21200 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello James, Victor and All, > The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF > THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The > discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim > of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present > moment." > > It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully > informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders > why else would anyone bother to join? Dear Christine, Let's go back a bit in time, I joined this group with only one purpose in mind: To learn about the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I had heard mention of it in other groups, how it was an additional teaching of the Buddha, and therefore I really wanted to learn about it. After joining this group and reading what was written about it, I knew pretty quickly that it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha. Why everyone doesn't see this plainly, for thousands of years, is really beyond me…and I am being dead serious. I cannot understand how anyone could take it as being the teaching of the Buddha! After reading more about its origination, after already feeling it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha, I found the scholarly evidence to back up what I already knew. Haven't I been honest about this process of mine since day one? Why are you now trying to tell me that I have to accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the work of the Buddha when it is not? Frankly, I don't care what millions of people think; millions of people can be wrong. I know what I know and you cannot dissuade me otherwise. I have stated, outright, that I will quit this group because I do not agree with the idea of the `Tipitaka' `The Three Baskets', as being the full, authentic record of the Buddha's teaching. I have offered that with full understanding. I was contacted by the moderators, on and off-list, and you also as a matter of fact, telling me not to do that. I was told that my participation was appreciated and valued. And now you are telling me that I should quit after all. Which is it to be? Rest assured, I am going to do my best to dissuade people from believing the Abhidhamma just as strong as you are going to promote it. I cannot be controlled. Make up your mind what you want and get back to me, since I see that you are now some kind of quasi- moderator here. Metta, James 21201 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Christine, Dave and Paul In a message dated 4/12/03 5:00:15 AM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. > Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as > the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases > tensions and feeling *memories*. agree! > Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So > everyone else must? > > {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember > reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who > just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and > mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up > every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very > aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} mmm.... may be, its a way to relax for ordinary ppl! ^^ > And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in > advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to > myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in > detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > metta, > Christine >> Well, dreaming is an interesting subject for me, because it has been a domain of my mindfulness practice from the beginning. I figured, why leave a third of my life out of my practice? I was 20 at the time I began a daily meditation practice and I didn't often remember my dreams. I did recall as a child having a fairly active dream life, and I had read that sleep researchers had found everyone dreams. But, maybe they haven't tested an enlightened masters. But, I felt remembering my dreams was something that would help me in my practice, so I went out and bought a couple of books on do-it-yourself-dream-work and set to work. All of the books recommended setting an intention just before sleep to recall your dreams in the morning, and setting out a flashlight and notebook next to the bed, so I did it right away. Well, a couple of days later I woke early from a dream and I wrote it down and went right back to sleep. As the days and weeks went by I remembered more and more of my dreams. As the years went by I filled up journals with dream data. As my practice progressed my dreams became more lucid. I even began to have out-of-body experiences. That was a little weird, because I had no context for slipping and sliding in and out of my body. I thought I was going totally wako. I went to the most trusted individual in my life, which was my surrogate grandma. She was an old lady that rented a room from us when I was a kid, and became our surrogate granny. I confided in her that I was having some weird dreams like flying out the window and stuff, and I told her I was pretty sure I had to be going crazy, but I didn't want to be put away. She said, "Oh dear, you are just having out-of-body experiences." I said, "What?" She sat me down and told me all about it, then she gave me a collection of instruction manuals from the "Coptic Fellowship," a Coptic mystery school she had been initiated into in the 30s. For real. I had thought all along this old lady was as straight as a Midwestern spinster, born in 1900, could get. Well, I studied the books, practiced the exercise, and in a couple of weeks I found myself flying all over the place at the drop off a hat. It was pretty cool. I had a couple of scary experiences, like being attacked by demons and hungry ghosts and stuff, then I found out they couldn't do anything to me, so I kept it up. But, after a few years, flying out of my body was no big deal, so I stopped doing it intentionally. It still happens at regular intervals through no overt intention on my part. I've kept up recording my dreams though to this day. I have about 30 journals of the stuff. I don't record the boring dreams. I record the cool ones, like previous lifetime dreams, and other domain, and other planet stuff, and powerful astral teacher things that I am sure no one would ever believe. Over the years the most interesting aspect of my dream life has been its moment-to-moment lucidity. It must be a combination of my 3 decades of daily practice, and my four hours of daily meditation, and my continued recording of my dreams, because I don't seem to lose consciousness at night. I lay down, the body falls asleep, but I remain conscious. I have dream-after-dream all night, and they are as lucid as waking experiences. Then, I become aware of this body about 4:00 AM, and I get up and meditated for a couple of hours. Well, that's my experience. I can't really recall if I've had any prophetic dreams, but I have had some doozies with domains and planets and flying hither and thither. I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. Well, that's my 2 cents. Now you probably think I'm a bit wako, but I'm used to it. Best to you all layman Jeff 21202 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... To james and Christine and all: In a message dated 4/11/03 3:53:25 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise of Buddhism. Metta, James ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said differently were going on false information or kidding themselves (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. >> I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead religion. layman, Jeff 21203 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is > essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that > cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead > religion. > > layman, Jeff Hi Jeff, This is untrue. The Buddha taught everything necessary. His teaching is timeless, and never 'dead'. It is not possible to improve on his teaching and anyone who would attempt to do so doesn't know the first thing about his teaching. Obviously, the Abhidhamma wasn't composed by enlightened beings...which is illustrated in its wishy washy explanation of Nibbana. Metta, James 21204 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hello Jeff, First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of slang! ^_~ In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our soul out of the body?) As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, dont take any risk! ^^ > Well, dreaming is an interesting subject for me, because it has been a domain > of my mindfulness practice from the beginning. I figured, why leave a third > of my life out of my practice? I was 20 at the time I began a daily > meditation practice and I didn't often remember my dreams. I did recall as a > child having a fairly active dream life, and I had read that sleep > researchers had found everyone dreams. But, maybe they haven't tested an > enlightened masters. > > But, I felt remembering my dreams was something that would help me in my > practice, so I went out and bought a couple of books on > do-it-yourself-dream-work and set to work. All of the books recommended > setting an intention just before sleep to recall your dreams in the morning, > and setting out a flashlight and notebook next to the bed, so I did it right > away. Well, a couple of days later I woke early from a dream and I wrote it > down and went right back to sleep. As the days and weeks went by I > remembered more and more of my dreams. As the years went by I filled up > journals with dream data. As my practice progressed my dreams became more > lucid. > > I even began to have out-of-body experiences. That was a little weird, > because I had no context for slipping and sliding in and out of my body. I > thought I was going totally wako. I went to the most trusted individual in > my life, which was my surrogate grandma. She was an old lady that rented a > room from us when I was a kid, and became our surrogate granny. I confided > in her that I was having some weird dreams like flying out the window and > stuff, and I told her I was pretty sure I had to be going crazy, but I didn't > want to be put away. > > She said, "Oh dear, you are just having out-of-body experiences." > > I said, "What?" > > She sat me down and told me all about it, then she gave me a collection of > instruction manuals from the "Coptic Fellowship," a Coptic mystery school she > had been initiated into in the 30s. For real. I had thought all along this > old lady was as straight as a Midwestern spinster, born in 1900, could get. > > Well, I studied the books, practiced the exercise, and in a couple of weeks I > found myself flying all over the place at the drop off a hat. It was pretty > cool. I had a couple of scary experiences, like being attacked by demons and > hungry ghosts and stuff, then I found out they couldn't do anything to me, so > I kept it up. But, after a few years, flying out of my body was no big deal, > so I stopped doing it intentionally. It still happens at regular intervals > through no overt intention on my part. > > I've kept up recording my dreams though to this day. I have about 30 > journals of the stuff. I don't record the boring dreams. I record the cool > ones, like previous lifetime dreams, and other domain, and other planet > stuff, and powerful astral teacher things that I am sure no one would ever > believe. > > Over the years the most interesting aspect of my dream life has been its > moment-to-moment lucidity. It must be a combination of my 3 decades of daily > practice, and my four hours of daily meditation, and my continued recording > of my dreams, because I don't seem to lose consciousness at night. I lay > down, the body falls asleep, but I remain conscious. I have > dream-after-dream all night, and they are as lucid as waking experiences. > Then, I become aware of this body about 4:00 AM, and I get up and meditated > for a couple of hours. > > Well, that's my experience. I can't really recall if I've had any prophetic > dreams, but I have had some doozies with domains and planets and flying > hither and thither. > > I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened > beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. > Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I > decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain > with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are > enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. > > Well, that's my 2 cents. Now you probably think I'm a bit wako, but I'm used > to it. > > Best to you all > > layman Jeff 21205 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of > slang! ^_~ > > In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, > including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. > > I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that > not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its > fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out > of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our > soul out of the body?) > > As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, > dont take any risk! ^^ Hi Ajahn Paul, One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a soul. Metta, James 21206 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT Thanks for the detailed questions. I believe this is a very important area. I always find it helpful to discuss. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word << dhamma >> means > exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? In the context of the passage from the texts that you asked me to comment on ('sabbe dhamma anatta'), I understand 'dhamma' to mean all conditioned phenomena (sankhara) plus nibbana, that is to say, the paramattha dhammas. (In some other contexts, 'dhamma' can include concepts.) > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? In the context we are discussing, that's correct. A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind. > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a << dhamma >> ? Correct. There is no paramattha dhamma of 'table' to be directly experienced through a single doorway. What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors (and assembled with the assistance of the recollection of previously assembled ideas). > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? Correct, concept is not considered a paramattha dhamma. While the objects experienced through the sense-doors are all paramattha dhammas, the object experienced through the mind-door may be a paramattha dhamma or it may be a concept. > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness. > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say << the eye is not-self >> > << the sound is not-self >> > << mana (conceit) is not-self >> > what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. (A word of explanation first. 'Eye' here refers to the paramattha dhamma that is the eye-base -- the physical eye is not a paramattha dhamma) I think it's important to appreciate that 'not-self', like impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, is a *characteristic* of paramattha dhammas. The significance of saying that something is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas is that as paramattha dhammas gradually become better known to understanding, their characteristics also gradually become more apparent. The more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the more one understands about the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. The Buddha gave at least 2 elaborations of the meaning of 'not-self'. One is to the effect of 'not subject to mastery', the other, 'lacking in an abiding soul or essence'. These are presumably different ways of saying the same thing. (Interestingly, it seems that for most listeners to the Buddha's sermons no such elaboration was necessary; the meaning of 'not-self' was readily apparent from the fact that the dhammas were already seen to be impermanent and unsatisfactory. I think those listeners must have had a highly developed understanding of paramattha dhammas already). I tend to think of 'not-self' as being a negation of certain characteristics that we wrongly attribute to paramattha dhammas, because of deeply ingrained wrong view. KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? Jon KKT: Thank you for your long post, Jon. Your answer is very clear. I like it very much and enjoy our exchanges as well. I have some more questions, but before asking, I have to answer to your question first. You asked me: << KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? >> For me, they describe perfectly the meaning of the word << not-self >> Maybe we can take them as the << official >> definition of not-self. Remember that they were elaborations presented by the Buddha Himself. NOT-SELF (anatta): __not subject to mastery __lacking in an abiding soul/essence What is interesting is that from this definition we can deduce the opposite that is the definition of << self >> even if the Buddha did not give a specific definition of this word. Therefore: SELF (atta): __subject to mastery __possessing an abiding soul/essence << subject to mastery >> means that SELF should be something self-existing, independent, unconditioned. << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> means that SELF should be permanent, eternal, unchanging. BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) The lay follower Visakha asked the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. What is called personality by the Blessed One? __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. Can someone give the original Pali of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? Thanks. Following are my questions: __You wrote: << A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind >> What do you mean by << intrinsic nature >> ? Is there a Pali word corresponding to << intrinsic nature >> ? If concept has no intrinsic nature of its own, does << paramattha dhamma >> have one ? __You wrote: << What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors >> If I say: The table is a series (or combination) of paramattha dhammas existing << INDEPENDENTLY >> of the observer. Is this statement correct? Another way to formulate this question is: What we call 'table' (which is a concept) is merely a series of paramattha dhammas experienced through different sense-doors, OK? Now if you turn your back to the table (ie. the 'table' is no more experienced by you) then does the 'table' still << exist >> independently as a series of paramattha dhammas ? __You wrote: << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness >> What do you mean by << individual essence >> in the phrase << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence >> ? Does this word << individual essence >> have the same meaning of the above << intrinsic nature >> ? Have these two words << individual essence >> and << intrinsic nature >> the same meaning of the word SELF defined above as something << self-existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging >> ? If your response to this question is Yes then how could a paramattha dhamma which has an << << individual essence >> or an << << intrinsic nature >> have also characteristics such as << impermanent (anicca) and not-self (anatta) >> ? An evident contradiction, is it not? Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21207 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the word in english. after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? > > Hi Ajahn Paul, > > One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a > soul. > > Metta, James 21208 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:08pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... James, I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to leave. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 21209 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of > slang! ^_~ > > In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be > trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams > more and more. > > I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest > that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, > its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will > be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our > mind or our soul out of the body?) > > As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, > dont take any risk! ^^ Hi Ajahn Paul, One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a soul. Metta, James KKT: So << what >> is out of the body in such out-of-body (OOB) experience if there is no soul ? I have friends who have OOB experiences. KKT 21210 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > James, > > I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post > asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and > sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the > highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member > and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the > great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to > leave. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, It is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. Could you please be a bit more specific about what I need to avoid posting? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't write ANYTHING questioning the validity of the Abhidhamma? Is this a `gag order' of sorts? Metta, James 21211 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:39pm Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: < snip > I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. KKT: I read somewhere that Arahat has only << prophetic >> dreams. KKT 21212 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: So << what >> is out of the body > in such out-of-body (OOB) experience > if there is no soul ? > > I have friends who have OOB experiences. > > > KKT Hi KKT, Well, I am not sure, but it is probably either fantasy, remote viewing, or a low-level form of multiplicity. Metta, James 21213 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... To James and Christine: In a message dated 4/12/03 6:50:12 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello James, Victor and All, > The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF > THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The > discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim > of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present > moment." > > It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully > informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders > why else would anyone bother to join? Dear Christine, Let's go back a bit in time, I joined this group with only one purpose in mind: To learn about the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I had heard mention of it in other groups, how it was an additional teaching of the Buddha, and therefore I really wanted to learn about it. After joining this group and reading what was written about it, I knew pretty quickly that it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha. Why everyone doesn't see this plainly, for thousands of years, is really beyond me…and I am being dead serious. I cannot understand how anyone could take it as being the teaching of the Buddha! After reading more about its origination, after already feeling it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha, I found the scholarly evidence to back up what I already knew. Haven't I been honest about this process of mine since day one? Why are you now trying to tell me that I have to accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the work of the Buddha when it is not? Frankly, I don't care what millions of people think; millions of people can be wrong. I know what I know and you cannot dissuade me otherwise. I have stated, outright, that I will quit this group because I do not agree with the idea of the `Tipitaka' `The Three Baskets', as being the full, authentic record of the Buddha's teaching. I have offered that with full understanding. I was contacted by the moderators, on and off-list, and you also as a matter of fact, telling me not to do that. I was told that my participation was appreciated and valued. And now you are telling me that I should quit after all. Which is it to be? Rest assured, I am going to do my best to dissuade people from believing the Abhidhamma just as strong as you are going to promote it. I cannot be controlled. Make up your mind what you want and get back to me, since I see that you are now some kind of quasi- moderator here. Metta, James >> Well James, after my last email you and I both might be booted off, but maybe we both could also be less enthusiastic in the expression of our opinions. Best to you, Jeff 21214 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process For Larry and Howard; In a message dated 4/12/03 4:36:05 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Hi, Larry - Thank you for the following. Unfortunately, I find myself at a loss to give you any sort of coherent response. This level of Abhidhamma-speak goes way beyond me. I find my eyes and mind glaze over as I read it. This is not your fault - it is mine! But it is what it is. I'm really sorry I can't engage you on the content of this post. I do hope that someone else will respond to you on this. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/12/03 4:10:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your > idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, > not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below > but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in > the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series > (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague > attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door > with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or > vague attitude in the body door process. > > I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and > to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main > point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door > process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by > accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. > > Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door > processes: > > Way 63 &64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and > in looking away from the front": > > Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even > in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight > on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance > by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision > by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the > fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, > like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up > gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking > straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and > ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," > or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished > after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for > recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. > > [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh > impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a > definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a > woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of > sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, > by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical > reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to > adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed > arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion > that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not > liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an > extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door > cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and > ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But > impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, > hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all > beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the > root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has > been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual > state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the > newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors > of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion > > L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and > therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most > profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door > process being more real than mind door process. > > One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door > process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the > conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be > a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or > recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow > the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that > could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. > > Larry >> Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of Pali geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. Jeff 21215 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 8:42:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a > compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear > consciousness all arise together. > > ========================== Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one of them a complex. 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) 21216 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 8:47:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Take heart Howard. Eventhough you didn't understand the lingo you got it > right. