > shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue > your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- > book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ > > Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism > has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story > raises another confusion for me. > Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); > or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How > does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there > were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to > justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, > and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? > > =============================== I think that you have probably well covered the plausible explanations, properly ruling out the first that there were arahants who considered it perfectly okay to kill people who were, from their perspective, "heretics and sinners" and thus less than human. Such a view sounds strangely modern in this day of fundamentalist terrorism. The Dhamma cautions against intentional killing of all sentient life, and most Buddhists I know avoid even the killing of insects. But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I certainly don't consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a Buddhist related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and other Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force. 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) 20593 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Rob, Wow... thanks for taking the time to put all this together. I'm sure it did take considerable time and effort. It is a lot to absorb. But, I do have a few initial thoughts. First, I think that I did not at all understand D.O. before. From what I understand from your text, D.O. is only specifically to the 7 items you listed, right? I had seen it as more "cause and effect" but realizing the vast complexities of the causes. Sort of like the "Chaos Theory" (remember Jurasic Park!) but with a moral / ethical thread included. It would seem that I was way off in my thoughts. Anyway, I've thrown a few quick questions below inline. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Dave (and all), > > I promised to provide you with a layman version of dependent > origination. Sorry for the delay, but it is a much more difficult > task than I thought and I have been caught up in making a living. > > In fact, the Buddha said that Dependent Origination was the most > complex part of the teaching. Here are my comments on the first > seven links; I hope that this stimulates some discussion. > > Each link of the chain of Dependent Origination depends on the > existence of the previous link, but it is not a "cause and effect" > type of relationship. We do not say that a seed caused a tree to > grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a > tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent > origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is > something that must exist before the next factor can arise. > DAVE: So, do you mean that each element (link in the chain) is a factor required for the following. So, as an example, for fire to take place, there must be oxygen and a flammible substance. But, having those 2 items does not cause fire. The cause is the open flame. Do these operate the same way. That Ignorance is just a necissary condition to be present for "Kammic actions" to occur. But, the presence of Ignorance does not mean that Kamma will occur. There must be some other "cause" (the open flame)? > The first link in the chain is "ignorance". Ignorance is the primary > root of all evil and suffering in the world. Ignorance prevents one > from seeing the true nature of things. However, ignorance should not > be considered as the "causeless first-cause of the world". Ignorance > arises because it is habitual. Whenever we do something, two things > happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to > mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. > > With ignorance as a factor, conditions can allow "kammic actions" to > arise. Kammic actions are the second link in dependent origination. > Kammic actions mean any willed activity (all willed activities > create kamma). We can see that kamma and dependent origination are > not totally separate. Our actions spring from our habits. It is easy > to see that habits based on ignorance (not seeing things as they > truly are) can lead to negative kammic actions rooted in ignorance. > Habits based on ignorance can also lead to positive kammic actions. > For example, conceit or vanity can motivate one to do good things. > > With kammic actions as a factor, conditions can > allow "consciousness" to arise. Consciousness is the third link in > dependent origination. Kammic actions create kammic seeds, each with > a potential (but not inevitability) to mature when other conditions > allow. Kammic seed mature at two different time; at the moment of > rebirth, a kammic seed with mature to determine the nature of your > next existence (a new "rebirth-linking consciousness"). Kammic seeds > also mature throughout our lifetime. Whenever something happens to > us, this is because a kammic seed has matured. In the process of > seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, > this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- > consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever > strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also > present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic > seed maturing. DAVE: How do you define "consciousness" in this context? Merriam- Webster defines Cosciousness as: 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes It would seem that the term is not used in this way here, especially since it comes before mind and matter in the chain. > With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and > matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent > origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and > physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any of > our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that > allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the > body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body is > weakened and you can see it on their faces. > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of it? On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) > With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six > sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in > dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical > sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). > Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, > according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. > In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is > a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a > living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or the egg" question? :-) > With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can allow "contact" > to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. > Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible > object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding > sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For example, "visual > contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there > is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. > > With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. > Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In > conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with > emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant > mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable > (physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or > painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hopefully, I'm not being too nitpicky with my followup questions. Again, I do appreciate you taking so much time to put this together. It is very helpful to my understanding this rather tricky subject. Peace, Dave 20594 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi, Dave (and Rob) - I'd like to express a couple of my thoughts about parts of your post. In a message dated 3/25/03 11:01:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, dwlemen@y... writes: > > >With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and > >matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent > >origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and > >physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any > of > >our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, > >the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > >arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that > >allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the > >body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body > is > >weakened and you can see it on their faces. > > > > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be > no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is > there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of > it? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: From my perspective, an in-principle unknowable physical reality is exactly that - unknowable, and, from a pragmatic Occam's-razor point of view can be dismissed. I do think, however, that it may be plausible to admit of potentialities for future observability, these being conditions/seeds that may bear fruit when other needed supporting conditions arise. As a conventional example (treat it as a metaphor), just to suggest my meaning: At the moment I am seeing the front of my computer monitor. With the proper supporting conditions, I could see the back of it. That potentiality is not unreal. Operationally, that is pretty much what "the back of the monitor" may mean. [Warning: The foregoing is filled with conventional notions at multiple levels, and is only given to give an inkling of my meaning of a "potentiality".] ----------------------------------------------------- > > On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent > discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that > suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, > huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) > > >With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six > >sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in > >dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical > >sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). > >Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, > >according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. > >In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is > >a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a > >living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. > > > > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? > Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that > which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or > the egg" question? :-) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a *very* important question. Maybe it is possible to think of this as follows: An act of consciousness/discernment (vi~n~nana) is a requirement for the arising of a mental or physical object of consciousness (namarupa); the arising of an object of discernment [which one might understand as the actualization of a potentiality, to relate this matter back to what I discussed earlier] is a requirement for the activation of one of the six senses (salayatana); the occurrence of all these (vi~n~nana, namarupa, and salayatana) constitutes, or is a requirement for, contact (phassa). One further comment: It should be clear that just as an act of discernment is necessary for the arising of an object of discernment, also an object of discernment is necessary for the occurrence of an act of discernment. In the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, this point is made clear in its presentation of dependent arising, with vi~n~nana and namarupa being given as mutually dependent, like two sheaves standing up, leaning against each other and supporting each other, so that should either fall so would the other. --------------------------------------------------------- > > >With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can > allow "contact" > >to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. > >Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible > >object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding > >sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For > example, "visual > >contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there > >is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. > > > >With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. > >Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In > > >conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with > >emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant > >mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable > >(physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or > >painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. > > ========================== 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) 20595 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:15am Subject: The Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 8 The Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 8 We read in the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka², ³As it was said², The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, which was quoted above: Loyalty to the Buddha is loyalty with firm confidence. For a person with such confidence, be he monk, deity, måra or Brahma, it is impossible to steal. Someone who is steadfast in his loyalty would not give up his confidence in the Buddha or his teachings, even when in danger of life. Therefore, the Buddha said that a person with wisdom and gratefulness is a noble friend who is steadfast in loyalty. Loyalty to people other than the Buddha may be of different degrees and it may be limited: it may last long or it may last for only a moment. However, the loyalty of Buddhists towards the Buddha is forever, until the end of life. From the time of childhood until one has become an adult, one can from morning until night hear the chanting of texts recollecting the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem. This makes us realize the excellence of the Buddha¹s truthfulness in the development of the perfections so that he could penetrate the noble Truths and become a support beyond measure to living beings, to devas and mankind. We read in the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka²: The Buddha is called bhagavå because people are steadfast in their loyalty towards him, and because the Buddha is always intent on the benefit of all living beings in the world, and hence considers in his great compassion to teach the Dhamma. He teaches the Dhamma so that all beings could acquire steadfastness in síla, in samådhi, the calm that is freedom from defilements, and in paññå. The Buddhist followers, both monks and layfollowers, should be sincere in their loyalty to the Buddha, and they can express this by offering all kinds of gifts, such as flowers, incense, unguents and other things by which they can honour him. We can see that the person who is truthful and sincere and who is intent on the welfare of other beings in the world has eradicated all defilements. People can see his great compassion and his wisdom, and hence their loyalty to the Buddha, the Exalted One, surpasses their loyalty to anybody else. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², ³Miscellaneous Sayings²: Only the man of wisdom is skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings.... Not deceiving, undertaking to give support to others, and not uttering speech that deviates from the truth, this is called practice with truthfulness. This is the practice of the Sammasambuddha, the Exalted One. This is skilfulness in providing for the welfare of all beings, by teaching them the way to eradicate attachment. He shows the danger of akusala and explains the way to further develop kusala. He does not deceive, he tries to give support to others and does not utter speech that deviates from the truth. This is called practice with truthfulness. Weight Age Gender Female Male 20596 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear James, op 25-03-2003 02:22 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > While I do not and never will > agree with everything you teach, I sincerely agree with the spirit > with which you teach it. N: I am really touched by your kind post. This is motivated by your kusala citta. Didn't we set the ball rolling by Buddhaghosa? But many things came out of this I find beneficial. I am glad about it. You really bring up excellent points worth of reflection. It brings me back to basics, let me realize more what Abhidhamma is. Even such basics as kusala and akusala. For example, kusala, the Atthasalini writes that its manifestation is purity. Worth reflecting on: it is not contaminated by ignorance that goes together with all akusala, no selfishness, no aversion. We have kusala so seldom compared with all the akusala we accumulated, but when it appears it is beautiful, pure. I appreciate it so much seeing it in others. As you said, you do not agree with what I teach (teach? rather propose), but this does not matter, because we are friends in the Dhamma. Thank you for your good wishes for my father. It is not easy, but we like to play for him. Just one interesting point about the practice you mentioned, and I want to elaborate on it a little, especially to remind myself: I believe this, when called away, is the practice, we have to develop all the perfections the Buddha taught us. And then, many opportunities to reflect on Dhamma, on the Buddha, and there are always the objects appearing through the senses or the mind-door, and there can be awareness of them, sometimes. But I have to learn this slowly. Any surroundings are suitable; where we are is all because of conditions. Moreover, there is also an opportunity for mindfulness of death to see him going so slowly, every day more. I still would like to go on with some of your useful points when I have time, with great appreciation, Nina. 20597 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:28am Subject: Re: War --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > involed in a big middle school musical performance > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday Hi Star Kid JoJo: It is okay that you haven't written for a while. I am glad that you enjoyed working on that musical and I hope you did a good job! I have