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well that's pleasant! ;-) ------------------------------------------ > > Larry > ===================== 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) 21217 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Jeff - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:45:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, macdocaz1@a... writes: > > Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of > Pali > geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. > > Jeff > ========================== You certainly have a right to your perspective on this, Jeff. While I have definite reservations about aspects of the Abhidhamma (and its origins), I also do find much of value in it. I do thank you for what I see as a show of support for me, Jeff, but it is only fair to also let you know that I don't share your evaluation of folks on the list. There is a considerable variety of views and approaches taken by folks here. Moreover, some of those people on this list with whom I have the greatest differences in how to interpret the Dhamma are also people for whom I have the greatest respect, respect for their intelligence, for their tolerance of positions different from their own (truly!), and most of all for their lovingkindness and compasssion. I find that there are many positions expressed on DSG that I take very strong exception to, but others that I agree with. In any case, I must say that there is, all told, no more and no better discussion of many and varied aspects of the Dhamma to be found anywhere on the internet than on DSG. (Of course, a close competitor in this is the list that I am one moderator of! ;-) 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) 21218 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To Ajahn Paul, James, KKT In a message dated 4/12/03 7:28:33 PM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << Hello Jeff, First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of slang! ^_~ In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our soul out of the body?) As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, dont take any risk! ^^ >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% <> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the word in english. after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% KKT: So << what >> is out of the body in such out-of-body (OOB) experience if there is no soul ? I have friends who have OOB experiences. KKT: I read somewhere that Arahat has only << prophetic >> dreams. KKT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thank-you Ajahn Paul, kind sir for your concern, but I have been traveling out-of-the-body for 30 years. And, yes I have been in as much trouble as anyone could possibly get into, and I have found no matter how scary and powerful a being I encounter, they can't harm me, only scare me more than you can imagine. It's also too late to stop it. All my dreams are lucid now, I just pop up in alternate time/space domains as soon as the body goes to sleep. Yes, wako is slang, sorry. It means insane. When I first started having out-of-body experiences I had no idea what was going on, nor did I even know it was possible. So, I thought I had gone insane. Good point James and Paul, As for whether it is the 'mind' or the 'soul' out-of-the-body, that is an interesting debate for us to contemplate, because, it is my understanding, and as James says, Buddhism does not acknowledge a soul. So, if there is no soul, what travels out-of-the-body? In my case I really don't care what name we call it, my experience is lucid, meaning the experience is either as real as the waking state or hyper real, meaning more real than the waking state. I believe lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences are all in the domain of the jhanas, and therefore par for the course for any contemplative with an intense practice. Anyone interested in dialog on jhanas, and not feeling comfortable with that dialog in this venue, is welcome to log into a Yahoo group I manage called Jhanas@yahoogroups.com. To subscribe just email first to Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or log into the Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas Blessings to all of you, layman Jeff 21219 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... For James: In a message dated 4/12/03 7:11:45 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is > essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that > cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead > religion. > > layman, Jeff Hi Jeff, This is untrue. The Buddha taught everything necessary. His teaching is timeless, and never 'dead'. It is not possible to improve on his teaching and anyone who would attempt to do so doesn't know the first thing about his teaching. Obviously, the Abhidhamma wasn't composed by enlightened beings...which is illustrated in its wishy washy explanation of Nibbana. Metta, James >> Well James, this is an orthodox view, not unlike the views of a born again Christian, who would be saying that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the Bible is the only word of God. I fortunately do not subscribe to either belief. These points of view seem pretty limiting to me. After all, in Buddhism, if enlightenment is in deed a possibility, and Buddhism is a functional means to enlightenment, then people would have been getting enlightened all long. Therefore their writings would be just as valid as the historic Buddha's. Don't you think? May you be free from suffering, Jeff 21220 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > word in english. > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? > Hi Ajahn Paul, Oh sorry, I didn't know you had limited English. I believe what you are referring to is called the 'karma stream' or 'continuum'...I am not sure if it can leave the body since it formed the body and is dependent on the body. However, there is a supernormal ability sometimes referred to as multiplicity where a person can 'clone' himself one or more times. The Lord Buddha could do this at will and would sometimes be at two places at once to give lessons. That could actually be what happens during an out-of-body experience, but maybe it doesn't happen full force (like all psychic ability can be at different strengths). It could also be remote viewing which is a psychic ability where the person can actually 'see' what is happening in different locations in real time. Metta, James 21221 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:46pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > For James: > Well James, this is an orthodox view, not unlike the views of a born again > Christian, who would be saying that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, > and the Bible is the only word of God. I fortunately do not subscribe to > either belief. These points of view seem pretty limiting to me. After all, > in Buddhism, if enlightenment is in deed a possibility, and Buddhism is a > functional means to enlightenment, then people would have been getting > enlightened all long. Therefore their writings would be just as valid as the > historic Buddha's. Don't you think? > > May you be free from suffering, Jeff Hi Jeff, LOL! Well, I must say, this is the first time anyone has compared me to a born again Christian! You are too funny! ;-) Actually, your posts are so sarcastic and articulate, you live in Arizona, you value meditation, you abhor the use of Pali, and your name starts with the letter `J', I am not so sure you aren't me! ;-). Enlightened masters didn't significantly change what the Buddha taught (The Abhidhamma is a major change!). There is just one truth. I am not referring to the cultural trappings of Buddhism, but the core beliefs. But you are probably just as stubborn as I am also and just won't let this go! ;-) So forget it. Metta, James 21222 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:56am Subject: Are there any teachings about anti-war? Hi James, You know the war now between America and Iraq. I absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I mean a real scream. Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about anti-war? If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, if yes, most likely into what? Metta, Hilary 21223 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Thank-you Ajahn Paul, kind sir for your concern, but I have been traveling out-of-the-body for 30 years. And, yes I have been in as much trouble as anyone could possibly get into, and I have found no matter how scary and powerful a being I encounter, they can't harm me, only scare me more than you can imagine. It's also too late to stop it. All my dreams are lucid now, I just pop up in alternate time/space domains as soon as the body goes to sleep. Yes, wako is slang, sorry. It means insane. When I first started having out-of-body experiences I had no idea what was going on, nor did I even know it was possible. So, I thought I had gone insane. Good point James and Paul, As for whether it is the 'mind' or the 'soul' out-of-the-body, that is an interesting debate for us to contemplate, because, it is my understanding, and as James says, Buddhism does not acknowledge a soul. So, if there is no soul, what travels out-of-the-body? In my case I really don't care what name we call it, my experience is lucid, meaning the experience is either as real as the waking state or hyper real, meaning more real than the waking state. I believe lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences are all in the domain of the jhanas, and therefore par for the course for any contemplative with an intense practice. Anyone interested in dialog on jhanas, and not feeling comfortable with that dialog in this venue, is welcome to log into a Yahoo group I manage called Jhanas@y... To subscribe just email first to Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or log into the Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas Blessings to all of you, layman Jeff KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? KKT 21224 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Larry and Howard, I've found it very helpful to follow this discussion. Trying to make sense of these details in (my own) vernacular, rather than just committing the translations of the texts to memory is a very good exercise, I think. Thanks for taking the trouble for this wholesome activity (di.t.thujukamma or correction of one's views, kusala accomplished by acquiring right view of realities, from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process > Take heart Howard. Even though you didn't understand the lingo you got it > right. > > Larry 21225 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... Dear Chris, No worries please, Mate--your posts are always well within the bounds of the 'well-spoken', in my opinion. Please keep up the good work. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 8:08 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... > James, > > I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post > asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and > sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the > highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member > and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the > great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to > leave. > > metta, > > Christine 21226 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, A computer is impermanent. I am not saying "A computer, literally, is impermanent." Please note that the question to Jon "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is not asking whether a computer exists or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > I understood you to be saying that a computer, literally, is > impermanent. When one attributes a property to a thing, per force, one > usually considers the thing to exist. I take it, though, that I am not > understanding you correctly on this, and I welcome correction by you. > > With metta, > Howard 21227 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/13/03 11:37:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > A computer is impermanent. > > I am not saying "A computer, literally, is impermanent." > > Please note that the question to Jon "Is a computer permanent or > impermanent?" is not asking whether a computer exists or not. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That's correct. That question does not ask whether a computer exists or not - it *presumes* that it exists. It is the same as when one asks a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. That query *presumes* that the man has a wife and that he has beaten her. (And a statement/question which carries a false presupposition is not a legitimate statement/question. In the case of a statement with false presupposition, it is neither true nor false.) Getting back to your question: In ordinary parlance, of course a computer is impermanent! And it should not be clung to, not only for that reason, but also because, ultimately, it is only conventionally existent. In discussing Dhamma issues, one often goes beyond ordinary parlance to speak of ultimates. The Buddha did this in the Sutta Pitaka, especially in the suttas of the Samyutta Nikaya. All those actually observed dhammas from which the mind constructs 'the computer' fail to remain, and, as time goes by, similar dhammas, but not quite the same as the original, arise and then fail to remain, and this appears to us as "the computer changing" (aging, ceasing to work as well, fading in color, etc, etc). ----------------------------------------------- > > 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) 21228 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: KKT and James In a message dated 4/12/03 8:44:17 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: So << what >> is out of the body > in such out-of-body (OOB) experience > if there is no soul ? > > I have friends who have OOB experiences. > > > KKT Hi KKT, Well, I am not sure, but it is probably either fantasy, remote viewing, or a low-level form of multiplicity. Metta, James >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Well, James, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your opinion may reflect denial. I will acknowledge your skeptical intentions, because I will agree that exploring a topic that is of a purely subjective nature requires we, the listeners, to have to accept the report of the participant observers who, because of the subjective nature of out-of-body experiences and other jhanic activity, cannot provide physical evidence for their experience. But, in place of physical evidence, we could most certainly provide a record of reports from participant observers, and we can also examine the reputation of those observers, when considering the weight of their record. If there is a long record of reports of out-of-body experiences, as well as the many other subjective experiences of the jhanas, we could assume there may be some validity to the phenomena. We could also develop models within which we can critic the validity of someone's record. I have found that those how experience out-of-body excursions, as well as other manifestations of jhana, often feel dismissed, and thus rarely report their experiences. Therefore I have found an environment of skepticism does not encourage these subjects to report their findings. I believe this skeptical environment only exacerbates the problem of developing a record, which by its very weight, could force public acceptance. There maybe many more subjects who have these experiences than we can ever know, but because they are most often dismissed, even on a listserv dedicated to enlightenment, they are likely to keep their experiences to themselves. As you recall in my own report, early on I was afraid to come forward, because I thought I was crazy. In deed when one first has one of these experiences it can be so disruptive to one's concept of reality, that it is easy to question one's own mental stability. So, why would anyone even come forward to admit they have had these experiences, if these subjects can expect immediate dismissal? I have had these experiences for 30 years. Can you understand why I have kept them to myself until now? This very environment of skepticism is why I have mounted a group dedicated to the jhanas, because I do not believe people who experience the various manifestations of jhana are ever accepted for their report alone. But, perhaps through community, a sangha of fellow travelers, if you will, might be able to draw out many more reports worthy of examination. Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their reports. I hope KKT's friend joins the jhana group and contributes a record of his or her experience and remains to become a member of a sangha that supports others who have had these experiences, which will encourage more to come forward. Arguably those who experience out-of-body travel, and other jhanic activity, may appear somewhat neurotic, but I believe you would also, if you had your sense of reality called into question at regular intervals. I hope a sangha of jhana yogis develops, because I believe they deserve and require peer level support. Best to you, Jeff 21229 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:27am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, The question to Jon is "Is computer permanent or impermanent?". Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer is permanent or impermanent in ordinary parlance. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > Howard: > That's correct. That question does not ask whether a computer exists > or not - it *presumes* that it exists. It is the same as when one asks a man > whether he has stopped beating his wife. That query *presumes* that the man > has a wife and that he has beaten her. (And a statement/question which > carries a false presupposition is not a legitimate statement/question. In the > case of a statement with false presupposition, it is neither true nor false.) > > Getting back to your question: In ordinary parlance, of course a > computer is impermanent! And it should not be clung to, not only for that > reason, but also because, ultimately, it is only conventionally existent. In > discussing Dhamma issues, one often goes beyond ordinary parlance to speak of > ultimates. The Buddha did this in the Sutta Pitaka, especially in the suttas > of the Samyutta Nikaya. All those actually observed dhammas from which the > mind constructs 'the computer' fail to remain, and, as time goes by, similar > dhammas, but not quite the same as the original, arise and then fail to > remain, and this appears to us as "the computer changing" (aging, ceasing to > work as well, fading in color, etc, etc). [snip] > With metta, > Howard 21230 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/13/03 12:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The question to Jon is "Is computer permanent or impermanent?". > > Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer is > permanent or impermanent in ordinary parlance. > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================ Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) 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) 21231 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To: KKT and James > Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by > criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their > reports. I hope KKT's friend joins the jhana group and contributes a record > of his or her experience and remains to become a member of a sangha that > supports others who have had these experiences, which will encourage more to > come forward. > > Arguably those who experience out-of-body travel, and other jhanic activity, > may appear somewhat neurotic, but I believe you would also, if you had your > sense of reality called into question at regular intervals. I hope a sangha > of jhana yogis develops, because I believe they deserve and require peer > level support. > > Best to you, Jeff Hi Jeff, I never questioned your experiences or anyone else's in regards to out-of-body experiences. They seem to happen to a lot of different people, across cultures, so there must be something to them. All I simply said is that there is no soul that leaves the body...there is another explanation for it. When one practices vipassana, the knowledge that there is no soul because apparent. Ultimately, beneath the arising and falling energy known as the five aggregates, there is boundless awareness. We should be thankful that there isn't a 'soul'; it would be rather limiting. As far as your encouragement for the practice of jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers, the Buddha spoke much against that. I hope that is not what your group encourages because it is a fruitless endeavor. Metta, James 21232 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:19am Subject: Re: Temples --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for that really interesting information about > the temple. Now that you told me so much I just can't > stop questions coming out. > > Do the dharmas talk in Pali?Are there special Buddhist > foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for > lunch? On special events are there there any unique > decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Or is > there a head of the community to lead the ceromony > during special event? > > Thanks again for the amazing answers. > > Metta > HIlary Hi Star Kid Hilary! How are you doing? I hope you are fine. I haven't answered this letter for a long time because I know that you Star Kids are quarantined due to SARS. But I was recently informed that some of you still read the message board and are waiting for a response. Sorry about that! Here are some answers to your questions: Question: Do the dharmas talk in Pali? Answer: No, the dharma talks are usually in Thai, the predominate language of the temple, and sometimes they are in English also if they have a monk fluent in English. The chanting that the monks do are in Pali because that was the language of the Buddha, but no one speaks Pali anymore and so no one knows what it means! ;-) (except the monks who learn to read Pali at Buddhist universities). But there are books and materials available for everyone that translates the Pali chants into English and Thai. Question: Are there special Buddhist foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for lunch? Answer: No, there aren't special types of foods that are Buddhist, but the food brought to the temple is special because it is intended for the monks. Intention plays a large role in Buddhism. If your mom makes a big casserole for the monks, and then sets some aside for the family to eat later, that is okay. But if your mom makes a big casserole for the family, and after everyone eats she decides to give the leftovers to the monks, that is not okay. The intention of the food at the temple is that it should be for the monks specifically and not just food that happened to be around. Additionally, the monks can eat meat that was bought specifically for them, but not if the animal was killed specifically for them. That has to do with intention also, which has to do with karma. Question: On special events are there there any unique decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Answer: Well, all of the decorations that are used in Buddhist celebrations are usually particular to the culture. I can't think of anything similar to a `Christmas Tree' in Buddhism...but at my temple they have `Money Trees'! Yep, people who want to donate money to the monks often like to put the money on little trees, kinda like a Christmas tree, and they sometimes fold the money into shapes like Christmas ornaments! This is also supposed to be like a `wish-tree' and the person makes a wish for each bill they put on the tree. But the Buddha didn't teach this, and it probably wouldn't work if the person was being selfish in wishing, but it is kinda fun! ;-). Question: Or is there a head of the community to lead the ceremony during special event? Answer: Usually the Abbot of the temple or the Vice Abbot will lead the Buddhist ceremony. Also, any special guests or important people from other temples will lead the ceremonies. I hope these answer your questions and that you are still reading and practicing your studies even though you aren't in school. Let's both wish real hard that SARS goes away soon and never comes back again! Metta, James 21233 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: the Buddha's Omniscience, 2 Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo, In the Commentary to the Brahmjala Sutta, Tr. by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, (The All-embracing Net of Views, p. 128) we find under a discussion about it that the plural is used for the objects of omniscience, sabba~n~nuta~naa.na. I only quote parts, it is rather long. It is said: There is a discussion in the Subco. : This text refers to the Tika of the Visuddhimagga, VII, 29, footnote 7, where there is the same discussion. The Visuddhimagga, in the "Recollection of the Buddha" explains all the words we use when paying respect to the Buddha. As to "Endowed with clear vision and virtuous conduct, vijja carana sampanno", we read VII, 32: The text of the Path of Discrimination (Patisambhidamagga) about omniscience has been referred to in the previously quoted texts. I shall only quote a part of it. We read in Ch 72 (p. 131): After that the objects are the extent of the meaning of the three characteristics of dhammas, knowledge of the extent of the meaning of direct knowledge, etc. , of the khandhas, dhatus, bases (ayatanas) etc. Further on we read: With respect, Nina. 21234 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries, 1. Dear friends, this is the first part of my correspondance with Jou Smith, a great Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them. Jou wrote, then Nina came in and answered, then Jou answered again. Here are his reactions to what I wrote. Part 2 will contain my following answers, but I had to shorten the text for Pali yahoo. ---------- Van: Jou Smith Beantwoord: Pali@yahoogroups.com Datum: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:59:48 +1000 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries Jou: Hi Nina (N) teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. > Yes, we have to keep on comparing the Vinaya, the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma, these three. Jou: Well we don't agree completely. I don't accept the Abhidhamma as the word of the Buddha, but rather as a later text, which may have some words of the Buddha, or may not. Why do you include the Abhidhamma along with the Dhamma/Vinaya since the prefix Abhi- itself points to some secret teaching which the Buddha said he was not about. N:And then there are the Commentaries, our great Commentator Buddhaghosa. The more I read of him, the Visuddhimagga included, the more I appreciate. While reading one can see how much his writings help. Historical arguments won't help to convince others, but reading it ourselves. Jou: The Buddha would seem to have had a historical approach as well as an experiential approach. He was inclusive of all things that helped. N:I cannot get enough of reading in the Commentaries about the dhaatus, the khandhas, the aayatanas. No contradictions with the Tipitaka, Jou: Well that is a nice position to take. It totally does not address the contradictions within the Tipitaka. the commentaries are very necessary for the understanding of the Tipitaka. Jou: so you say. I have not needed them, but then if we discussed our different understandings you might well judge mine to be wrong because it does not agree with the commentaries. I take the position that the Buddha was the unsurpassable guide to those who wish guidance. As such he would not need the help of the commentaries. I also believe that he taught the Dhamma that was timeless and empirical. So we would not need modern interpreters. Of course we might need translators, but as I see it there is a lot of interpretation in the commentaries and that is what I see is dangerous - relying on the interpretation of others. If the Dhamma is empirical we can test it for ourselves, in our own experience. Also the Pa.tisambhidhaamagga I highly value: like the Visuddhimagga all the stages of vipassana are explained here. The whole book is about the development of pa~n~naa. I am not a scholar, just a beginning student. Jou: The Buddha taught us not to identify with the five aggregates as I, me (mine in some texts) or myself. Identifying yourself as "not a scholar, just a beginning student" is one of those subtle fetters, maana. It is one of the ways Maara fools us into thinking we are being humble, but keeps us in the realm of birth and death thru the process of identification with the five aggregates. N:But I am delighted to read even a few lines of Commentary and next to it subcommentary in Pali, even stumbling along. By reading the Pali I find one can prove to oneself the value of the Commentaries for the understanding of the Suttas. Jou: Do as you think is fit. I personally give preference to the words of the Buddha. After all I am interested in HIS teaching, not that of the commentators and I would not assume that the commentators got it right. I notice you do not say "I am delighted to read even a few lines of the Buddha's words". N:Today I was reading part of the Co to the Satipatthana sutta: this is first Ven. Soma's translation: <"In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world [loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling. As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world."> N:It crumbles away: lujjanapalujjana.t.thena, in the sense of crumbling away. I remember Samyutta Nikaaya, Salaayatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, §82: The world. It crumbles away. What crumbles away: the eye... objects... eye-consciousness... We see, that the Co completely agrees with the Sutta, and contains valuable reminders of the Truth, even a few lines. Jou: I do not deny that there may be things in the commentary that completely agree with the Sutta. I just have proven to myself that, if I am interested in the Buddha's teaching, it is safer to read what is ascribed to him (already a secondary text), which would already have been corrupted over time since it is part of a saasana, which gets corrupted over time (even though the Dhamma does not), rather than rely on a tertiary text which gets it's understanding from the corrupted secondary text and seemingly would accept any corruption as the Buddha's teaching, since it does not point out any corruptions. The Buddha gave a specific method to identify corruptions, but few know of or apply it. N: Very meaningful: when the whole is taken apart by pa~n~naa, dissolved into elements, realities can be seen as they are. As you also know there is a word association between lujjati and loko. We can begin now: whatever appears can be object of awareness. That is satipatthana. And my question is always: how do the Tipitaka and the commentaries help me to understand the dhamma appearing at this moment? Thus, as you stressed before, in the last instance we have to decide for ourselves what is true. As you so rightly say: Buddha as the Teacher and avoids reliance on others (Take yourself as > a refuge, take the Process -Dhamma- as a refuge).