directed several musicals so I know the amount of work involved and the pleasure that comes from doing a good job. Did you perform or work behind the scenes? Actually, I haven't seen that movie or play because it is very Judeo/Christian and I am not of that faith… so I don't/wouldn't enjoy it as much as some other people. I am surprised you performed it in school because it is kind of a church musical, but I hope you enjoyed the experience and made a lot of friends. You ask me two types of questions in this letter: What do I think of the current war and what do Buddhists think of the current war and war in general. These are a lot of complicated questions, as is the current war, actually. I will try my best to answer them as honestly as I can. First, I do want to point out that the current war with Iraq is not just America vs. Iraq, there are some other countries involved and, I suspect, before it is over, a lot of other countries will get involved. With that said I do have to say that I am in favor of the war with Iraq and believe that it is being fought for relatively good reasons. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who steals the countries wealth belonging to the Iraqi people, he kills his own citizens who oppose him, and he supplies and harbors terrorists who cause great harm in other countries because that will bring him power. When someone has that much power, in the form of money and fear, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them without force. America, as far as I can tell, has no intention of kicking out Saddam, taking over the oil wells, and keeping the wealth for itself. America is rich and powerful enough without needing to do that…and the American people wouldn't allow that to happen because they would tell everyone! ;-) The countries who oppose the war are getting money from the oil in Iraq and they don't want to lose that investment when Saddam is no longer in control. So you see, it is a fight over money, which equals power. America relatively left Iraq alone, after the Gulf War, and didn't meddle in its affairs for many years; but since 9-11, America isn't going to let these types of situations, which can get worse and affect the world, continue to happen. Just like I believe Hitler needed to be taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight personally or kill people to do that. I am like you, I am in favor of the war but I am opposed to me personally killing anyone and don't like to see people get killed or hurt…on either side. This may seem hypocritical but it isn't. It relates to your next set of questions: Are Buddhists in favor of the war and/or war in general. Well, I cannot speak for all Buddhists… some will be in favor and some will be opposed; but I can try to speak for Buddhism itself. The Buddha taught that those who take refuge in the Triple Gem should avoid killing living beings. However, he didn't say that everyone in the world should take refuge in the Triple Gem nor was that likely to happen. Some people, because of their past lives, are going to be Buddhist and some are not. Consequently, some people are going to be soldiers and fight in wars and some are not. The Buddha personally never told a soldier that it was wrong for him to fight and kill in a war, unless that soldier directly asked him what he should do (therefore he probably shouldn't be a soldier). The Buddha also didn't say that Buddhists should oppose war in general with speech or actions, he said that they should not become involved. Actually, he told his monks that they shouldn't look at soldiers while they are in formation nor should they look at battles occurring. They are to remain relatively neutral and to not even look at such things. That is what I do with my life as well, I remain relatively neutral. I can have my opinions about the war, but I am not going to speak of them strongly (I only write this because you ask, otherwise I say nothing), nor do I try to persuade other people to think one way or another, and I am not going to personally get involved. I just hope for peace for everyone. Thank you for writing again JoJo and I hope you become involved in some more productions in your school. Take care and work hard in school. Metta, James 20598 From: Michael Newton Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! --- Star Kid wrote: > Hello!Star Kid; I wouldn't feel too bad about your questions,or even that they are stupid-as this is the way you learned- and you can draw on the experience of many members of this group-and I would encaurage you-to just keep asking question,till you feel that you got a satifactory answer-also I could recommend a very good book-It's called"Buddhism in a Nutshell"-by Narada Thera-published by the Buddhist Publication Society in Sri Lanka-but I bet this book(or pamphlet)is available in Hong Kong-at one of the many Buddhist Bookstores there-and I believe there is no fee for the book or small fee maybe-think many of your questions could be answered.I've never been to Hong Kong-but one of this groups moderators,lives there and she know a lot about the subject-and it's possible she might even answer many of your questions.Her name is Sarah and her email address is--sarahdhhk@y...--since you both live in Hong Kong and might even be involved in a study group new you.I'm half a world away in California,however,thru the internet-it's amazeing to me that you can communicate with anyone in the world so quikly-even within minutes-this never ceases to amaze me-years ago,I never ever thought I'd be doing what I'm doing now-communicating globally with so many people.Good luck on your search and don't hesitate to ask questions.Yours in good Faith,Peace in the World,MICHAEL > Dear Everybody, > > WARNING! > > This letter is going to be extreamally boring, > because > it is full of questions. If you don't want to be > bored > to death then don't read this! > . . . are you sure you still want to read it? > oh well . . . if you are bored don't blame me! > > ------------------------------boring > questions----------------------------are you ready? > ------------------- > > 1. Who was the first Buddhist westerner? > > 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? > > 3. Why is an elephant so holy in Thailand? > > 4. When was the Buddha born? > > 