> Nina. op 20-11-2002 22:30 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > The Buddha taught us to lay teachings that are claimed to be his > beside the teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus on the suttas.> 21235 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 16 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 16 Truthfulness is sincerity in the development of kusala to the degree of a perfection. If there is no truthfulness, no sincerity in one¹s actions, they cannot reach accomplishment. Sacca, truthfulness, is necessary for all kinds of kusala, be it dåna, síla or mental development. One should not neglect the development of any degree of kusala. If one develops the perfections in order to abandon defilements, one should notice also subtle defilements such as deceptive speech even with regard to small matters. If deceptive speech becomes someone¹s habit, it will be easy to speak a lie and he will believe that it is not wrong to do so. If someone abstains from deceptive speech, if he is truthful, and acts in accordance with his promise, truthfulness will become natural to him. Then he is able to see the danger of akusala at the moment he tells a lie. Even deceptive speech concerning unimportant matters is akusala, but if someone accumulates deceptive speech all the time, he does not see its danger. Thus, we see that it is not easy to discern the characteristic of akusala. We can have understanding of realities stemming from listening to the Dhamma but this does not mean that we know their characteristics when they are appearing. We should further develop understanding in conformity with what we learnt by listening and we should be aware of realities. We may be deceptive in speech, be it even a little, or we may not act in accordance with our promise, but when sati-sampajañña arises it can realize that this is akusala. Many akusala cittas arise in a day, but we do not know this because of our forgetfulness; there is no awareness of the characteristics of realities, no understanding of them as they are. Understanding has to be very detailed and refined so that the characteristics of realities can be known as they are. The development of satipaììhåna will lead to a more subtle discrimination between different realities and thus, paññå is able to know the characteristic of akusala. When akusala arises paññå can know what type of akusala arises, and it can know its characteristic as different from kusala. In this way kusala dhamma can gradually be further developed. Truthfulness is a perfection that accompanies the perfection of paññå. Without paññå, there cannot be truthfulness, because defilements are still strong. We should make an effort to know what sacca, truthfulness, is: sincerity in the development of kusala, no deviation from kusala. If we happen to deviate from kusala we should know that it has not yet reached accomplishment. When sati sampajañña arises it can realize when we go wrong and this is a condition for restraint in the future. 21236 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 0:25pm Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries, 1. Hello Nina, I was interested in your remark about Jou Smith - "Jou Smith, a great Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them". I wonder if you can give more details about this 'great Pali scholar' and his 'extensive studies' and point us to some of his writings? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: 21237 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 2:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi UJeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic > Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was > dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. ===== There are stories of the Buddha "doing magic" such as simultaenously eminating both fire and water. The Buddha used this "twin wonder" (yamaka patihariya) to subdue the pride of his elder realitives when the Buddha returned to Kapilavatthu shortly after His enlightenment. The Buddha used the same "trick" during the sixth rainy season retreat at Mankula Hill to convert His alien followers. I recall hearing an Abhidhamma discussion of the mental states used to create this effect (I can't remember the details). The well known story of Anguilimala, the recruitement of Khema and the conversion of the Kassapa brothers are other times when the Buddha resorted to psychic powers. It was rare, but not unheard of, that the Buddha used psychic powers. I don't think that the Buddha said that he would never use them, I think that we warned monks not to rely on them. ===== > > But first, yes, Lao Tze and the historic Buddha seemed to have been > contemporaries, plus minus 50 years. There maybe a record of "a golden > skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy" with Lao Tze, but it is > most probably apocryphal. Additionally in China there are stories that when > Lao Tze left China, he went to India and was recognized as the Buddha. I > think you will agree with me that story is most probably apocryphal as well. ===== Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition of "idle talk". ===== > > I believe what is behind the magic stories that every culture invents about > their prophet are most likely inventions to embellish upon the story to gain > devotees. Until I see someone part the seas, walk on water, fly bodily > through the air, BI-locate, or raise the dead, I'll assume these feats are > all fiction. All I needed was freedom from suffering, and a method to get > there. The magic in my life is, through rigorous practice, I have arrived at > being more happy and fulfilled ever moment of everyday. What other magic > would anyone ever want? ===== I couldn't agree with you more that correct practice is most important to obtaining results (See Bhumija Sutta Mn126). Metta, Rob M :-) 21238 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? To Hilary and James: In a message dated 4/13/03 5:57:47 AM, starkidsclub@y... writes: << Hi James, You know the war now between America and Iraq. I absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I mean a real scream. Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about anti-war? If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, if yes, most likely into what? Metta, Hilary >> Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. It is no different from the Protestant Rebellion. Look at the present rhetoric of Mahayana verses Hinayana. It is absurd hair splitting silliness as far as I'm concerned. Jeff 21239 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process To Howard: In a message dated 4/12/03 10:17:44 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Hi, Jeff - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:45:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, macdocaz1@a... writes: > > Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of > Pali > geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. > > Jeff > ========================== You certainly have a right to your perspective on this, Jeff. While I have definite reservations about aspects of the Abhidhamma (and its origins), I also do find much of value in it. I do thank you for what I see as a show of support for me, Jeff, but it is only fair to also let you know that I don't share your evaluation of folks on the list. There is a considerable variety of views and approaches taken by folks here. Moreover, some of those people on this list with whom I have the greatest differences in how to interpret the Dhamma are also people for whom I have the greatest respect, respect for their intelligence, for their tolerance of positions different from their own (truly!), and most of all for their lovingkindness and compasssion. I find that there are many positions expressed on DSG that I take very strong exception to, but others that I agree with. In any case, I must say that there is, all told, no more and no better discussion of many and varied aspects of the Dhamma to be found anywhere on the internet than on DSG. (Of course, a close competitor in this is the list that I am one moderator of! ;-) With metta, Howard >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Well said, Howard, but my observation was not meant as derogatory, but most certainly as a criticism that might inspire some self reflection. While I enjoy dialog as much as anyone, I believe there is a long history in all of the religions and philosophies of the world that one can somehow achieve enlightenment and freedom of suffering by thinking oneself there, but it is evident to me that gnosis is a subjective experience where the mind cannot go. Therefore no amount of thinking will make it so. I am supported by my earlier quote of the Potthapada Sutta under a different thread. Best to all of the Pali geeks, Jeff 21240 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: James and KKT: To: KKT In a message dated 4/13/03 6:54:13 AM, phamdluan@a... writes: << KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? KKT >> Jeff: That is a very good question. No, my OOB practices are strictly when the body is prone. And, there is never a dual lucid awareness of other realities. I think for lucidity to occur there can't be an awareness, however slight, of another domain. Most of these experiences take place when this body is resting at night. Early, when I was more actively engaged in the practice, I took every opportunity to fly out, so I took a lot of midmorning and late afternoon "naps," so I could spend as much of my life "off word." My interest in out-of-body travel, when I was in my early 20s, no doubt reflects the unhappy state I was in at the time. Best to you, Jeff %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: In a message dated 4/13/03 10:37:17 AM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, I never questioned your experiences or anyone else's in regards to out-of-body experiences. They seem to happen to a lot of different people, across cultures, so there must be something to them. All I simply said is that there is no soul that leaves the body...there is another explanation for it. When one practices vipassana, the knowledge that there is no soul because apparent. Ultimately, beneath the arising and falling energy known as the five aggregates, there is boundless awareness. We should be thankful that there isn't a 'soul'; it would be rather limiting. As far as your encouragement for the practice of jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers, the Buddha spoke much against that. I hope that is not what your group encourages because it is a fruitless endeavor. Metta, James>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Hi James, I want to say first that I enjoy our dialog here, but I do wish to point out that you happened to mention in a recent message that I maybe sarcas tic at times. At the time I let the comment slide, but then I reflected this morning on how we can often misconstrue someone's intention in a purely textual communication, such as this medium of a listserv. I just wish to point out that I am hardly ever sarcastic, so if I seem to be, please assume I have failed to express myself adequately. Now on to the subject of jhanas. Let's also dispense immediately with your concern that I, or anyone else I am talking about, "practice jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers." I have no interest in power of any kind, nor does my practice involve the cultivation of jhana, or anything else other than enlightenment. What I am trying to expose in this dialog, and apparently not very successfully, is that jhanas are a natural out come of contemplative practice for at least some people. And, to discriminate against these people, who in my opinion are very fortunate people, is highly unskillful and I believe detrimental to the dharma. As for the question of a soul, I find that an interesting and complex question that has apparently plagued Buddhism from the beginning. Because Buddhism denies a soul, and for that matter a godhead, may be the reason why Buddhism didn't otherwise sweep across all cultures 25 centuries ago. It may also be interesting to point out here that Buddhism didn't have much impact in China until Pure Land invented a soul and a godhead in a Buddhist context. Check that for a contradiction. Personally, I consider many of the deeply philosophical questions of whether there is a god or a soul or not, and dualism verse non-dualism, is to me all purely mental masturbation. One is not going to know whether there is a soul or a god, or understand what non-dualism is about until one gets there. And, I am quite sure it is not a domain that the thinking mind can enter. So, I personally don't care if one believes in a god or a soul, or non-dualism verses dualism. Who cares? One will find out when one gets there. Now out-of-body experiences, I think, pose a particular challenge for a denial of a soul. Those who have out-of-body experiences typically report something like a subtle body, often called an etheric or astral body. Your proposed "boundless awareness," in my opinion, really does not adequately describe the experience. I have had the experience of "Boundless Awareness" but it was not in the context of an out-of-body experience. Also, even though Buddhism denies a soul they have lots of commentary on pervious lifetimes, hungry ghosts, and angry gods. The attempts that I have heard and read to correct this apparent contradiction in Buddhism always seem lame and apologetic or too much philosophy. So, where does that leave us? I think I couldn't care less really. I try not to set too many limits on my experience, and to just let "whatever" unfold in its own and magical way. Best to you, Jeff 21241 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Way 75, Repulsiveness Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section of Reflection on Repulsiveness After explaining body-contemplation by way of the fourfold clear comprehension, to explain it by way of the reflection of repulsiveness, the Master said: "And further," and so forth. Everything that should be said in connection with the passage beginning with "On just this body" and so forth, is stated in detail, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, in the Path of Purity, the Visuddhi Magga, and its commentary, The Casket of the Highest Thing, Paramattha Mañjusa; a summary of that account is given here. This reflection by way of mindfulness directed bodywards, called the reflection of repulsiveness is unknown to non-Buddhists in the form of subject of meditation development (kammatthana bhavana vasena). Hence it is a thing which comes into being when a Buddha arises; not at other times. This mindfulness directed bodywards leads to the following: Great moral-emotional upsurge (maha samvega). The great tranquillity or security based on effort (maha yogakkhema) Great mindfulness and clear comprehension (maha sati sampajañña) Attainment of insight-knowledge (ñanadassanapatilabha) Happy living here and now (ditthadhammasukhavihara) Realization of the fruition of wisdom and freedom[28] (vijjavi-muttiphalasacchikiriya). This mindfulness has been explained in the following sections: Breathing-in-and-out; four kinds of deportment; the fourfold clear comprehension; the reflection on repulsiveness; the reflection on the elements or modes of existence; and the nine cemetery contemplation. There are these seven kinds of skill in study to be acquired in regard to this subject of meditation, by: Repetition of the thirty-two parts of the body verbally (vacasa). Repetition of the parts only mentally (manasa). Determining of the hair of the head and so forth according to color (vannato). Determining of the parts according to shape (santhanato). Determination of situation of the parts as above or below the navel, on the upper or lower side of the body, directionally (disato). Determination of the place in the body acquired by a part, that is, determination spatially (okasato). Determination of one part by the position of another to it and by way of dissimilarity of one part to another (paricchedato). There are these ten kinds of skill in reflecting on this subject of meditation: Doing the meditation gradually as one climbing a stairway one step after another in due order taking one part after another serially (anupubbato). Doing it not too quickly (natisighato). Doing it not too slowly (natisanikato). Doing it by warding off mental rambling (vikkhepapatibahanato). Practice by way of going beyond the concept of hair and so forth to the idea of repulsiveness (pannattisamatikkamanato). Practice by gradual elimination of the less clear parts (anupubbamuñcanato). Practice by way of the part which is the source of ecstasy (appanato). Practice by way of the Three Discourses: Adhicitta,[29] Sitibhava,[30] and Bojjhangakosalla.[31] The following is the application of the simile: Like the bag with the two openings is the body made up of the four great primaries, earth, water, fire and air. The thirty-two parts beginning with hair-of-the-head are like the various grains thrown into that bag after mixing them. Like a man with seeing eyes is the yogi. Comparable to the time when after loosening the bag the various grains become clear to one reflecting, is the time when the thirty-two parts become clear to the yogi. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." The bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in his body or in another's. Sometimes he contemplates the body in his own body, at other times in another's, by way of laying hold on things beginning with the hair of the head. From here the meaning should be known just in the way already stated by the commentator. Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the thirty-two parts, is the Truth of Suffering. Having interpreted, thus, the portal to emancipation should be understood. 28. The three kinds of wisdom: inclination of mind, Nibbana, the four fruits of the homeless life (tisso vijja: cittassa adhimutti nibbanam cattari samaññaphalani] Paramattha Mañjusa Tika. 29. Anguttara i, 256: the ideas of concentration, energy and equanimity should be applied to the mind, according as they are needed, to check idleness, agitation and non-concentration. 30. Anguttara iii, 435: the bhikkhu should have these six states to reach peace: restraint, energy, interest, equanimity, leaning to the good, love of Nibbana. 31. Samyutta v, 112: The bhikkhu should know that when the mind is indolent it is not the time to cultivate the enlightenment-limb of calm. 21242 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: << KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? >> Jeff: That is a very good question. No, my OOB practices are strictly when the body is prone. And, there is never a dual lucid awareness of other realities. I think for lucidity to occur there can't be an awareness, however slight, of another domain. Most of these experiences take place when this body is resting at night. KKT: My friend has OOB experiences while sitting in meditation (and at night) ----------------- Early, when I was more actively engaged in the practice, I took every opportunity to fly out, so I took a lot of midmorning and late afternoon "naps," so I could spend as much of my life "off word." My interest in out-of-body travel, when I was in my early 20s, no doubt reflects the unhappy state I was in at the time. Best to you, Jeff KKT: Another question, Jeff. You can have OOB experience by your own will or it just << happens >> ? Peace, KKT 21243 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) With metta, Howard KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) You have lost Patience (khanti) one of the 10 paramita (perfection) a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) Victor is more than << unintelligible >>, he is << opaque >> :-)) Peace, KKT 21244 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. Peace, KKT 21245 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, KKT (and Victor) - In a message dated 4/13/03 9:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. > The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) > > With metta, > Howard > > > > > > KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) > > You have lost Patience (khanti) > one of the 10 paramita (perfection) > a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I know you are being humorous here, KKT, though, of course, not completely. Actually, I haven't lost patience. That is, I haven't *just* lost patience. I lost it a while ago! ;-)) But I have continued, because I thought that it would be worthwhile to do so. It might in fact still be useful to do so, but my judgement at this point is to the contrary. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Victor is more than <>, > he is <>:-)) > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't say that Victor is unintelligible or opaque, but only that I'm having a hard time understanding him, and, more frustratingly than that, I'm unable to make Victor understand me. I'm not talking about agreement here, only about understanding. And I'm not attributing "blame" in this. It just may be that Victor and I are riding on different tracks that don't intersect. In any case, I admire Victor for his tenacity and very much so for his devotion to the Buddha and his Dhamma. I simply think it best to give our interaction on such topics as anatta and concept & reality a rest, at least for a while. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Peace, > > > KKT > > ========================== 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) 21246 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:12pm Subject: Re: Dreams Hi, Dreamers ~ CHRISTINE: {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} CONNIE: I don't know how much is the drug and how much is the sleep (dream?) deprivation, but meth people hallucinate (dream?) when they've been up long enough and that hallucinating Is their reality then. Sometimes I can't help thinking of Howard's Diamonds and wondering how much all our lives are hallucinations... not just taking concepts for realities, but how much of our perceptions and how we put our concepts into Factual Frames really 'just ain't so'... or maybe that's part of the same thing. I've also wondered where the idea comes from that Arahats or Buddhas don't dream (Nikayas? Commentaries? Who says?)... besides their seeing things as they really are... guess that's why they're called Awakened. ========== PAUL: Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. DAVE REPLY: I agree. I've heard the same explaination for "deja-vous" as well. The eyes see it but somehow before it can get processed, it sees it "again" and tries to make sense of the second "original" sight by attributing it to an unknown past. DAVE: If the future can be "seen" in any way, that would have to dictate complete predestination which therefore means that any idea of effort or will is meaningless. I suppose it is just me, but I just can't see how a system of predestination is any better / different than nihilism. CONNIE: What about Buddha surveying the four quarters and appearing before people he knew were/could be ready to attain... usually to the sotapanna level, I think. When I was about 14, I woke up knowing the girl I'd just dreamed about was going to be my daughter some day (never mind that I had no intention of Ever having any children). Of course, I suppose I could have just mis-remembered the dream-girl 20 years later when the 10 year old girl and I were looking at each other again. I don't know who said this, but it's how I think of deja vu: "Through previous associations or present advantage, that old love springs up again like the lotus in the water." I think because we've all been in samsara so long there's nothing that can't trigger 'that old love'. Just thinking, Connie 21247 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:24pm Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To: James and KKT: Jeff: > Hi James, I want to say first that I enjoy our dialog here, but I do wish to > point out that you happened to mention in a recent message that I maybe sarcas > tic at times. At the time I let the comment slide, but then I reflected this > morning on how we can often misconstrue someone's intention in a purely > textual communication, Hi Jeff, I am glad that you enjoy this exchange. I also enjoy it because it gives me a chance to think deeply about matters I don't often need or get to express. As far as the sarcasm comment, I was referring to some of your posts to others, not to me. Thus far you haven't been sarcastic to me, but you have most definitely been sarcastic to others. I do, on occasion, use sarcasm with people in my posts…and it has gotten me into a great deal of trouble. I predominately use sarcasm to point out hypocrisy in others, and that isn't usually well received by the person it is directed to or the observers. I am sometimes accused of being mean and insensitive (even `murderous'). Then when I attempt to point out the hypocrisy directly, without sarcasm, I am accused again of being mean and insensitive. But this group has found the perfect solution: Have me write predominately to Star Kids! I am never sarcastic with kids because they haven't learned yet how to be hypocrites ;-) (But sometimes I miss being able to talk with the adults ;-). I don't know what solution they are going to come up with for you, but I can't wait to see! ;-). Sounds like you will censor yourself, which is probably best. I can't seem to do that. I wish some of Howard would rub off on me, but it hasn't yet. (And no Howard, that isn't a proposition ;-). If you don't want to think one way or the other about having a soul, and consider such thought `mental mas…….' (I am not going to repeat it because children do read these posts), okay, then don't. However, I believe it is important to be mindful that we don't have a `soul' because it keeps us mindful of anatta (non-self). When you start to identify with things about you being `you' (like appearance, race, sex, possessions, personal history, etc.), you can always remind yourself, "Hey, I don't have a soul. Those things aren't me! These things I think are me don't last at all! The lights are on but there is no one home! ;-)" It also allows you to take yourself less seriously and to approach life with an easy, relaxed attitude. It also allows you to take risks and to not see every setback as the end of the world or every accomplishment like money that needs to be hoarded. It is very liberating to remind ourselves that we don't have a soul; at least I think so. As far as the popularity or non- popularity of Buddhism because of this teaching, that is the thing I really don't care one iota about. The majority of public opinion doesn't define what is truth and what isn't. Okay, I am off my soapbox now! ;-) Take care. Metta, James 21248 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Dear Dreamers (esp. those who are not averse to Abhidhamma and commentaries;-)): ..... --- connie wrote: > Hi, Dreamers > I've also wondered where the idea comes from that Arahats or Buddhas > don't dream (Nikayas? Commentaries? Who says?)... besides their seeing > things as they really are... guess that's why they're called Awakened. > ========== I’ve had discussions with other psychologists and psychotherapists who increasingly use dream therapy. I personally believe that by attaching importance to dreams and recollecting of them, one is for the most part merely accumulating attachment to self and one’s experience. Like with any other conceptualising, better to ‘let go’ and be aware of the present realities with detachment imho. Now for one source of textual reference which I find interesting-- (I’d also be curious to read any other references): Sammohavinodani (dispeller of Delusion), comy to Vibhanga, PTS, 2051ff: ********** “But one who sees a dream sees it owing to four freasons, namely: 1)owing to a disturbance of the elements (dhaatukkhobha), or 2) owing to what was experienced previously (anubuutapubba), or 3) owing to provision by deities (devatopasa.mhaara), or 4) owing to a portent (pubbanimitta). Herein, 1) one whose elements are disturbed through being joined with some condition which causes a disturbance of the bile, etc sees a dream owing to a disturbance of the elements. And doing so he sees the dream in various forms; it is like falling from a mountain, LIKE GOING THROUGH SPACE, like being chased by wild beasts, deer, elephants, robbers, etc. 2) One who sees it owing to what was experienced previously sees and object previously experienced. 3) To one who sees it owing to provision by deities, deities wishing him well or wishing him ill, provide many kinds of objects for good or for ill. He sees those objects through the power of those deities. 