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About > the Prince) > > 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? > > 7. What percent of the world is Buddhist? > > 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? > > 9. Are there a lot of western Buddhists? > > 10. This letter is boring right? > > --------------------------END-------------------------- > > Haha! > Don't tell me I didn't warn you! > > From > Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont > > PS: hahaaaaaaaa . . . I'm not going to be writing > many > of this type of letter so often, so if you read > this, > you are VERY lucky! > 20599 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:33am Subject: Re: War James, It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always hate to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a flame... I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. There are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus said "Love your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever be a just war for Buddhism? From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, move closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, even Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to the Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill us. Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps those include pre-emptive strikes. Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, the best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of life on either side. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid > wrote: > > > > Hi James, > > > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > > involed in a big middle school musical performance > > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday > > Hi Star Kid JoJo: > > It is okay that you haven't written for a while. I am glad that you > enjoyed working on that musical and I hope you did a good job! I > have directed several musicals so I know the amount of work involved > and the pleasure that comes from doing a good job. Did you perform > or work behind the scenes? Actually, I haven't seen that movie or > play because it is very Judeo/Christian and I am not of that faith… > so I don't/wouldn't enjoy it as much as some other people. I am > surprised you performed it in school because it is kind of a church > musical, but I hope you enjoyed the experience and made a lot of > friends. > > You ask me two types of questions in this letter: What do I think of > the current war and what do Buddhists think of the current war and > war in general. These are a lot of complicated questions, as is the > current war, actually. I will try my best to answer them as > honestly as I can. First, I do want to point out that the current > war with Iraq is not just America vs. Iraq, there are some other > countries involved and, I suspect, before it is over, a lot of other > countries will get involved. With that said I do have to say that I > am in favor of the war with Iraq and believe that it is being fought > for relatively good reasons. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who > steals the countries wealth belonging to the Iraqi people, he kills > his own citizens who oppose him, and he supplies and harbors > terrorists who cause great harm in other countries because that will > bring him power. When someone has that much power, in the form of > money and fear, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them > without force. America, as far as I can tell, has no intention of > kicking out Saddam, taking over the oil wells, and keeping the > wealth for itself. America is rich and powerful enough without > needing to do that…and the American people wouldn't allow that to > happen because they would tell everyone! ;-) The countries who > oppose the war are getting money from the oil in Iraq and they don't > want to lose that investment when Saddam is no longer in control. > So you see, it is a fight over money, which equals power. America > relatively left Iraq alone, after the Gulf War, and didn't meddle in > its affairs for many years; but since 9-11, America isn't going to > let these types of situations, which can get worse and affect the > world, continue to happen. Just like I believe Hitler needed to be > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > personally or kill people to do that. > > I am like you, I am in favor of the war but I am opposed to me > personally killing anyone and don't like to see people get killed or > hurt…on either side. This may seem hypocritical but it isn't. It > relates to your next set of questions: Are Buddhists in favor of the > war and/or war in general. Well, I cannot speak for all Buddhists… > some will be in favor and some will be opposed; but I can try to > speak for Buddhism itself. The Buddha taught that those who take > refuge in the Triple Gem should avoid killing living beings. > However, he didn't say that everyone in the world should take refuge > in the Triple Gem nor was that likely to happen. Some people, > because of their past lives, are going to be Buddhist and some are > not. Consequently, some people are going to be soldiers and fight > in wars and some are not. The Buddha personally never told a > soldier that it was wrong for him to fight and kill in a war, unless > that soldier directly asked him what he should do (therefore he > probably shouldn't be a soldier). The Buddha also didn't say that > Buddhists should oppose war in general with speech or actions, he > said that they should not become involved. Actually, he told his > monks that they shouldn't look at soldiers while they are in > formation nor should they look at battles occurring. They are to > remain relatively neutral and to not even look at such things. That > is what I do with my life as well, I remain relatively neutral. I > can have my opinions about the war, but I am not going to speak of > them strongly (I only write this because you ask, otherwise I say > nothing), nor do I try to persuade other people to think one way or > another, and I am not going to personally get involved. I just hope > for peace for everyone. > > Thank you for writing again JoJo and I hope you become involved in > some more productions in your school. Take care and work hard in > school. > > Metta, James