4) One who sees it owing to a portent sees the dream as the portent of some good or ill seeking to arise due to merit or demerit, like the Bodhisatta’s mother the omen of having a son (see MA iv 175), like the bodhisatta the five great dreams (see Aiii240 and comy; VinA 520), like the King of Kosala the sixteen dreams (Ji 334 ff). Herein, any dream he sees owing to a disturbance of the elements and owing to what was experienced previously is not true. Any he sees owing to provision by deities may be either true or false. For angry deities wishing to destroy him by (some) means (upaaya) show it disguised. But any he sees owing to a portent is entirely true only. The stopping of dreams comes about owing to the stopping of contact with these four root causes. BUT ONLY TRAINERS AND ORDINARY MEN SEE THESE FOUR KINDS OF DREAMS OWING TO NON-ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. NON-TRAINERS DO NOT SEE THEM OWING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. Herein, in one doing in a dream (such things as) paying homage at shrines, listening to the Law, preaching the Law, etc, it is profitable; in one doing (such things as) killing of living things, it is unprofitable; when free from either extreme, at the moment of advertence and registration it is indeterminate. It should be understood in this way. At the time of saying: ‘it was as though seen by me, heard by me in a dream,’ it is indeterminate only. But how, then does profitable and unprofitable kamma done in a dream have result or no result? It has result. But owing to WEAKNESS it cannot bring about rebirth linking. But when rebirth linking has been given by other kamma, it may be experienced during the course (of an existence).” ********** I have never read any suggestion in the texts of jhana cittas arising during sleep or dreaming. Metta, Sarah ====== 21249 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > Hi, Everyone. > Guess I'll > just have to come up with an outline with room for stuttering and talk > outloud to myself all week. I'll let you know how it goes. ..... In addition to all the other helpful suggestions, I'l like to just stress metta and consideration for those you are addressing. With metta, there's no opportunity for nervousness and thinking of oneself;-) Look forward to hearing how it goes. Metta, Sarah ======= 21250 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group To Rob M :-) In a message dated 4/13/03 3:00:53 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi UJeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic > Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was > dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. ===== There are stories of the Buddha "doing magic" such as simultaenously eminating both fire and water. The Buddha used this "twin wonder" (yamaka patihariya) to subdue the pride of his elder realitives when the Buddha returned to Kapilavatthu shortly after His enlightenment. The Buddha used the same "trick" during the sixth rainy season retreat at Mankula Hill to convert His alien followers. I recall hearing an Abhidhamma discussion of the mental states used to create this effect (I can't remember the details). The well known story of Anguilimala, the recruitement of Khema and the conversion of the Kassapa brothers are other times when the Buddha resorted to psychic powers. It was rare, but not unheard of, that the Buddha used psychic powers. I don't think that the Buddha said that he would never use them, I think that we warned monks not to rely on them. ===== Jeff: Thank-you Rob M :-) for your kind and thoughtful reply. Nice story, I guess you know my position on magic tricks. Just because the bible or the Pali canon report them, doesn't mean to me that they happened. Since none of us are likely to have witnessed these magic tricks, it is doubtful that they are possible. And as I have already said, I didn't need them to begin or sustain the practice. Jhana and freedom from suffering are enough magic for me. ===== Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition of "idle talk". ===== Jeff: Actually I'm a student of anthropology, and my field of interest is how cultures explore gnosis. My premise is that all cultures and peoples have a concept of gnosis going deep into prehistory, whether we have evidence for it or not, and they have been exchanging those ideas all along. To prove that I am having to prove the length and breadth of diffusionism, or how cultures exchange resources, materials, labor, language, ideas and genes. My premise is that Asia and Europe have been engaged in various forms of exchange on a regular basis for, at the very least, the last 5,000 years. There are some key archeological sites that prove this hypothesis quite well. My interest is in tracing not only the evidence of trade and exchange, but the actual movement of concepts of gnosis between Asia and Europe. I am extracting these details from the cultures with the oldest extant writing systems, which are basically Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek, Persian, Roman and Hebrew cultures and languages. The model is based on the spread of Buddhism, and Buddhist and Hindu concepts, art and architecture throughout Asia and Europe. This influence is actually pretty easy to trace back to the first century. As you can imagine the farther back in time one goes, the more difficult the evidence can be to nail down. I have excellent sources taking me back to the 6th to the 3rd century. I am now having to study the history of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to understand the details of the expansion of early Buddhism into the West, as well as the manifestation of the various Gnostic sects in and around the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin. Since, as I said, we know Buddhism was in the neighborhood (Baghdad) from the 3rd century BCE to the 7th century AD and the Gnostic sects started arriving on the scene almost at the same time, it is reasonable to speculate that Buddhism had an influence on the emergence of gnosis in the Mediterranean basin at this time. It has also been fairly successfully argued that Jesus was at least influenced by at least one of those Gnostic communities (Essenes), therefore Christianity, through Jesus and the Essenes, was influenced in part by Buddhism. There are actually many source of excellent evidence of Buddhism's influence on the European cultures and Christianity from the vary earliest times. Someday you may read about it if I get around to publishing the work. You can imagine the research has been a great deal of effort which has consumed much of my free time in the last 3 years. I am presently hopin to find some funding to support me through the summer, so I can continue my research. So, it isn't idle talk. I'm really not into idle talk, but then here I am on a listserv engaged in idle talk, when I could be either continuing my research, meditating or studying for a midterm in Archeology this Tuesday. Thanks for the distraction. Best to you all, Jeff 21251 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:30pm Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) The lay follower Visakha asked the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. What is called personality by the Blessed One? __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. Can someone give the original Pali of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? Thanks. KKT: I find this word of this sutta: Sakkaya Sakkaya = Personality, person. Sakkaya-ditthi = 'Personality-belief' the first of the ten fetters. KKT 21252 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Hi Sarah, Just following KKT’s example and talking to myself;-) --- Sarah wrote: > > I also found it very interesting to read in the same extract: > > Quote:“The recluse thought: ‘If I say that I did not indulge in sin, the > king would believe me, but in this world there is no surer foundation > than > truthful speech. Someone who forsakes the truth cannot attain > Buddhahood, > even if he sits in the sacred enclosure of the Bodhi Tree. Hence I > should > only speak the truth. In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, > take > what is not given to him, commit adultery, drink strong liquor, but he > may > not tell a lie, speech that violates the truth.’” > > There has been discussion before about whether it is possible for a > Bodhisatta to break the precepts. This seems to answer the question, > (though I thought in another post I quoted something contrary to this > ??). ..... You may have been thinking of this post: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14524.html ***** "5.- right mother is Maha Maya “Then he made the observation concerning the mother. "The mother of a Buddha," thought he, "is never a wanton, nor a drunkard, but is one who has fulfilled the perfections through a hundred thousand cycles, and has kept the five precepts unbroken from the day of her birth. Now this queen Mahâ-Mâyâ is such a one; and she shall be my mother." “-- p. 42 " ***** This also applied to the Bodhisatta in his last life (i.e unbroken precepts, though I forget where that reference is), but I wonder about other references to other lives as a Bodhisatta in the Jatakas or elsewhere and whether there are any other general ‘rules’. Perhaps Robert K, Nina or someone else may have seen other references. metta (not to myself of course;-)), Sarah ====== 21253 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > ===== > > Jeff: > Thank-you Rob M :-) for your kind and thoughtful reply. Nice story, I guess > you know my position on magic tricks. Just because the bible or the Pali > canon report them, doesn't mean to me that they happened. Since none of us > are likely to have witnessed these magic tricks, it is doubtful that they are > possible. And as I have already said, I didn't need them to begin or sustain > the practice. Jhana and freedom from suffering are enough magic for me. ===== Agreed! ===== > > Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis > > seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that > > prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible > > accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition > > of "idle talk". > > > ===== > > Jeff: > Actually I'm a student of anthropology, and my field of interest is how > cultures explore gnosis. My premise is that all cultures and peoples have a > concept of gnosis going deep into prehistory, whether we have evidence for it > or not, and they have been exchanging those ideas all along. To prove that I > am having to prove the length and breadth of diffusionism, or how cultures > exchange resources, materials, labor, language, ideas and genes. My premise > is that Asia and Europe have been engaged in various forms of exchange on a > regular basis for, at the very least, the last 5,000 years. There are some > key archeological sites that prove this hypothesis quite well. > > My interest is in tracing not only the evidence of trade and exchange, but > the actual movement of concepts of gnosis between Asia and Europe. I am > extracting these details from the cultures with the oldest extant writing > systems, which are basically Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek, Persian, Roman and > Hebrew cultures and languages. The model is based on the spread of Buddhism, > and Buddhist and Hindu concepts, art and architecture throughout Asia and > Europe. > > This influence is actually pretty easy to trace back to the first century. > As you can imagine the farther back in time one goes, the more difficult the > evidence can be to nail down. I have excellent sources taking me back to the > 6th to the 3rd century. I am now having to study the history of Iraq, Iran, > Pakistan and Afghanistan to understand the details of the expansion of early > Buddhism into the West, as well as the manifestation of the various Gnostic > sects in and around the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin. > > Since, as I said, we know Buddhism was in the neighborhood (Baghdad) from the > 3rd century BCE to the 7th century AD and the Gnostic sects started arriving > on the scene almost at the same time, it is reasonable to speculate that > Buddhism had an influence on the emergence of gnosis in the Mediterranean > basin at this time. It has also been fairly successfully argued that Jesus > was at least influenced by at least one of those Gnostic communities > (Essenes), therefore Christianity, through Jesus and the Essenes, was > influenced in part by Buddhism. > > There are actually many source of excellent evidence of Buddhism's influence > on the European cultures and Christianity from the vary earliest times. > Someday you may read about it if I get around to publishing the work. You > can imagine the research has been a great deal of effort which has consumed > much of my free time in the last 3 years. I am presently hopin to find some > funding to support me through the summer, so I can continue my research. ===== Sounds fasinating! I am looking forwad to reading the published work! ===== > > So, it isn't idle talk. I'm really not into idle talk, but then here I am on > a listserv engaged in idle talk, when I could be either continuing my > research, meditating or studying for a midterm in Archeology this Tuesday. ===== According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, of armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category of "idle talk". Good luck on your mid-term. Metta, Rob M :-) 21254 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Rob M (& Mike & James at the end), --- robmoult wrote: R: > I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in > three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." ..... S: I’m probably just displaying my ignorance and it may be a matter of terminology, but I’m not sure where ‘citta as instrument’ comes from in the commentaries. Perhaps it just means ‘citta is a condition’ do you think? I know this has been quoted before (though I had forgotten) and B.Bodhi clarifies: “As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintentii ti citta”m). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamatta”m citta”m).” He also writes “the definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition....” Fair enough. What I find clearer and which I can easily find mirrored in the commentaries is the following: “In the case of citta, its characteristic is the knowing of an object (vijaanana). Its function is to be a “forerunner” (pubbangama) of the mental factors in that it presides over them and is always accompanied by them.” ***** Mike, I agree that it’s helpful to appreciate the Guide notes in CMA are BASED on commentary and other explanatory material, otherwise one may take it for a literal translation. Actually, in fairness, B.Bodhi explains this in the preface, pp xxiv and xxv. He writes: “from the mass of explanatory material thus collected, we have tried to compose a detailed guide to the Abhidamattha Sangaha ....” Friends like Christine who study prefaces and introductions carefully have an advantage;-) and are not likely to be misled at all. In the Atthasalini, it discusses citta in detail. In particular, it discusses it in relation to: a) as chief or forerunner and accompanied by mental factors b) as cognizing its object c) as arranged in a series or continuity (cinoti) d) as variagated (citra) Of interest is p185. We know that citta and mano (and vinnana) are synonyms used in different contexts. Here we read: “In the exposition of consciousness, ‘consciousness’ (citta) is so called because of its variegated (citta) nature. ‘Mind’ (mano) is do called because it knows the measure of an objet, ‘Mental action’ (maanasa) is just ‘mind’....... ‘Heart’ is the same as mind (citta)......” ..... S: Much more detail given, but I’m lazy to type more for now;-) ..... R: > I see sati as "mirror-thought", "non-judgmental > observation", "impartial watchfulness", "non-conceptual > awareness", "present-time awareness", "non-egoistic > alertness", "goalless awareness", "awareness of change" > and "participatory observation". (extracted from "Mindfulness in > Plain English" by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana) > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm ..... S: hmm....I’d question many of these definitions ..... R: > Though some these definitions of sati use the word "awareness", > there is the implicit (kusala) feeling of "seeing things as they > truly are". ..... imho, awareness or sati is simply aware. It doesn’t ‘know’ or ‘see things as they are’. That is the function of panna. No feelings involved. ..... R: >This type of "seeing things as they truly are" is not > part of my understanding of citta. Citta is simply aware. ..... I would say, citta simply experiences its object. This is true regardless of whether it is kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya citta. To say it is ‘aware’ and especially to refer to ‘pure awareness’ is misleading, I think, especially considering the connotations that ‘awareness’ carries. Just my opinion. In another post, I think it may have been James who referred to an ‘underlying awareness’. I believe these ideas may be common in Mahayana teachings, but I haven’t seen them in Theravada texts. Look forward to further comments from any of you or anyone else. Metta, Sarah ====== 21255 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:51am Subject: Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. Nina make reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we can note nama and rupa. But she does not say, ( I have still to read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some one please post her e-mail address here, yasalalaka 21256 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > > Stopping at right view would not lead to right concentration. If > stopping at right view would lead to right concentration, then right > concentration is a redundant factor of the path. Indeed, all the other > seven factors of the path except right view would be made redundant. > Right view as the forerunner does not mean that right view is the end. ..... I haven’t seen any suggestion of ‘stopping’. The path factors arise together. None are redundant. ..... > What's the difference? Have you experienced a nama or a rupa > individually ever? You could do so, provided you have the same kind of > intense concentration as the Buddha had. .... No self to do or experience. Cittas experience namas and rupas repeatedly. It’s a question of whether rt awareness, rt understanding, rt concentration etc arise with the citta at this moment or not. ..... > This is certainly some strange doctrine. Do you mean that the object > of awareness in the jhana realm of nothingness is not a concept? Do > you mean that nothingness is not a concept? ..... The objects of samatha and jhana are usually concepts, but from the suttas you quoted (eg 1170), I understood we were discussing the development of satipatthana in particular. There may be some confusion here. ..... > > I think I have really stumbled onto some Abhidhammic cult that I only > realized until now. My understanding of the Abhidhamma is totally > different from yours. ..... That’s OK, Swee Boon. As Howard said, we can all appreciate and listen to other understandings and perhaps respect others’ intentions and goodwill even if we don’t agree. I certainly have a lot of respect for your very careful and sincere reflections. I take it that your other questions are rhetorical and so I’ve left them. You’re welcome to raise them again anytime. ..... > I shall not bother anymore. Precious time is wasted in writing to you. > Let this be the last one. ..... I’m sorry you see it this way and I’m sorry for having been a condition for distress. I’m only one member and I hope you’ll find others you can write to without feeling you’re wasting time. For my part, I’m always glad to read anything you write here. Metta, Sarah ===== 21257 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hello KKT, If it is the first question, it is: 1. Sakkàyo sakkàyoti ayye vuccati. Katamo nu kho ayye sakkàyo vutto bhagavatàti? http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/ A couple of other translations to compare: Noble lady, it is said the self, for what did the Blessed One say self.? http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/044-culavedalla-sutta-e1.htm "'Self-identification. Self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn044.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" > wrote: > > > > BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) > > The lay follower Visakha asked > the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: > > __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. > What is called personality by the Blessed One? > > __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected > by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. > > > Can someone give the original Pali > of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? > Thanks. > > > > > KKT: I find this word > of this sutta: Sakkaya > > Sakkaya = Personality, person. > > Sakkaya-ditthi = 'Personality-belief' > the first of the ten fetters. > > > KKT 21258 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] five things to be remembered Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah and all, > We are very upset, because we heard that my father has plans to ask for > euthanasy. I am thinking so much of Jon's mother and how he tried to put > it > out of her head, with success. We are thinking of what to say, having to > keep our heads cool. He liked a French philosopher, Teilhard du Chardin, > who > said, you have to end well (finir bien). It is not so much his oncoming > death but this way that upsets us. .... I’m sure we all sympathise with you and Lodevick. I think that we can have a lot of compassion for the elderly and sick. In Jon’s mother’s case, there wasn’t any wish for anyone to help deprive her of life but just whilst being connected to so much equipment, having blood transfusions one after the other with little or no effect in the end, she just felt like ‘giving up’. In fact the doctors (including another of her sons) agreed in the end there just wasn’t anything else they could do to stop the internal bleeding as I understand. At that point, all one can do is to help encouage kusala reflection and show metta rather than anxiety or sorrow which don’t help at all. Your father isn’t yet at this stage, so perhaps you can encourage him by showing your understanding and compassion for his present sorry state. Maybe also, although he has no interest in dhamma, you can encourage him to have the strength and courage to keep going as he really doesn’t know the implications of trying to cut short his life or have anyone else assist with this. Maybe you can also express your appreciation for his example of fortitude and the value his life holds for you, his only child. Whenever Jon talked to his mother by phone on a daily basis for the last few weeks or on his visits to see her, he stayed very calm and reassuring however he may have felt in private. I think that when we’re in this state, we’d all like to have a calm, loving and reassuring ‘dear one’ nearby, however our ‘end’ unfolds. It is also a time for detachment and equanimity, I think. We just do our best to help and then have to leave it at that. Sometimes it’s not possible to give any assistance at all. Of course the metta and compassion is never wasted! ...... > I received from our Pali teacher a very good text that I used, helping a > sick person. He reminded us that ageing is each moment. He said also: > you > need it yourself, not only the sick person. ..... Thank you for sharing this. Yes, we all need the helpful reminders and daily. Reading out the Pali reminds me of the monks in Sri Lanka reciting - the sound is still very clear in my mind. ..... > This text reminds me that whatever happens is conditioned. This is a > great > consolation. > ..... I liked the way we were also quoting back the same words to each other;-) so many of our problems come back to the clinging to self and crying over what cannot be helped at all;-) When there is kindness and compassion for your father, no tears and no upset. As K.Sujin said, ‘no limit to metta’. Please let us know how it goes and share any more of your own helpful reflections. Best wishes to you both during this difficult period. Metta, Sarah p.s Perhaps he was just protesting that you went away for a few days??? ================== 21259 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Hi, Yasalalaka - In a message dated 4/14/03 4:04:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. Nina make > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > can note nama and rupa. But she does not say, ( I have still to > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > one please post her e-mail address here, > > yasalalaka > > =========================== Here's my perspective: The Abhidhamma is like a map of a landscape. There is some debate about exactly who drew the map and about its perfect accuracy, but many Theravadins accord it enormous respect. But as we know from ordinary experience, one cannot be fully attending to the road (or to the instruments if one is flying) at exactly the same time one is examining the map. The map needs to be used as a reference. It can be consulted before a trip, and on stop-overs, and it can be looked at after the trip is over to check where one has been. Now, to drop the simile and get down to brass tacks: One cannot attend directly to what arises with full mindfulness and concentration while simultaneously thinking over what Abhidhammic categories one's experiences fit into, and to attempt to do so would be a mistake. But having studied some Abhidhamma, and, more generally, having studied the Dhamma, particularly having familiarized the mind with the concepts of anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and with various skillful means taught by the Buddha, fruitful conditioning of the mind will have resulted, making the mind more fit for the task of vipassana bhavana, just as samatha bhavana makes the mind more fit for that task. 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) 21260 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah > Mike, I agree that it's helpful to appreciate the Guide notes in CMA are > BASED on commentary and other explanatory material, otherwise one may take > it for a literal translation. Actually, in fairness, B.Bodhi explains this > in the preface, pp xxiv and xxv. He writes: > > "from the mass of explanatory material thus collected, we have tried to > compose a detailed guide to the Abhidamattha Sangaha ...." > > Friends like Christine who study prefaces and introductions carefully have > an advantage;-) and are not likely to be misled at all. You're right. I only skimmed the preface and introduction (ironically) because I wanted to avoid the translator's opinions and get straight to the source material. Serves me right! > I would say, citta simply experiences its object. This is true regardless > of whether it is kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya citta. To say it is > 'aware' and especially to refer to 'pure awareness' is misleading, I > think, especially considering the connotations that 'awareness' carries. > Just my opinion. In another post, I think it may have been James who > referred to an 'underlying awareness'. I believe these ideas may be common > in Mahayana teachings, but I haven't seen them in Theravada texts. This is how I see it too. Thanks again, mike 21261 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard and KKT, Howard, it is not that you are unable to make me understand you. It is that you are unable to make me or pursuade me to accept your point of view in some topics. KKT, instead of calling someone unintelligible and opague, it is more important to abandon the self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, KKT (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 4/13/03 9:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > phamdluan@a... writes: > > > Dear Howard, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. > > The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > > > > > > > > > KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) > > > > You have lost Patience (khanti) > > one of the 10 paramita (perfection) > > a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I know you are being humorous here, KKT, though, of course, not > completely. Actually, I haven't lost patience. That is, I haven't *just* lost > patience. I lost it a while ago! ;-)) But I have continued, because I thought > that it would be worthwhile to do so. It might in fact still be useful to do > so, but my judgement at this point is to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Victor is more than <>, > > he is <>:-)) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I wouldn't say that Victor is unintelligible or opaque, but only > that I'm having a hard time understanding him, and, more frustratingly than > that, I'm unable to make Victor understand me. I'm not talking about > agreement here, only about understanding. And I'm not attributing "blame" in > this. It just may be that Victor and I are riding on different tracks that > don't intersect. > In any case, I admire Victor for his tenacity and very much so for his > devotion to the Buddha and his Dhamma. I simply think it best to give our > interaction on such topics as anatta and concept & reality a rest, at least > for a while. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > KKT > > > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 21262 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hi KKT and Jon, No, being not self does not mean not subject to mastery lacking in an abiding soul/essence It is an assumption, a misconception that self is something self- existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging. This assumption is not the Buddha's teaching. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, [snip] > > << KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' > and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? > Do they make sense? >> > > For me, they describe perfectly > the meaning of the word << not-self >> > > Maybe we can take them as > the << official >> definition of not-self. > Remember that they were elaborations > presented by the Buddha Himself. > > NOT-SELF (anatta): > > __not subject to mastery > __lacking in an abiding soul/essence > > > What is interesting is that > from this definition we can deduce > the opposite that is the definition of << self >> > even if the Buddha did not give > a specific definition of this word. > > Therefore: > > SELF (atta): > > __subject to mastery > __possessing an abiding soul/essence > > << subject to mastery >> means > that SELF should be something > self-existing, independent, unconditioned. > > << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> > means that SELF should be > permanent, eternal, unchanging. > [snip] > Metta, > > > KKT 21263 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Jeff, I have some comments and questions about this OOB discussion that I've included below... > > Well, James, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your opinion may > reflect denial. I will acknowledge your skeptical intentions, because I will > agree that exploring a topic that is of a purely subjective nature requires > we, the listeners, to have to accept the report of the participant observers > who, because of the subjective nature of out-of-body experiences and other > jhanic activity, cannot provide physical evidence for their experience. But, > in place of physical evidence, we could most certainly provide a record of > reports from participant observers, and we can also examine the reputation of > those observers, when considering the weight of their record. If there is a > long record of reports of out-of-body experiences, as well as the many other > subjective experiences of the jhanas, we could assume there may be some > validity to the phenomena. DAVE REPLY: subjective accounts wouldn't give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim. I don't think anyone would dispute that people who claim to have had OOB experiences did, in fact, have some type of mental experience, but that does not mean it was really OOB. I am reminded of other "fantastic" events from other religions... like the many people who experience Stigmata. These people are even left with obvious scars. But, would you admit their own explaination (that Christ, the one son of the only God did this)? I'd assume you would not, but, rather, you would look for a more "common sense" approach. So, in the case of Stigmata, the current theory is a sort of self-mind over body. People under hypnosis can be led to believe that parts of them are "burning" and their skin will blister. It is documentable and repeatable in controlled settings. Isn't it "Occam's Razor" that sort of says that we should look for the most simple explaination? I guess I'm trying to say that we should not "assume there may be some validity to the phenomena" > We could also develop models within which we can critic the validity of someone's record. DAVE REPLY: Can you control when/where you go? It would seem like this would be extremely easy to validate. I, or any other skeptic of OOB, could leave something for you to fly to and see. I can put a note on my desk here at work and if you can report back what the note said, then I sure would believe your claims! If you cannot control where you go, then what models do you propose to validate? > > I have found that those how experience out-of-body excursions, as well as > other manifestations of jhana, often feel dismissed, and thus rarely report > their experiences. DAVE REPLY: I believe I read somewhere that the jhana's aren't supposed to have physical manifestations associated with them. I'm sure some of the more well versed member can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought I'd read that things like colors and lights are not part of it and are somehow misleading. Group? > > Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by > criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their > reports. DAVE REPLY: I do hope you do not see my words as any type of criticism. I promise you they are not intended to be such. If they somehow do come across that way, I am truly sorry. Peace, Dave 21264 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Rob M, Jeff, and all Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* Regards, Victor * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Jeff, [snip] > > According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition > of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, of > armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of > beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of > villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of > strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of > diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" > > In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category > of "idle talk". > > Good luck on your mid-term. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21265 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Erratum: "Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well." should read "Talk of whether things exist or not falls under idle talk as well." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Rob M, Jeff, and all > > Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* > > Regards, > Victor > > * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html 21266 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and KKT) - In a message dated 4/14/03 10:03:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and KKT, > > Howard, it is not that you are unable to make me understand you. It > is that you are unable to make me or pursuade me to accept your > point of view in some topics. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, okay then. So it's just me having a hard time understanding you. Well, that's good - 50% better than I thought it was! ;-) As far as my not persuading you of my view on some things, well that's no problem. --------------------------------------------- > > KKT, instead of calling someone unintelligible and opague, it is > more important to abandon the self-identity view: > > "This <>feeling of <>is mine. > This <>feeling of <>is what I am. > This <>feeling of <>is my self." > > > 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) 21267 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick 2. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:39:51 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick 2. Dear Eltopo, some more about this subject. op 13-04-2003 13:39 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: 'he who > attends the sick' today in the twenty first century (or any other > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. N: My husband was quite enthusiastic about this text. He said: "It is all so clear. Think of the mere passing fragrance of metta (Velama sutta, Ang. IV, 394), that is the practice." I remarked that who practises the Dhamma is near the Buddha, attends to the Buddha, because who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha. In the Velama sutta after metta, we read about the thought of impermanence, just for a fingersnap. My husband said that the Christians have a similar text about attending to the sick, that they took it all from Buddhism. But they could not understand about impermanence. He found when seeing such an old man dwindling away, you are reminded about impermanence (maranadhammomhi marana.m anatiito'ti-) He found it very clear that, when attending to my ailing father, we attend to the Buddha. Thank you again, Nina. 21268 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Dear Christine op 13-04-2003 21:25 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I was interested in your remark about Jou Smith - "Jou Smith, a great > Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them". > > I wonder if you can give more details about this 'great Pali scholar' > and his 'extensive studies' and point us to some of his writings? N: He wrote before in Pali yahoo about his research and his publishing, but he referred to a web, so I do not know details. He gave a good tip to Rob K,who may know more. He mentioned Ven Bodhi and I believe BPS Kandy in connection with his publications. He knows his Pali for sure. I did not ask him whether he read the Abhidhamma, because as you know, on Pali yahoo we do not talk so much, just busy with texts. It would be a good thing if people would read at least part of the abh itself before making judgements. The second book, the Book of Analysis is very readable, with commentary: Dispeller of Delusion. The first book, Buddhist Psychological Ethics, may be difficult, but its Co the Expositor is very good, although not always easy. Next to this the Visuddhimagga is of great help and very readable. It can help understanding the Expositor. I can understand that the difference in style, compared to Suttanta, may be a stumbling bloc.However, also in the Suttas there are great differences in style, compare the Kindred Sayings IV, on Sense fields. It takes some effort to get the feel of the Abhidhamma. It helps you to see that citta is conditioned, and that it all pertains to the citta at this moment. We may know: o yes, lobha again, or this is kusala, but if we begin to understand, even intellectually, that cittas have their own conditions, it will help us to think less of my akusala or my kusala. There is so much clinging to kusala and akusala that is quite hidden to us. We need eye openers. As Suan wrote, one should not kill the messenger before even getting the message. I have to run now, Nina. 21269 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 Dear all, by conditions we receive help from unexpected sides, sometimes from people we have not met before. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 06:21:04 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. Dear Eltopo, see below. op 13-04-2003 13:39 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: 'he who > attends the sick' today in the twenty first century (or any other > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. So I would like to > know is it fair to read it in this way, or would this be to take it > out of context? The Thanisarro Bhikkhu version seeems more like > those who wish to attend on me (the historical Buddha), and so that > the opportunity to attend the Buddha only applies to those bhikkus > who lived contemporaneously with him. So my question re translation > is also about how one should read the suttas, and how one views the > Buddha. Of course the Buddha is talking to the Bikkhus when he says > this, but does it have any relevance to us today? N: I am so surprised, I am really touched by this text. How true is this text. I just thought of this, when today helping my very ailing, old father (almost dying, 102) to eat something. At first I felt so clumsy and awkward to feed him with a spoon, not being used to such experience. I was thinking of paying respect to the Buddha while doing this, and then I remembered having seen this text, but did not know the good writer, because I have many mails in a day. I am glad now. Thank you very much, you are helping me. It is really true that you while tending a sick person can pay respect to the Buddha, thinking of him and thus attend to the Buddha. We try to practise what he taught. Also in the Vinaya there is sutta. The Tipitaka contains messages not only for people long ago but for each one of us now. Nina. In the Pali Text Society, it > is translated 'He who attends on the sick attends on me'. (Vinaya > Pitaka i, 301ff) 21270 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: Tipitaka and Coomentaries 2. Dear friends, this is my answer to Jou, but I had to shorten some parts. op 20-11-2002 22:30 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > The Buddha taught us to lay teachings that are claimed to be his > beside the teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus on the suttas. Dear Jou, Although you are busy with your writings you took time off to answer me, which I appreciate. See below. op 07-04-2003 13:59 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > Jou: Well we don't agree completely. I don't accept the Abhidhamma as > the word of the Buddha, but rather as a later text, which may have some > words of the Buddha, or may not. Why do you include the Abhidhamma along > with the Dhamma/Vinaya since the prefix Abhi- itself points to some > secret teaching which the Buddha said he was not about. N: We had many discussions on dhamma study group, dsg@yahoogroups.com about the Abh, the commentaries, their sources, their value. It is too long for this list where we are so busy with sutta texts. If you like to see the archives, under Abhidhamma or U.P. (Useful Posts) you can have some idea of what we discuss. We try to see the discussions as agreeable disagreements when we do not agree. Jou: (N)< the commentaries are very necessary for the understanding of the > Tipitaka.> > > Jou: so you say. I have not needed them, but then if we discussed our > different understandings you might well judge mine to be wrong because > it does not agree with the commentaries. N: Your approach is different, and you have done good scholarly work, studying older and newer forms of language. Linguistics is a hobby of mine. When we see more modern forms of language it does not mean that the contents are not stemming from the oldest tradition. A simple example: you stated that originally there were only two refuges, if I understood you well. This does not mean that we do not pay respect to the Triple Gem many times a day, don't we? Jou: I take the position that the > Buddha was the unsurpassable guide to those who wish guidance. As such > he would not need the help of the commentaries. I also believe that he > taught the Dhamma that was timeless and empirical. So we would not need > modern interpreters. Of course we might need translators, but as I see > it there is a lot of interpretation in the commentaries and that is what > I see is dangerous - relying on the interpretation of others. If the > Dhamma is empirical we can test it for ourselves, in our own experience. N: I agree only with the last sentence. Buddhaghosa used very old commentaries: the Mahaa-Atthakathaa, the Mahaa-paccarii and the Kuru.n.di, stemming from the time of the Thera Mahinda. He said that he did not add his own opinion, except in a few cases, which he expressively mentioned. Jou: (N)< I am not a scholar, just a beginning student.> The Buddha taught us not to identify with the five aggregates as I, > me (mine in some texts) or myself. Identifying yourself as "not a > scholar, just a beginning student" is one of those subtle fetters, > maana. It is one of the ways Maara fools us into thinking we are being > humble, but keeps us in the realm of birth and death thru the process of > identification with the five aggregates. N: You are right, conceit is one of the last defilements to go, at arahatship. We puthujanas are full of it. When we think with dosa:"How can he do that to me", it conditions immediately conceit, arising with lobha-mula-citta. We attach to the importance of self, don't we? And this is what I mean by Abhidhamma put into practice. When I say, I am only a student, many kinds of cittas can motivate this, kusala cittas in alternation with akusala cittas, cittas are so fast, arising because of their own conditions. I like the word student, indicating that I am learning, developing understanding of dhammas. I am not a guru. > Jou: I notice you do not say "I am delighted to read even a few lines > of the Buddha's words". N: Here I can refer to my correspondance with John (around 5, 6 April). Trying to memorize parts of the wonderful Sutta texts he gives us. Jou: The Buddha gave a > specific method to identify corruptions, but few know of or apply it. .....> I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have > done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus > on the suttas. N: you have done a thorough literary study, I am really interested (but I am not a web-goer). However, we do not agree about what a corruption is. If you have time, I would appreciate your joining dsg. In fact, I shall forward our discussions to dsg, people over there will be interested. On this list we also use Pali texts, although not everyone is interested in Pali. I also forward some of John's sutta texts to dsg, elaborating on them. People appreciate them. We try to apply them also in times of distress. Appreciating, Nina. 21271 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:44am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Dear Nina, What is eye openers?And who is messenger in your post? With Respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: >We need eye openers. > As Suan wrote, >one should not kill the messenger before even getting the > message. > I have to run now, > Nina. 21272 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, regarding the following exchange: L: Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear consciousness all arise together. H: Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one of them a complex. L: I disagree. Indivisible is a concept with a referent not found in nature, partly, imo, because the consciousness which finds something is _part_ of that thing. Khandha means compound, sometimes translated as "heap". Nature is always a heap of experience. To compound is to superimpose (heap) one thing on another. When compounding ceases khandhas cease. Sound rupa is a compound because its dependence is part of its nature. Larry ps: maybe I should have said psychology instead of nature; that's what we are discussing. 21273 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/14/03 7:40:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, regarding the following exchange: > > L: Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a > compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear > consciousness all arise together. > > H: Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of > those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one > of them a complex. > > L: I disagree. Indivisible is a concept with a referent not found in > nature, partly, imo, because the consciousness which finds something is > _part_ of that thing. Khandha means compound, sometimes translated as > "heap". Nature is always a heap of experience. To compound is to > superimpose (heap) one thing on another. When compounding ceases > khandhas cease. Sound rupa is a compound because its dependence is part > of its nature. > > Larry > > ps: maybe I should have said psychology instead of nature; that's what > we are discussing. > ========================== Sorry, Larry - I don't buy it. The coming together of sound, ear base, and ear consciousness has a name - it is (ear) contact. The event of their coming together is contact. And even if each of these three never occurs on its own, still they are not the same, and none of them is, itself, the complex consisting of the three. They are interdependent, but no two are identical with each other, and certainly no one is identical with the entire group of three. An analogy: There is no up without a down, and no down without an up, but and down are not the same, and neither one of them is the group of two. A khandha is, indeed, an aggregate. In fact, the khandhas are pa~n~natti!! What they are comprised of are paramattha dhammas. The word 'sankhata' is sometimes (poorly) translated as 'compounded'. In that case, the word 'compounded' means formed/fabricated, and does not mean 'a complex'. With metta, Howard P.S. I simply cannot understand your sentence: <> /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) 21274 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Dear Yasalalaka, Welcome to the list. Thanks for your kind letter. You bring up many points and Howard has answered some of it. It is very good you write to me in this forum, better than in personal mail. In this way others can also join in. Because of family matters I cannot answer all mails, but I keep your points in mind for later. Only, what do you mean by hetu and phala, cause and fruit, in this context? So, I come back to you later. Please, can you send again your complete letter, because just now I lost it in cyber. best wishes, Nina. op 14-04-2003 09:51 schreef yasalalaka op charlesperera@h...: > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. 21275 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the experience of sound. Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, was a kind of indivisible atom. There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of concept and experience. Larry 21276 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Hi Yasalalaka, Welcome to DSG from me as well and thank you for starting with such good questions. I’m glad you’ve found Nina and the rest of us here and look forward to hearing more of your qestions and comments. We’d all be glad if you’d also share anything more about yourself such as where you live. ..... --- yasalalaka wrote: > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. ..... I remember having a similar experience. Gradually it does become more meaningful and practical as you’re finding with the help of Nina’s books. ..... >Nina make > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > can note nama and rupa. ..... Of course ‘noting’ is not the same as being aware, but understanding that nama and rupa to arise repeatedly in daily life and can be known is a good start. Nina has already written you a note to say she will be replying in more detail to your other comments after a little more clarification from you on ‘hetu’ and ‘phala’ in what you write, so I’ll just hope you find it helpful here and look forward to more of your contributions. Metta, Sarah p.s. Nina- I’ve left the rest of the post below as you mentioned you had accidentally erased it. ======= ..... >But she does not say, ( I have still to > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > one please post her e-mail address here, > > yasalalaka 21277 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:41am Subject: Re: Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasalalaka, > > Welcome to DSG from me as well and thank you for starting with such good > questions. I'm glad you've found Nina and the rest of us here and look > forward to hearing more of your qestions and comments. We'd all be glad if > you'd also share anything more about yourself such as where you live. > ..... > --- yasalalaka wrote: > I am a new commer. I > started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. > ..... > I remember having a similar experience. Gradually it does become more > meaningful and practical as you're finding with the help of Nina's books. > ..... > >Nina make > > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > > can note nama and rupa. > ..... > Of course `noting' is not the same as being aware, but understanding that > nama and rupa to arise repeatedly in daily life and can be known is a good > start. Nina has already written you a note to say she will be replying in > more detail to your other comments after a little more clarification from > you on `hetu' and `phala' in what you write, so I'll just hope you find it > helpful here and look forward to more of your contributions. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s. Nina- I've left the rest of the post below as you mentioned you had > accidentally erased it. > ======= > ..... > >But she does not say, ( I have still to > > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > > one please post her e-mail address here, > > > > yasalalaka > > Thankyou, Sara for your kind words of welcome. I am from France, I am from theravada lineage. I have been doing meditation for some time, and since internet is a treasure house of documents on Buddha's teaching, I am in the habit of browsing throug diferent websites and I came to Vipassana.info. As I wanted to know more about Abhidamma I started reading the writings of Nina. I thankyou also for reproducing the letter I had written for Nina's attention, which she has apparently misplaced. Yes I understand noting and being aware. I think it would take time to just be aware without interposing the concept of object, between nama and rupa. However, I tried introducing Nina's instructions to my daily practice of Meditation, and when I came to the walking part of the meditation.. I could not be aware of the the nama rupa, as it involved different movements .. Therefore I thought I ill ask Nina for more details on this aspect of meditation, in relation to nama- rupa. with metta, yasalalaka > 21278 From: azita gill Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear all, > by conditions we receive help from unexpected sides, > sometimes from people > we have not met before. > ---------- > eltopo_@h...: > 'he who > > attends the sick' today in the twenty first > century (or any other > > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. So I > would like to > > know is it fair to read it in this way, or would > this be to take it > > out of context? The Thanisarro Bhikkhu version > seeems more like > > those who wish to attend on me (the historical > Buddha), and so that > > the opportunity to attend the Buddha only applies > to those bhikkus > > who lived contemporaneously with him. So my > question re translation > > is also about how one should read the suttas, and > how one views the > > Buddha. Of course the Buddha is talking to the > Bikkhus when he says > > this, but does it have any relevance to us today? > > N: I am so surprised, I am really touched by this > text. How true is this > text. I just thought of this, when today helping my > very ailing, old father > (almost dying, 102) to eat something. At first I > felt so clumsy and awkward > to feed him with a spoon, not being used to such > experience. I was thinking > of paying respect to the Buddha while doing this, > and then I remembered > having seen this text, but did not know the good > writer, because I have many > mails in a day. I am glad now. Thank you very much, > you are helping me. It > is really true that you while tending a sick person > can pay respect to the > Buddha, thinking of him and thus attend to the > Buddha. We try to practise > what he taught. > Also in the Vinaya there is sutta. The Tipitaka > contains messages not only > for people long ago but for each one of us now. > Nina. > > In the Pali Text Society, > it > > is translated 'He who attends on the sick attends > on me'. (Vinaya > > Pitaka i, 301ff) > > dear Nina, I also find this moving. I had not heard it before. As a nurse working in a hospital, I have daily reminders of illness [cannot add old age here bec. I work with kids] and it really can be a condition for me to reflect on death. My interpretation of 'he who attends....... ..on me' is that bec. I have heard the Dhamma and know that a condition for death is birth, and that death is often preceded by illness, then I am quite fortunate to have the profession of nursing. It feels kind of 'right' to attend to an ill person's needs. These daily reminders cause me to contemplate my own death and that even if we don't know what is going to happen in the next moment, we can certainly know that we will die, maybe even in the next moment. > It may be difficult caring for your father, but at least you have the wonderful opportunity to care for your parent. may you have much patience, courage and lots of good cheer, Azita P.S. I thought of you and Lodwick,today, when I went for a long bush hike and we also swam in a beautiful clear river. > 21279 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:15am Subject: Hetu-Phala Hi all! I'm still a bit of a novice to add much to the actual content of your conversation, but, I am able to do some web searching and I can add what I find there. According to the sites I've found, Hetu-Phala is Cause and Effect. I believe it is Sanskrit. Here's a snippet from one site: "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. Vipàka is Dukkha or the truth of suffering. On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). Hetu (cause) is the second Noble Truth. Phala is the First Noble Truth. According to the Paticca Samuppàda (Dependent origination) a human being is divided into ten aspects; ignorance, formation, craving and so on. Five of them from ignorance to action or becoming are regarded as Kamma or Hetu (cause). The rest are regarded as Vipàka or Phala (effect). In one sense Vipàka means rebirth." (taken from: http://www.metta.lk/english/buddhist-points.htm) Anyway, I hope that helps you all out! Peace, Dave 21280 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:24am Subject: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ Jeff asked: "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and Pa.tiveda. Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and Vipassanaa). Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard instructions of the Buddha. And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure and original. Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of awakening. Jeff asked the following questions, "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" My answer is as follows. Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 21281 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/15/03 12:49:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the > experience of sound. Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. > > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of > concept and experience. > > Larry > ========================== I'm being a bit dense. I seem not to get what your primary points are, and how to separate them. (Of course, you don't *want* to separate them!! ;-)) But I have been thinking further about what you've written, and *perhaps* we are not really so far apart. Let me pursue the matter a bit more now. I certainly don't deny that discernment and object discerned are interdependent and are aspects of a single event. (BTW, the up-down simile was only for purposes of conventional analogy - I realize that they are concepts.) With regard to the co-occurring pair of discernment (conciousness) and discerned object, I *agree* that the primary reality, and this I think is contrary to the Abhidhammic view, is the event which has the discernment and the object discerned as two interdependent aspects of it. At times that event, itself, is called "discernment", and therein lies a terminological confusion, because the subjective pole of that event is also called "discernment"! I do not consider the event, itself, which one might call an "act of discernment", and which has discernment and object-discerned as its subjective and objective aspects respectively, to be identical with the subjective aspect alone. Moreover, I do not consider the act of discernment to be concept-only. I think that it is at least as much of a reality as its subjective and objective aspects. In fact, I actually consider the act of discernment to be the *greater* reality, with the discerning and the discerned being merely its subjective and objective aspects. (This, of course, puts me at odds with Abhidhamma.) But the act of discernment is known only after the fact, and its subjective discernment-aspect is also known only after the fact. During the actual act of discernment, *all* that is discerned is the object. (That's why it is called the object!) When discerning hardness, it is only the hardness that is discerned, not the discerning awareness and not the event that I call the "act of discernment", but only the hardness. Immediately afterwards, there is the knowing, through the mind door, of the three: the entire act of discernment, its objective face (the hardness), and its subjective face (the discernment) - like the inside and outside surfaces of a box. Note, and again this is merely conventional analogy, the box is not fabricated from inside and outside surfaces. No one took an inside surface lying around somewhere ;-)), and took and outside surface, and assembled them into a box. The three appeared at the same time, with the box being the primary, and the inside and outside surfaces being its aspects. The inside and outside surfaces are not the same, and neither one of them is the box. But there is no inside with outside, there is neither inside nor outside without the box, and there is no box without both of these. But, as I see it, the box, itself, is the primary here. In this metaphor, the box is the act of discernment, the inside surface is the discerning, and the outside surface is the hardness. This way of looking at the matter smacks of non-dualism! ;-)) [Not monism, but non-dualism.] Perhaps, just perhaps, you are thinking about this matter in the same way as I am now expressing it. If so, then we are in agreement with each other, but in *disagreement*, I think, with Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma, I think, does not countenance the box, but only its inside and outside surfaces (to stick with the analogy) - more literally, it accepts the knowing and the known, but not the act of knowing which encompasses both. In the suttas, the Buddha, *does* countenance the act of discernment. The event which is the coming together of sense base, sense object, and sense consciousness he calls "contact". But Abhidhamma treats contact differently(!) as a cetasika arising at every mind moment, and not as described in the suttas. So what do you think, Larry? Is there some rapprochement here? With metta, Howard P.S. I realize that what I have written here *may* somewhat jeopardize my expressed view that whatever is a complex, must be concept-only. I'm not sure that it does. An act of discernment is not a complex in the sense of having been fabricated from awareness and object. It is not so fabricated. The awareness and the object arise as aspects of the act of discrment and are aspects of it. the act of discernment is only a complex in the milder sense of having aspects, of not being "homogeneous". /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) 21282 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your > messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect is not-self. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid In one who contemplates the Dhamma in terms of the five aggregates (instead of the six sense bases), it would follow thus: "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not-self. Therefore, if `self` (or `any connotations of self within`) falls under the aggregate of fabrications, what is so contradictory about saying `self` is not-self? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21283 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:34am Subject: Change Dear Group, I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, not even for a week or two', she mourned. This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should matter, but somehow it does. metta, Christine 21284 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Victor, > > "This <>feeling of <>is mine. > > This <>feeling of <>is what I am. > > This <>feeling of <>is my self." Why should <> be a feeling? Feelings can only be pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant. <> should NOT (and NEVER) be classified under the aggregate of feelings. This is a serious error. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21285 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Htoo, I am so glad you are back, I missed you. I apppreciate your sincerity and your kusala citta. I like it that at the end of a message you always have a good wish, it is like a Buddhist prayer. Now see below. op 14-04-2003 20:44 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > What is eye openers? N: The Abhidhamma is an eye opener, it helps us to see what we did not see before. We were in the dark without the Tipitaka, The Vinaya, the Suttanta, and the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma helps us to see cause and effect, what is kusala, what is akusala. It helps us to see also our more subtle defilements, our hidden motives. It helps us to understand conditions, to see that whatever arises is conditioned. This can have a great influence on us, beginning to understand that there is no self. But we have to apply Abhidhamma in our life, as you like to stress. When we study the Vinaya we can also be reminded of the many degrees of akusala and kusala. We can see that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. All three of them are very essential. H:And who is messenger in your post? N: In the olden days in Greece they would kill messengers who brought bad tidings. But at least they would listen first to get the message. It is worse when you see a messenger and you will not even listen, but start to kill him off immmediately. We can learn from this simile that it is important to listen to each other. We may not agree with the opponents of Abhidhamma, but do they perhaps have a point? What is the cause of misunderstandings which in the end may prove to be quite unnecessary? Can we perhaps take another approach to explain the Abhidhamma, to overcome misunderstandings? And for those who do not agree, it may be helpful to listen without aversion. When there is aversion, we cannot even listen. We can always learn from listening. May we all be openminded and learn to listen to each other, Nina. P.S. I hope you will write again, if time permits. 21286 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation Dear Yasalalaka, Your remarks are really good for everybody here, so I answer now on dsg. On this forum we can also write very personal letters, we can share these with others because it is about Dhamma. Are you from Sri Lanka? And whereabouts? See below. ---------- Van: "yasalalaka" Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:54:22 -0000 Aan: nilo@e... Onderwerp: Abhidhamma and Meditation I presume this e-mail is being directed to Ms.Nina Van Gorkom. I read with interest your letters and am reading the Abhidhamma in Daily Life. You write on Nama-rupa and how to see it in meditation to understand the ultimate reality and no-self. There is not much problem in noting the nama and rupa in hearing , seeing,tasting, smelling,feeling and thinking. Problem is doing actions... there is the causal aspect along with the nama and rupa. When walking for instance how should one note nama rupa, or when cutting, cooking etc. Nina: As Howard explained, all this is not a matter of taking the book in hand and then pinpoint this is such, that is such. We should see the Abhidhamma as a foundation knowledge and let it sink in. It helps you to see that whatever happens in your life is only conditioned realities. You do not have to try to catch realities. I take a momentary approach to samatha and to vipassana. There is no need to try to do anything, let cittas arise by conditions. Otherwise the idea of self becomes so strong, but the aim is less clinging to self. Samatha: this means a moment of kusala citta. Vipassana: this means beginning to develop understanding of the present reality, whatever it may be, as non-self. There is no rule that you have to do this first, then that, just let it arise naturally. Then there is no obstacle, no idea of I have to sit, or, I am distracted by daily activities. As you could read in my post about attending to the sick, such activities do not distract. We can think with confidence of the Buddha, a moment of samatha. Then sometimes, but not often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and developing understanding of the present reality, and that this is the highest respect to him. There is sound, there is hardness, we do not have to sit somewhere else to experience them. They can be objects of the development of understanding. I say, development, because we should not expect clear understanding yet of: hearing is nama, sound is rupa. In theory we learn that nama experiences and that rupa does not experience anything. It is an extremely slow process to learn their characteristics when they appear in daily life, for example, when hearing now. This is not just noting, it is understanding of those characteristics which develops, not you who notices them. We cannot force the growth of understanding. We should have confidence that listening to the Dhamma, intellectual understanding of it, considering thoroughly what we heard are the conditions for direct awareness and understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand that awareness and understanding arise when there are the appropriate conditions, not because of "I" who try to have them. I appreciate very much what the subcommentary to the Satipatthana sutta states about four meditation subjects for every occasion: Don't we have many opportunities to recollect them in the midst of our activities? We have to know that we cling immediately to kusala citta, or to the pleasant feeling that may accompany it. Without the Abhidhamma we would not know this. There are many citttas with attachment in a day. I was having some correspondance with someone about lobha arising because of another person's kind words, and I said we are such a mixture of kusala and akusala. But more important than pointing out the lobha, attachment, is understanding that it is conditioned. Otherwise we may try not to have it and in that way we are deluding ourselves. We should not try not to laugh, being afraid of lobha, because such trying is again motivated by lobha. Behaving in a unnatural way, suppressing laughing (I could not anyway, I like laughing), is not the Middle way and then we are on the wrong Path. I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not hesitate to bring up your questions, with appreciation, Nina. 21287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] five things to be remembered Dear Sarah, Thank you for your kind support. op 14-04-2003 10:53 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Your father isn’t yet at this stage, so perhaps you can encourage him by > showing your understanding and compassion for his present sorry state. N: His case is altogether different from Jon's mother. But the doctor does not agree with him, won't comply with euthanasy. He has no pains. Lodewijk talked very well to my father: we did not mention kamma, but used the word nature. Lodewijk said that nature always knows best and one should leave things to nature. He was sensitive to that argument. By conditions helpful reminders come unexpectantly, as I said. Someone I did not know of Yahoo Pali. Lodewijk was so full of confidence and conviction when he spoke to me about attending to the sick is attending to the Buddha. My french cousins with their children, his great grandchildren, two families, came to see him. It helped me to see their sincere kusala, when we were all standing at his bedside. S: It is also a time for detachment and equanimity, I think. We just do our > best to help and then have to leave it at that. Sometimes it’s not > possible to give any assistance at all. Of course the metta and compassion > is never wasted! N: I am translating now Perfections the chapter on determination and received a very good reminder from A. Sujin, about thinking with worry. This is about guarding the five senses and the mind: I had not thought of it in this way. Of course we cannot help thinking as we do, but, knowing that such thinking is akusala and seeing the disadvantage of it, is a condition for breaking off the story. I can apply this while thinking of my father. At times we give in to thoughts with worry and sadness but this is useless. Thank you again, Nina. 21288 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 17 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 17 Truthfulness that is superior, ariya sacca, is the truth penetrated by the ariyan. The penetration of the noble Truths is the condition for becoming an ariyan, an enlightened person. At this moment we try to listen and to understand the true Dhamma. Nothing else can be as beneficial in our life as the understanding of the truth of realities [12]. We should make an effort to understand the realities that are appearing and to develop also all other kinds of kusala. The characteristics of realities can be penetrated in conformity with the understanding acquired through listening to the Dhamma and the study of it. At this moment realities are arising and falling away, they are not a being, not a person, not self. However, we are not able to see the arising and falling away of realities because of our many defilements and because of ignorance that hides the truth. We need the perfection of truthfulness, so that we are sincere in the development of all degrees of kusala through body, speech and mind, be it dåna, síla or bhåvana. Otherwise we shall be overwhelmed by the power of akusala. Seeing the benefit of truthfulness is a condition for accumulating it. We may contemplate truthfulness within ourselves, but we should also reflect on the truthfulness of the Buddha when he was still the Bodhisatta and developed the perfection of truthfulness. Footnote: 12. By developing understanding of the truth of realities, paramattha sacca, one will penetrate the four noble Truths and this is the ultimate benefit of truthfulness. 21289 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi again, Larry - A few more thoughts: A sound, the objective pole of an auditory discernment-event, itself has various aspects such as pitch and volume. None of the aspects of a sound exist on their own, but only as aspects of the sound, and so the sound is not "built" by combining pitch and volume etc. On the other hand, what is the sound without its aspects? Likewise, contact has sense base, sense object, and sense consciousness as aspects, but it is not a complex built from these, for these do not exist on their own. Sense base, sense object, sense consciousness, and sense contact are co-occurring and interdependent (but with contact as primary, and the other as aspects of it - as I see it). The contact, not being a complex, is not necessarily mere concept - in fact, it is an actually occurring event, an actual condition. A chariot, or a person, on the other hand, is, indeed, a collection of components (with the collecting being done mentally), and the chariot or person as an existent is concept-only. So, as I see it, a paramattha dhamma can have manifold aspects/conditions to it, but is yet not a complex or collective. Ultimately, as I see it, all phenomena are mere conditions, and their aspects/features are also mere conditions, and there is a radically ramified network of interconnections of various sorts among these conditions. The bottom line on all this is EMPTINESS - that is, interdependency, essencelessness (or corelessness), impermanence, and impersonality. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 21290 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/14/2003 11:47:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the > experience of sound. ------------------------------ Howard: Consciousness is an aspect of that experiential event - for sure. But during that event, it is the sound of which there is awareness, and not the conciousness. ------------------------------ Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. ------------------------------ Howard: This is not so, as I see it. There is the event which is the experiencing of an object - that is a contact event. What is experienced during that contact event is the object, and not the awareness. ------------------------------ The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. ----------------------------- Howard: Certainly a sound is not a separate, self-supporting entity. It is the object of hearing. I'm the last one to suppose entities existing independently of their being experienced. A heard sound is neither identical with the heaing of it nor is it separable from it. They are aspects of a single experiential event. ---------------------------- > > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the > compounding of > concept and experience. > > Larry ============================= With metta, Howard 21291 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Way 76, Materiality Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section of Reflection on the Modes of Materiality The Master having explained body-contemplation in the form of reflection on the repulsiveness of the thirty-two parts of the body, said: "And further", now, to set forth body-contemplation by way of reflection on the modes (or elements) of materiality. The elaboration of the meaning together with the application of the simile, in this connection, is as follows: Just as if some cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice, a man who works for his keep, having killed a cow and made it into parts, were sitting at a four-cross-road, just so, a bhikkhu reflects, by way of the modes, on the body, in any one of the four postures thus: "There are in this body the modes of extension, cohesion, caloricity, and oscillation." The cow-butcher does not get rid of the cow-percept while feeding the cow, driving it to the place of slaughter, tying it and putting it up there, killing it, and even when seeing the dead carcass of the cow; not until he cuts it up and divides it into parts does the perception of a cow disappear. To that butcher sitting (with the meat before him) after cutting up the cow, however, the perception of a cow disappears, and the perception of flesh comes into being. To him, there is not this thought: "I am selling the cow; these people are taking away the cow." But to him, indeed, there occurs this thought: "I am selling flesh; these people indeed, are taking away flesh."... To the bhikkhu, similarly, the perception of a being or the perception of a person does not disappear as long as he does not reflect, by way of the modes of materiality, in this body as it is placed or disposed in whatsoever position, after sifting thoroughly the apparently compact aggregation. To him who reflects by way of the modes of materiality, however, the perception of a being disappears; the mind gets established by way of the modes of materiality. Therefore, the Blessed One declared: "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions should be sitting at the junction of a cross-road, in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects... thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity... And the mode of oscillation.' = Imameva kayam yatha thitam yatha panihitam dhatuso paccavekkhati: atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatuti. Seyyathapi bhikkhave dakkho goghatako va goghatakantevasi va gavim vadhitva catummahapathe bilaso pativibhajitva nissinno assa evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kayam... paccavekkhati atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu... vayodhatuti. The yogi is comparable to the cow-butcher; the perception of a being is comparable to the perception of a cow; the fourfold posture is comparable to the cross-road; and the reflection by way of the modes of materiality is comparable to the state of sitting with the cow's flesh in front after dividing the cow into parts. Here, this is the textual explanation. Details of the reflection on the modes of materiality as a subject of meditation, however, are given in the Path of Purity. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally". One dwells contemplating the body in the body thus by way of the laying hold of the four modes of materiality, in one's own or in another's body or at one time in one's own body and at another time in another's body. From here on the exposition should be known just by the method already mentioned. The mindfulness which lays hold of the four modes of materiality is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal to deliverance should be known. [Tika] By the word placed there is the elucidation of occasion by way of own (or particular) function of material things known as the body in various moments [kaya sankhatam rupadhammanam tasmim tasmim khane sakicca vasena avatthana paridipanam]. [T] By the word disposed here the following meaning should be known: By way of condition, the putting down or settling owing to the arrangement of several conditions [paccaya vasena tehi tehi paccayehi pakarato nihitam]. [T] Reflects (paccavekkhati) = Considers again and again, sees analytically, part by part, separately after sifting thoroughly with the eye of wisdom [pati pati avekkhati ñanacakkhuna vinibhujjitva visum visum passati]. 21292 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Howard Thanks for pointing out the oversight in my earlier post. What you say is of course correct. Jon PS I've impressed by many of your recent posts. Some fine analysis of sense-door/mind-door experiences. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and KKT) - > ... > There is one thing, though, that you wrote which I think you > didn't > intend as it came out. With regard to the expressions "Sabbe dhamma > anatta" > ("All dhammas are not-self") and "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" > ("All > conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"), you wrote > the > following: > "To my understanding, they are different ways of referring > to the same > thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental > phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the > Abhidhamma > they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental > factors, > materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana)". > You follow this immediately by the following: > "The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that > 'the > world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just > these > different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all > share the > same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta". > Your main point in this was, of course, to state that the > tilakkhana > apply only to actually observed phenomena, and not projections of > mere > concept. But the last two paragraphs of your also, when read > literally, and > not as I know you intended, include nibbana as as being anicca and > dukkha. I > point this out just in case it might have been misunderstood by > anyone. > > With metta, > Howard 21293 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five > aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Please note that > > 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that > computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. ... Thanks for this clarification. One needs to be clear about the sense (frame of reference) in which a question is being asked, since context is all-important. Here the stated context is the five aggregates (I hope I've got it right this time!). To my understanding, the five aggregates are a means of classifying conditioned phenomena/namas and rupas. Thus rupa-khandha has a specific meaning and includes conditioned phenomena such as visible object, sound (audible object), and hardness (tangible object), but not 'objects' such as computer. So the only answer I can give, in the stated context, is that the question does not arise ;-)). In any event, however, it seems to me that any perception of a computer as being impermanent (or impermanent) would have to be based on previous experiences, and as such would be in the nature of an assumption or inference. It could not be something directly experienced as an intrinsic characteristic or attribute of 'the computer'. By this I mean a computer could only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on some previous occasion. Either way, in my view, would be 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. In an earlier post you said:, A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of consciousness. I am not sure what you mean by saying that a computer belongs to one aggregate or another. Are you suggesting it can belong to different aggregates at different times? If so, that would (to me) be a novel proposition. On the subject of 'computer and the five aggregates', may I put forward the following for discussion: - At moments of 'seeing a computer', the relevant conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include seeing consciousness (vinnana khandha) and visible object (rupa khandha), many moments of processing the visible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha also) with various concepts as object. - Likewise at a moment of 'touching a computer', the relevant conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include body consciousness(vinnana khandha) and tangible object (rupa khandha), many moments of processing the tangible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts as object. - At the moment of 'knowing/recognising a computer as being impermanent', the relevant conditioned phenomena would include many moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts (including 'computer' and 'impermanent') as object. Any comments on this analysis? I do hope I've addressed your question this time, Victor. If there's any sense in which the question is being asked that I haven't covered here, please feel free to let me know (perhaps you could spell it out iin positive terms). Jon 21294 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Swee Boon, I think you might want to ask the question to KKT because that is how he termed this particular feeling as the feeling of <>. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Why should <> be a feeling? > > Feelings can only be pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor > unpleasant. > > <> should NOT (and NEVER) be classified under > the aggregate of feelings. This is a serious error. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21295 From: azita gill Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, .....snip... I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not > hesitate to bring up your > questions, > with appreciation, > Nina. > dear Nina, Anumodana. Your words of wisdom are inspirational. It's amazing that I could be pleased to read your words and then to feel what must be the 'dreaded' mana. Often I think 'oh, I wish I had said that, or had written that'. I think Mana must arise a lot. I quite often find myself comparing me to the others. Thanks to Abhidhamma - and my small knowledge of it - that I even know what Mana [conceit] is. There is a remark in English 'swallow your pride' which I think means not to let one's pride get in the way of perhaps forgiving someone who you perceive has done you wrong. may you be well and happy, Azita. 21296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT Thanks again for another set of penetrating questions. Here are my answers. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... ++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: NOT-SELF (anatta): __not subject to mastery __lacking in an abiding soul/essence What is interesting is that from this definition we can deduce the opposite that is the definition of << self >> even if the Buddha did not give a specific definition of this word. Therefore: SELF (atta): __subject to mastery __possessing an abiding soul/essence << subject to mastery >> means that SELF should be something self-existing, independent, unconditioned. << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> means that SELF should be permanent, eternal, unchanging. ++++++++++++++++++++ J: We need to keep in mind here that we are talking about factors that are a characteristic of dhammas/conditioned phenomena. To my way of thinking, 'subject to mastery' means capable of being controlled. I would say that what we can deduce here is as follows: dhammas could only be prooperly regarded as self if they were both (a) capable of being controlled, and (b) permanent and unchanging. I wouldn't like to call this a 'definition of self', since that carries certain implications that the Buddha was at pains to refute. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: Following are my questions: __You wrote: << A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind >> What do you mean by << intrinsic nature >> ? Is there a Pali word corresponding to << intrinsic nature >> ? If concept has no intrinsic nature of its own, does << paramattha dhamma >> have one ? ... __You wrote: << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness >> What do you mean by << individual essence >> in the phrase << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence >> ? Does this word << individual essence >> have the same meaning of the above << intrinsic nature >> ? Have these two words << individual essence >> and << intrinsic nature >> the same meaning of the word SELF defined above as something << self-existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging >> ? If your response to this question is Yes then how could a paramattha dhamma which has an << << individual essence >> or an << << intrinsic nature >> have also characteristics such as << impermanent (anicca) and not-self (anatta) >> ? An evident contradiction, is it not? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ J: These 2 terms 'intrinsic nature' and 'individual essence' are both translations of the Pali term 'sabhava' (my apologies for causing confusion by using different translations for the same term!). As to the meaning of 'sabhava', to my understanding it refers to the unique characteristic pertaining to a dhamma. Not only do all dhammas share in common the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta, but each dhamma also has its own individual characteristic by which it is distinguished (and distinguishable) from all other dhammas. The sabhava is capable of being experienced by panna. However, being with 'individual essence' does not imply being unconditioned. The 2 aspects are unrelated. Sound and visible object each have their own distinct characteristic, yet both are conditioned dhammas. ++++++++++++++++++ KKT: __You wrote: << What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors >> If I say: The table is a series (or combination) of paramattha dhammas existing << INDEPENDENTLY >> of the observer. Is this statement correct? +++++++++++++++++++++++ J: The statement, 'A table is ...' assumes an entity that is 'table'. On this point, I can do no better than refer you to Howard's recent post to Victor at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21187. At this moment of reading this message on 'a monitor', the reality is (among other things) moments of seeing consciousness experiencing visible object, followed by thinking/processing of the visible data that is experienced. There is no dhamma of 'monitor' there. If you reach out and touch the monitor, then there is the experience of tangible data to be thrown into the mix. But still no 'monitor' as such being experienced, only visible data and tangible data, accompanied by mental processing of that data. This is the 'reality/actuality' of the world as expounded by the Buddha. This is what needs to be known (the rest we can forget about!). +++++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: Another way to formulate this question is: What we call 'table' (which is a concept) is merely a series of paramattha dhammas experienced through different sense-doors, OK? Now if you turn your back to the table (ie. the 'table' is no more experienced by you) then does the 'table' still << exist >> independently as a series of paramattha dhammas ? +++++++++++++++++++++++ J: (Can we turn our back to a concept?) As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that question would be of any value. Jon 21297 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer could only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on some previous occasion. It is not asking whether or not knowing a computer being impermanent is 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. Again, is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Thanks for this clarification. One needs to be clear about the sense > (frame of reference) in which a question is being asked, since > context is all-important. > > Here the stated context is the five aggregates (I hope I've got it > right this time!). To my understanding, the five aggregates are a > means of classifying conditioned phenomena/namas and rupas. Thus > rupa-khandha has a specific meaning and includes conditioned > phenomena such as visible object, sound (audible object), and > hardness (tangible object), but not 'objects' such as computer. So > the only answer I can give, in the stated context, is that the > question does not arise ;-)). > > In any event, however, it seems to me that any perception of a > computer as being impermanent (or impermanent) would have to be based > on previous experiences, and as such would be in the nature of an > assumption or inference. It could not be something directly > experienced as an intrinsic characteristic or attribute of 'the > computer'. By this I mean a computer could only be known as > impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other > objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on > some previous occasion. Either way, in my view, would be 'knowledge > by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a > characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. > > In an earlier post you said:, > A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the > aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of > perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of > consciousness. > > I am not sure what you mean by saying that a computer belongs to one > aggregate or another. Are you suggesting it can belong to different > aggregates at different times? If so, that would (to me) be a novel > proposition. > > On the subject of 'computer and the five aggregates', may I put > forward the following for discussion: > - At moments of 'seeing a computer', the relevant conditioned > phenomena/aggregates would include seeing consciousness (vinnana > khandha) and visible object (rupa khandha), many moments of > processing the visible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other > moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha also) with various > concepts as object. > - Likewise at a moment of 'touching a computer', the relevant > conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include body > consciousness(vinnana khandha) and tangible object (rupa khandha), > many moments of processing the tangible data experienced (vinnana > khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with > various concepts as object. > - At the moment of 'knowing/recognising a computer as being > impermanent', the relevant conditioned phenomena would include many > moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts > (including 'computer' and 'impermanent') as object. > > Any comments on this analysis? > > I do hope I've addressed your question this time, Victor. If there's > any sense in which the question is being asked that I haven't covered > here, please feel free to let me know (perhaps you could spell it out > iin positive terms). > > Jon 21298 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Let me ask you the following: Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate of fabrication?? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your > > messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. > > "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be > tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. > And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow > that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable > if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect > is not-self. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid > > In one who contemplates the Dhamma in terms of the five aggregates > (instead of the six sense bases), it would follow thus: > > "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' > that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate > of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are > discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's > why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of > fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not- self. > > Therefore, if `self` (or `any connotations of self within`) falls > under the aggregate of fabrications, what is so contradictory about > saying `self` is not-self? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21299 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:27pm Subject: Re: Change Hi Christine, Your colleague might have just well seen and expressed the characteristics of everything being impermanent and was about to see the characteristics of everything being stressful/unsatisfactory. What does it mean by "everyday view"? What special Buddhist enlightenment are you referring to? How are your questions relevant to the Buddha's teaching? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling > stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, > not even for a week or two', she mourned. > This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist > enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. > > metta, > Christine 21300 From: jonoabb Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:29pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". > > Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer could > only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life > as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with > how it looked on some previous occasion. > > It is not asking whether or not knowing a computer being impermanent > is 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct > experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. > > Again, is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on what it *is* ;-)). Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall away? Jon > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. Thanks, Victor. 21301 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have great respect for what you write. I have a lot to learnt and I always learnt a lot from you. I do not know everything, as you know here in Canberra I do the ceremonies for the Sri Lankans and Laotians, I have learnt all the chantings and procedures, but I am still learning about the tipitaka and the meanings of a lot of sutras. I find you a book of knowledge and Wee a book in the way that the simple teachings of Buddha should be. With Metta and respect. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 12:25 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ Jeff asked: "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and Pa.tiveda. Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and Vipassanaa). Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard instructions of the Buddha. And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure and original. Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of awakening. Jeff asked the following questions, "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" My answer is as follows. Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 21302 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, I'm not sure about some of the points you raised concerning differences between sutta and abhidhamma, so let's set that aside and focus on why is a complex a concept. It basically doesn't make sense to me to say one sound is a reality and two sounds is a concept. I think it would be a lot easier to limit the definition of concept to language. However, if you do take this wider view of concept, why not say one sound is also a concept, considering that one sound is complex in one way or another. Do we agree that emptiness is what we are looking for and both concept and reality (whatever it is) are empty of ultimate value, according to the Buddha? Maybe I went down the wrong path by saying concept is empty of reality. Even though this is true, the emptiness we are looking for is emptiness of self. Do you agree that "empty of self" equals "empty of itself"? Larry 21303 From: ilgu99 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:16pm Subject: If you are interested in Zen If you are interested in Zen: http://www.itsmysite.com/yourpage 21304 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:41pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar "Buddhism in Myanmar - A Short History" by Roger Bischoff, is a good read. Download from here: http://www.buddhanet.net/ftp03.htm 21305 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:02pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on what > it *is* ;-)). > > Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. > > Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall away? > > Jon > > > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs > > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would > > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. > > Thanks, Victor. 21306 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear, Your Highness, Officially Ordained Buddhist Monk, Venerable Yanatharo, I, for one, have never been terribly impressed by the posts of either Suan or Wee...not that anyone should really care one bit. But since you deem it necessary to cast 'votes', I thought I might as well also. Not a very Buddhist practice I must admit, but I hope that becomes apparent as well...maybe to everyone. Metta, James ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have > great respect for what you write. I have a lot to learnt and I always learnt > a lot from you. I do not know everything, as you know here in Canberra I do > the ceremonies for the Sri Lankans and Laotians, I have learnt all the > chantings and procedures, but I am still learning about the tipitaka and > the meanings of a lot of sutras. I find you a book of knowledge and Wee a > book in the way that the simple teachings of Buddha should be. With Metta > and respect. Venerable Yanatharo > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 12:25 a.m. > Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Asunto: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar > > > > > Dear Dhamma friends > > > How are you? > > The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if > Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. > > _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ > > > Jeff asked: > > "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? > I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice > of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is > a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what > is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, > biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of > contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" > > Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the > nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. > > Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and > Pa.tiveda. > > Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and > their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. > > Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and > progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and > Vipassanaa). > > Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily > behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). > > As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in > Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That > is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard > instructions of the Buddha. > > And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's > teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the > Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations > (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer > to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure > and original. > > Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we > learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and > follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of > awakening. > > Jeff asked the following questions, > > "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, > history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive > history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" > > My answer is as follows. > > Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most > successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their > zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. > > There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism > like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. > > Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw > Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as > his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do > not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of > Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. > > Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries > to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice > in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada > ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. > > My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing > certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as > practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of > Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. > > So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in > Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest > Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other > ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 21307 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? I'm not sure what you mean. Does a computer arise and fall away? Jon > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > Victor > > > [snip] > > > > I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on > what > > it *is* ;-)). > > > > Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. > > > > Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall > away? > > > > Jon > > > > > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer > belongs > > > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I > would > > > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. > > > > Thanks, Victor. 21308 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, Victor and all, Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" smallchap 21309 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Dave, Thank you very much, Nina. op 15-04-2003 16:15 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > > Here's a snippet from one site: > > On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka > are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). 21310 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 Dear Azita, op 15-04-2003 14:35 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: >> dear Nina, > I also find this moving. I had not heard it > before. > As a nurse working in a hospital, I have daily > reminders of illness [cannot add old age here bec. I > work with kids] and it really can be a condition for > me to reflect on death. N: The Pali teacher who gave me the texts (and also Frank and Mike gave them to me) five things to be remembered, stressed: remember ageing, and he said you not only need them for the sick person you want to help, also for yourself. We have to remember that we are ageing each moment. A: I am quite > fortunate to have the profession of nursing. It feels > kind of 'right' to attend to an ill person's needs. > These daily reminders cause me to contemplate > my own death N: thank you for your reminders and good wishes, especially courage and good cheer, Nina. 21311 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To James: In a message dated 4/13/03 9:32:31 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << If you don't want to think one way or the other about having a soul, and consider such thought `mental mas…….' (I am not going to repeat it because children do read these posts), okay, then don't. However, I believe it is important to be mindful that we don't have a `soul' because it keeps us mindful of anatta (non-self). When you start to identify with things about you being `you' (like appearance, race, sex, possessions, personal history, etc.), you can always remind yourself, "Hey, I don't have a soul. Those things aren't me! These things I think are me don't last at all! The lights are on but there is no one home! ;-)" It also allows you to take yourself less seriously and to approach life with an easy, relaxed attitude. It also allows you to take risks and to not see every setback as the end of the world or every accomplishment like money that needs to be hoarded. It is very liberating to remind ourselves that we don't have a soul; at least I think so. As far as the popularity or non- popularity of Buddhism because of this teaching, that is the thing I really don't care one iota about. The majority of public opinion doesn't define what is truth and what isn't. Okay, I am off my soapbox now! ;-) Take care. Metta, James >> Jeff: Thank-you for your kind reply about soul, and while we are at it a God head as well. Since they kind of go along together. I often think that the deb ate is almost irrelevant, because what we believe with our mind (thoughts) is no doubt nothing like reality anyway. At times I have sat in meditation and found myself as a galaxy of stars. As though my body was just all points of light. And each point of light an individual being, and each being resonating the most beautiful music of love. When I have that lucid experience, I have to ask myself, who are those beings if they aren't souls, and what was that being that contained them all if it wasn't "God?" Thank-you for your kind discussions. Best to you, layman Jeff 21312 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: KKT, DAVE & Sarah In a message dated 4/13/03 6:13:55 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: <> You can have OOB experience by your own will or it just << happens >> ? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you KKT for your interesting questions. If you don't mind I will answer both of your excellent questions at the same time, because I think they are intimately related. Your friend's experience tends to violate the model of my experience, which basically has always taken place, as I have said, with total lucidity. By this I mean with equal or greater lucidity than the waking moment, and with no awareness of the physical body what so ever. So, I would wonder how one could maintain one's body in an erect sitting posture without any awareness of it. But, I am also aware of extending one's domain of awareness to other physical and spiritual domains, which can be quite lucid, while still maintaining a partial awareness of the physical. There may not be much difference here, but the so called out-of-body experience is much more dramatic, due to its seamless lucidity. With respect to contextualize your friend's experience. I've spoken to a number of people over the years who have reported to me out-of-body experiences and lucid dreams. While some people hold an orthodox definition for the experience, which state that it isn't an out-of-body experience if you don't experience lifting out of the body and flying across the landscape, my experience is, not everyone has all of the lucid details of lift off, and transport. Who needs liftoff, if you can just transport your "self" to another time/space domain without the necessity of covering the intervening space and time? Yes, my out-of-body experiences have both been volitional as well as spontaneous. I would say most of them have been spontaneous though, meaning they occur without me dictating that they occur. Originally I had no volition, because I had no control over the experience, then after under going the training I mentioned earlier, I gained full and willful control over the experience, thus I could make them happen at will, and direct myself where ever I wanted to go. I have found the spontaneous experiences are usually far more interesting, because I tend to go to space/time domains I don't know existed, and they are a whole lot more interesting than space/time domains I tend to have a reference for. When I engaged in out-of-body travel intentionally I found that the experience required deeply relaxing the body to the point that there was no muscle tone in any muscle group, which didn't seem quite possible in sitting posture, which requires holding he head and torso erect, etc. Now days, as I have said, my sleep domain is lucid, I don't typically have the experience of lifting out of the body and traveling across the landscape, as I used to. I do still have the experience of the body entering deep restful sleep, even to the point of hearing myself snore, then the brain functions switch from the cognitive to the subjective. At that moment there is a kind flash of blackness, when there is no sensory input or brain functioning, then I enter into a lucid domain of experience that is widely varied, but always lucid. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: subjective accounts wouldn't give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim. I don't think anyone would dispute that people who claim to have had OOB experiences did, in fact, have some type of mental experience, but that does not mean it was really OOB. I am reminded of other "fantastic" events from other religions... like the many people who experience Stigmata. These people are even left with obvious scars. But, would you admit their own explaination (that Christ, the one son of the only God did this)? I'd assume you would not, but, rather, you would look for a more "common sense" approach. So, in the case of Stigmata, the current theory is a sort of self-mind over body. People under hypnosis can be led to believe that parts of them are "burning" and their skin will blister. It is documentable and repeatable in controlled settings. Isn't it "Occam's Razor" that sort of says that we should look for the most simple explaination? I guess I'm trying to say that we should not "assume there may be some validity to the phenomena" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, Dave, interesting point, but then you are on a group that discusses Dhamma, so presumably you are at least in dialog with people who accept the concept of enlightenment without question. So, what is the difference in accepting Stigmata or OOB experiences, and enlightenment? Or, are you so fixed in your belief in Buddhism that you will not accept that other cultures and religions may also have a tradition of gnosis, and have their own way of articulating it, as well as some slightly different manifestations than Buddhism? I personally can accept the concept of Stigmata, even though I have not myself seen it. There are enough reports of it, that I will accept that it is a distinct possibility, along with the idea of the Dark Night of the soul, and other possible manifestations of jhana. I do how ever reserve my belief of extraordinary claims such as parting the seas, walking on water, and raising the dead. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: Can you control when/where you go? It would seem like this would be extremely easy to validate. I, or any other skeptic of OOB, could leave something for you to fly to and see. I can put a note on my desk here at work and if you can report back what the note said, then I sure would believe your claims! If you cannot control where you go, then what models do you propose to validate? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Interesting proposal. I have long since lost interest in most willful acts including sending myself around the planet, and I would find looking at a note in a desk drawer to have so little interest, compared to a visit to the heavenly planes, that it would probably be something I could not even will myself to do. And, while I wish of course to contribute to the relief of suffering of others, I hardly see how proving to you, or anyone else that OOB experiences exist would relieve your suffering. Another problem with the note experiment is that it presupposes that the OOB experience is limited to the passage of time in the same way the physical body is. But, I have found it is not. One can travel as easily through time as through space. So, you might set up your experiment, but perhaps I might arrive at the location in a different time than when the note is. Also, you may not realize that the cognitive processes of thinking are completely suspended during an OOB, so what is going to read what note and remember what it says? Also, the person experiencing an OOB has no control over the physical universe, so opening a drawer would not be possible, while flying through the drawer is. Nor do they have eyes to see, although there is certainly a "seeing" component to the experience. I do recall reading many documents during OOB experiences. And, I recall during the experience being deeply impressed with what I read, but upon returning to the body, I could only report on the structure of the experience, not on the content. I could not recall what it was I read, what language it was in, nor could I redraw the script. In fact most often information is simply transmitted instantaneously during an OOB. One just knows a thing instantly all at once. But, I have a much better experiment to try. I could train you to fly. That way you could find out for yourself. But, I usually satisfy people's curiosity in a much simpler fashion. I have found almost everyone has reported at one time in their life of having a lucid dream. What I mean by a lucid dream is one that is at least as real as the waking state, if not hyper real, more real. So, chances are you have had one, perhaps as a child, or while ill. If you did, then you have proof enough already, I just have mine every night, not just when I'm sick. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: I believe I read somewhere that the jhana's aren't supposed to have physical manifestations associated with them. I'm sure some of the more well versed member can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought I'd read that things like colors and lights are not part of it and are somehow misleading. Group? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, that depends on your definition of jhana. My definition for jhana is pretty broad, so it includes any manifestation of the "paranormal." It has been my experience that people who have jhanas on a regular basis often have paranormal experiences of various kinds, for instance the OOB. Now in the narrower definition of jhana in that something happened while meditating, well, no there are lots of external manifestations, such as the bobbing of my head, which I reported here (I think) or the rocking back and forth of my t orso. I know a practitioner who's head oscillates very rapidly when she meditates. Not so coincidentally, we both have OOB experiences. Ringing in the ears is another manifestation of jhana. Kundalini and chakra awareness, in my experience, are also manifestations of jhana. If you want to know more about jhana, check the archive for the jhana Yahoo group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: I do hope you do not see my words as any type of criticism. I promise you they are not intended to be such. If they somehow do come across that way, I am truly sorry. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Not at all. I have nothing to hide. I am committed to the relief of suffering of all beings. And I am committed equally to the dispelling of ignorance. So, I will not hide any "secret" teaching. In fact I blieve secret teachings are now only a harm to the dhamma. I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Best to you, layman Jeff 21313 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: < snip > J: These 2 terms 'intrinsic nature' and 'individual essence' are both translations of the Pali term 'sabhava' (my apologies for causing confusion by using different translations for the same term!). As to the meaning of 'sabhava', to my understanding it refers to the unique characteristic pertaining to a dhamma. Not only do all dhammas share in common the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta, but each dhamma also has its own individual characteristic by which it is distinguished (and distinguishable) from all other dhammas. The sabhava is capable of being experienced by panna. However, being with 'individual essence' does not imply being unconditioned. The 2 aspects are unrelated. Sound and visible object each have their own distinct characteristic, yet both are conditioned dhammas. KKT: So your definition of sabhava is << having its own individual, unique characteristic >> but not necessarily << unconditioned >> ? (and therefore not << independent, self-existing >>) And each paramattha dhamma has its own sabhava (intrinsic nature/individual essence) Is this correct? The reason I ask you is because this notion of sabhava (Sanskrit: svabhava = self-nature) is very important in Mahayana. But in Mahayana, svabhava means self-sufficient, independent existence & lasting substance. Therefore according to Mahayana, because the paramattha dhammas arise and fall away because of << conditions >>, thus they are not self-existing, independent, permanent. In other words, they are EMPTY or << devoid of self-nature (svabhava) >> This is the definition of Emptiness. Emptiness = empty of self-nature (svabhava) ----------------- J: At this moment of reading this message on 'a monitor', the reality is (among other things) moments of seeing consciousness experiencing visible object, followed by thinking/processing of the visible data that is experienced. There is no dhamma of 'monitor' there. If you reach out and touch the monitor, then there is the experience of tangible data to be thrown into the mix. But still no 'monitor' as such being experienced, only visible data and tangible data, accompanied by mental processing of that data. This is the 'reality/actuality' of the world as expounded by the Buddha. This is what needs to be known (the rest we can forget about!). KKT: If I understand you correctly then: __Now if you turn your back to the 'monitor', ie. there are no more visible data and tangible data to be experienced at your sense-doors, then you don't know whether those datas << still exist >> independently of you? (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next to you, continues to experience those datas) To sum up and make more clearly, I want to know whether the exterior world exists << independently >> of an observer/experiencer? But I think your answer is negative since you wrote: << As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that question would be of any value. >> I agree that the answer to such question should be purely speculative (only for the sake of speculative philosophic pleasures :-)) and useless for the practice. Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21314 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: Dear Jon, Victor and all, Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" smallchap KKT: My question is: Is computer computer? (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) KKT 21315 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:09pm Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: < snip > Yes, my out-of-body experiences have both been volitional as well as spontaneous. I would say most of them have been spontaneous though, meaning they occur without me dictating that they occur. Originally I had no volition, because I had no control over the experience, then after under going the training I mentioned earlier, I gained full and willful control over the experience, thus I could make them happen at will, and direct myself where ever I wanted to go. KKT: Another question (hope you don't mind :-)) When you are out of your body, do you << see >> your body, for example lying in bed ? Thank you, Jeff. Peace, KKT 21316 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar My Dear James, so nice to hear from you I was thinking you are already in Egypt. Sorry I forgot to mention you nam as the people who I have respect for their knowledge of the dhamma. As you know many times I have always come in your support. I am not taking votes, I was just making a remark that what Suan, Wee and you are always my favour in the way I think and interpret the dhamma. May you be well and happy/ Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 01:17 p.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear, Your Highness, Officially Ordained Buddhist Monk, Venerable Yanatharo, I, for one, have never been terribly impressed by the posts of either Suan or Wee...not that anyone should really care one bit. But since you deem it necessary to cast 'votes', I thought I might as well also. Not a very Buddhist practice I must admit, but I hope that becomes apparent as well...maybe to everyone. Metta, James ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have > great respect for what you write. 21317 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry (& Howard). I’ve been following (mostly following I should say;-)) your discussion with Howard with interest. I don’t wish to interrupt but just to add an ‘aside’. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, >Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. ..... I think that your point is that no paramattha dhammas arise singly or in isolation but are always accompanied by other dhammas. So, for example, a citta (consciousness) is always accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas (mental factors), always has a nama or rupa as object and whenever a rupa arises, it is always in a kalapa(group) with many other rupas in support. ..... > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of > concept and experience. ..... I hope that what I wrote underlines what you mean by ‘compounding’ of paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). I believe the confusion may be if after understanding this inter-relatedness of dhammas, one then has the idea that awareness of realities then means awareness of a ‘compound’ or group of phenomena appearing. On the contrary, sati (awareness) can only ever be aware of one reality (or one characteristic of a reality) at at a time. So it’s true, as you say, that when sound is experienced by hearing consciousness, at that instant the sound must be supported by at least 8 other rupas and there is also the hearing consciousness accompanied by 7 mental factors. However, if (in the javana impulsion process) the same sound is the object of awareness, only that characteristic of sound and no other rupas or namas is the object. At that moment, there are of course other mental factors accompanying the awareness and citta and all carrying out their kusala (wholesome) functions in this case. Not sure if this clarifies at all. I think they are important points and hope I understand you. Metta, Sarah ======= 21318 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? To KKT: In a message dated 4/13/03 6:24:10 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: << Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. Peace, KKT >> While I am by no means an expert on Japanese or Chinese Buddhism, and therefore I am not prepared to provide you with page numbers and references for my claim that there is ample history of Buddhists killing each other over doctrinal differences, I believe any history of Japanese Buddhism should be able to provide that kind of information. Buddhism in China, a Historical Survey, by Kenneth Ch'en, Princeton University Press, 1964 should have ample Chinese references. I am sure someone else here is far more qualified to discuse issues of history in Buddhism than myself. One could also reflect on the chronic insecurity represented by the Mahayana verses Hinayana debate that to this day punctuates almost every Mahayana text or discourse, while it doesn't represent violence, it most certainly does represent a conflict that at least the Mahayana tradition feels they must maintain to the this day. Please excuse the long delay in getting back with a reply to your excellent questions. I had a midterm in archeology that I had to study for. I took it this morning, so now I can engage in what I like most, which is stimulating dialog about gnosis and Buddhism. Best to you, Jeff 21319 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: < snip > I think that your point is that no paramattha dhammas arise singly or in isolation but are always accompanied by other dhammas. So, for example, a citta (consciousness) is always accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas (mental factors), always has a nama or rupa as object and whenever a rupa arises, it is always in a kalapa(group) with many other rupas in support. KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma accepts that citta, cetasikas could arise << simultaneously >> ? But Einstein postulates that: << There are not simultaneous events >> (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, we can always divide the time into smaller portions so that one event would happen before the other. Peace, KKT 21320 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. >> While I am by no means an expert on Japanese or Chinese Buddhism, and therefore I am not prepared to provide you with page numbers and references for my claim that there is ample history of Buddhists killing each other over doctrinal differences, I believe any history of Japanese Buddhism should be able to provide that kind of information. Buddhism in China, a Historical Survey, by Kenneth Ch'en, Princeton University Press, 1964 should have ample Chinese references. I am sure someone else here is far more qualified to discuse issues of history in Buddhism than myself. One could also reflect on the chronic insecurity represented by the Mahayana verses Hinayana debate that to this day punctuates almost every Mahayana text or discourse, while it doesn't represent violence, it most certainly does represent a conflict that at least the Mahayana tradition feels they must maintain to the this day. KKT: There were actually passionate debates between Mahayanists and Hinayanists but I can assure you not to the point of killing each other over the doctrine. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang (7th century) found that many Buddhist monks of different schools (Mahayana, Hinayana, Tantrayana) lived together in the same monateries in India. Buddhism is a peaceful religion. Peace, KKT 21321 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear all, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" > wrote: > > > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap > > > > > KKT: My question is: > > Is computer computer? > > (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) > > > KKT I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. Is computer computer? From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended it to. No, if it is otherwise. smallchap ps. 21322 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear KKT, Firstly, I’ve been most impressed by your careful consideration of the Theravada teachings and Abhidhamma here, even though I know you are well-versed in other traditions. I think it’s a good example of what Nina was referring to as listening to the message before shooting down the messenger;-) --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma > accepts that citta, cetasikas > could arise << simultaneously >> ? ..... Yes, one citta only at a time with many cetasikas (at least 7 ‘universal’ cetasikeas arising simultaneously. ..... > > > But Einstein postulates that: > > << There are not simultaneous events >> ..... Any ‘event’, simultaneous or otherwise is a concept and I understand the term as we use it to represent a multitude of underlying dhammas. For example, the act of walking might be considered as an ‘event’. Cittas and cetasikas are not ‘events’. ..... > (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) > > The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, > we can always divide the time into smaller portions > so that one event would happen before the other. ..... I’ll try not to be led astray by definitions of concepts;-) If there were only cittas (consciousness) arising without any cetasikas (mental factors) accompanying them, what would distinguish one citta, say a kusala (wholesome) citta from an akusala (unwholesome) citta? If there were no feelings accompanying cittas, would there be any attachment or aversion to those same cittas and so on? If there were periods with no consciousness, would it be possible for life to continue or experiences to be accumulated? If jivitindriya cetasika (life-faculty) did not arise with each citta, how would the life of cittas and cetasikas be maintained? If phassa cetasika (contact) did not accompany every citta, how could objects be ‘touched’ or experienced? We can ask lots more questions to see whether what we read is correct and makes sense according to what is taught and experience as well. Greatly appreciating the points you are raising with Jon as well. I understand ‘sabhava’ is a big issue for those from a Mahayana background. I think you’ll find it helpful to look under this the same topic name in U.P.as quite a lot was written on it before as well. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ====== 21323 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear smallchap, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > KKT: My question is: > > Is computer computer? > > (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) > I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. Is computer computer? From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended it to. No, if it is otherwise. smallchap KKT: My question is just a Zen joke :-)) If a Zen master asks you: __What is computer? And if your answer is: __A computer is impermanent, compounded, arises and falls away or whatever, etc. Then for sure you will receive 30 blows :-)) Why? Because your answer is the proof that your mind was wandering in unnecessary concepts. And Zen is to << see things as they actually are >> ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) Peace, KKT 21324 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 0:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Change Hi Christine (& Victor), Let me follow Victor’s lead and ask you some more questions;-) ..... --- christine_forsyth wrote: > But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, ..... What is ‘everything’? >why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? ..... Do we (or panna) even see this ‘everything’ changing in ‘fits and starts’? ..... >Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? .... If so, what is the ‘first step’? ..... >Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? ..... What evidence is there that they do or don’t? ..... >Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? ..... Given the nature of moha (ignorance), why should anything be noticeable, smoothly or otherwise??? ..... >I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. ..... Would you kindly try to explain why. Oh, I think I must really be joining the Victor cult....;-( (just kidding, Victor) Metta, Sarah P.S. I can’t resist adding two quotes:- 1.From the latest Perfections instalment: “At this moment realities are arising and falling away, they are not a being, not a person, not self. However, we are not able to see the arising and falling away of realities because of our many defilements and because of ignorance that hides the truth.” 2.From comy to Satipatthana Sutta as quoted before by RobertK: “Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness.” *********** 21325 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 0:24am Subject: Reminder Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. This applies to any part of the other post that appears *before* your own message, as well as to the part appearing after your message. Salutation etc Please use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and sign off the end (preferably with a real name). Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS As usual, any comments or questions on this reminder should be sent to us off-list only. Thanks. 21326 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Hi Dave & All. Firstly I appreciate comments on other threads which seem very sensible to me. Here’s one example: “subjective accounts wouldn’t give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim....” Back to this thread and I think what you posted was very helpful, not because I think the content is correct, but in order to understand what people may understand by the terms. I’ll be very glad to see any further web searching you do and I’m sure Christine will be glad to have someone else sharing links as well;-) A few comments in context below: “--- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > Here's a snippet from one site: > > "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and > Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what > is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. ..... This is a little unclear, I think. Craving or attachment (tanha) is the cause of suffering. Kamma arises on account of attachment and the other defilements. ..... >Vipàka is > Dukkha or the truth of suffering. ..... All realities or paramattha dhammas are suffereing on account of being impermanent, not just vipaka which is very specific and refers to some particular kinds of consciousness only. ..... >On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka > are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). Hetu (cause) is the > second Noble Truth. Phala is the First Noble Truth. ..... I think this is very misleading. Kamma is not hetu or any Noble Truth, although one of the six roots is lobha. In fact kamma (cetana cetasika) is a different condition or ‘cause’ from hetu. Phala citta (fruition consciousness) refers to the result of magga citta (path consciousness) which experiences nibbana. It is not the First Noble Truth. These terms are all very specific. Nina’s book, Abhidhamma in Daily Life gives more details. Sometimes I can understand it when friends have reservations about using Pali terms because they tend to be used with very different interpretations. ..... >According to the > Paticca Samuppàda (Dependent origination) a human being is divided > into ten aspects; ignorance, formation, craving and so on. Five of > them from ignorance to action or becoming are regarded as Kamma or > Hetu (cause). The rest are regarded as Vipàka or Phala (effect). In > one sense Vipàka means rebirth." (taken from: > http://www.metta.lk/english/buddhist-points.htm) ..... I understand how the writer draws his conclusions, but I think they are quite inaccurate and best ignored, though I’m happy to discuss further. ..... > Anyway, I hope that helps you all out! ..... I had never seen hetu and phala used in these ways or these particular ideas. It helps a lot to understand the questions raised in another post to Nina and any possible confusion. These are often intricate and complex points so I think it helps to check the texts carefully. I know I make many mistakes as well if I don’t do this or if I rush. Look forward to more of your practical suggestions, good questions and links. Metta, Sarah ======= 21327 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Buddha's Omniscience, 2 Dear Nina (& Ven. Dhammapiyo), --- nina van gorkom wrote:> N: The citta that knows an object falls away immediately, and so it is > with > the Buddha's citta with omniscience. He directed his omniscience then to > this and then to that object, not to more than one object at a time. > Each > citta can know only one object at a time. ..... Your two posts on the omniscience of the Buddha are very useful and full of helpful quotes. The question of the Buddha’s omniscience comes up frequently, so it’s great to have the sutta, abhidhamma and commentary references together, all in support of each other. K.Sujin said to me sth like: “Khun Sarah, we can never over-estimate the knowledge of the Buddha. Whatever he wished to know, he knew..” This came up after a discussion with Rob M in Hong Kong when I doubted (wrongly) whether he could have known precise details about future events like 9/11. As you quoted from Patism: “All that is past it knows, thus it is omniscinet knowledge: it is without obstruction there, thus it is unobstructed knowledge. All that is future it knows... All that is presently-arisen it knows....” ***** I also liked the reference to our new comy to Abhid.Sangaha and all the other quotes too. Thank you. Understanding or rather reflecting more on the Buddha’s omniscience is a condition (for me) for more moments of samatha (calm) even now as I write and reflect on the Buddha’s panna. Of course, as usual there are bound to be many moments of attachment and other kilesa in between as well - even mana as Azita said. ..... In your other post (to me) about your father, I also liked Lodevik’s way of explaining to your father about ‘leaving things to nature’. We have to know what is appropriate to say and I really appreciate L’s patience in this regard. Please let us know what else he says of comfort and support. Your father is very fortunate not to have pain. It just comes back to the kilesa and being ensnared by the wordly conditions regardless of whether there is any akusala vipaka at the time so often. I liked the quote about ‘worries’ as well. When we’re lost in the stories of SARS or your father or the War, the worries seem so ‘justified’ but as you say, they are so useless and a moment of awareness of a nama or rupas is far more precious than all the thinking about the stories without any awareness. I’m sure your father will also be glad to see (and hear you!) happy and laughing again too. I’m sure every parent wishes to see his or her children happy;-) Many thanks again for the wonderful posts on the Buddha’s omniscience. Metta, Sarah ======= 21328 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hi Paul, Like Christine, I was glad to see you posting again after a long break. I suppose we’ll have to wait quite a while now for RobM to visit Hong Kong and deliver the Chinese text of Abh Sangaha to you;-( I’d be glad to hear how your reflections on the Buddha’s Teachings help you in your work and home life during this difficult time we’re all having here. Perhaps you can give me some inspiration. My students are coming back to study with me next week (if their parents allow it) and it’s like preparing for war with masks, surgical gloves, disinfectant, extra cleaning, distances between students and myself, hand-washing lessons and so on;-) ..... Back to the dhamma: --- ajahn_paul wrote: > May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > word in english. > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that >call? ..... As I understand, Paul, there’s no ‘gap’. How could there be? Just like now, one citta (consciousness) arises after another. The last consciousness of this life is followed by the first consciousness of the next life. This, I understand, is according to the Pali texts. I thought your comments on ‘Dreams’ were helpful too. As you said, the body and mind can be trained. I think the question always is whether the training is wholesome or unwholesome. We have to be very clear about the purpose and know the citta (consciousness) to understand whether it is concerned with sila, dana or bhavana as taught by the Buddha. You also mentioned ‘Arahats cant control themselves in dreams’. As arahats don’t dream, as we understand, and as there is no self in any case to control, I think you make a very good comment;-) Hope to meet you again when Rob M next visits (who knows when???). Metta and hope you and your dear ones are doing OK, Sarah ====== 21329 From: ajahn_paul Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:01am Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Like Christine, I was glad to see you posting again after a long break. I > suppose we'll have to wait quite a while now for RobM to visit Hong Kong > and deliver the Chinese text of Abh Sangaha to you;-( actually, i come visit everyday,, but may not have time to read all the messages! ^_~ > > I'd be glad to hear how your reflections on the Buddha's Teachings help > you in your work and home life during this difficult time we're all having > here. Perhaps you can give me some inspiration. My students are coming > back to study with me next week (if their parents allow it) and it 's like > preparing for war with masks, surgical gloves, disinfectant, extra > cleaning, distances between students and myself, hand-washing lessons and > so on;-) > ..... from the data,,, it seems that adults r more easy to get sars than kids, i think this is a good news. but,,, u have to be more careful. if any kids' parents got sars,,, the kids might take them to school! > Back to the dhamma: > > --- ajahn_paul wrote: > May be i have been using > the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > > word in english. > > > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that >call? > ..... > As I understand, Paul, there's no `gap? How could there be? Just like > now, one citta (consciousness) arises after another. The last > consciousness of this life is followed by the first consciousness of the > next life. This, I understand, is according to the Pali texts. > > I thought your comments on `Dreams?were helpful too. As you said, the > body and mind can be trained. I think the question always is whether the > training is wholesome or unwholesome. We have to be very clear about the > purpose and know the citta (consciousness) to understand whether it is > concerned with sila, dana or bhavana as taught by the Buddha. You also > mentioned `Arahats cant control themselves in dreams? As arahats don 't > dream, as we understand, and as there is no self in any case to control, I > think you make a very good comment;-) i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! > Hope to meet you again when Rob M next visits (who knows when???). tell him not to come!!!! my mom came in march,, just went back to Canada on last sunday! ppl r scare to stay in Hong Kong. my boss' wife & daughter went to US yesterday, my other boss' wife and son moved to Yuen Long! > Metta and hope you and your dear ones are doing OK, wish u will be fine too! ^^ Paul 21330 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Change Hi Chris, Things change at a more or less continuous rate, I think. Noticing change occurs much more sporadically, I think. For what it's worth... mike ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: [dsg] Change > Dear Group, > > I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling > stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, > not even for a week or two', she mourned. > This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist > enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. > > metta, > Christine > 21331 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:45am Subject: pneumonia Hi James, You must know about the outbreak of pneumonia in Hong Kong. Would Buddhist go to the temple to pray to be blessed?Are there any teachings that calm people down when they panic about the pneumonia (well not necessary to calm down during the outbreak of pneumonia but any diffuclt or anxiouus times). Do the Buddhist have special types of funerals for the dead?Will their be pneumonia in the second life? Do you ever think about the pneumonia now when you meditate? I know these are really wierd questions but still I would love to find out the answers to them. Thanks! Metta, Hilary 21332 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires only a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or that a computer is impermanent. Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. It is not. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I'm not sure what you mean. > > Does a computer arise and fall away? > > Jon [snip] 21333 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, KKT (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/16/03 1:53:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma > accepts that citta, cetasikas > could arise <>? > > > But Einstein postulates that: > > <> > > (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) > > The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, > we can always divide the time into smaller portions > so that one event would happen before the other. > > > Peace, > > > KKT > ============================== If memory serves me correctly, I think that Einstein's non-simultaneity may have been relative to different observers. 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) 21334 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Smallchap, That would be a different question. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap 21335 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires > only > a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or > that a computer is impermanent. > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. > It is not. Thanks for this further explanation. I am clear on the question now. If a categorical ('yes' or 'no') answer is required, then I believe the question to be misconceived. I would see this as being the same as your question in another post, namely, Is a concept permanent or impermanent? There is no such thing as a concept; by definition a concept 'isn't'. Since there is no concept in the first place, there's no question of it being said to be either conditioned or unconditioned, permanent or impermanent. The same answer applies as regards 'a computer' (a kind of concept). It cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. In fact, a concept (including the concept 'computer') can't be said to *be* anything. I hope this is clear ;-)) Jon PS Here again is my question to you: Does a computer arise and fall away? Looking forward with interest to your answer. 21336 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:15am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? Do you see the difference between the statement "self is not-self" and the statement "self is not the self"? "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not-self. Self-identity view cannot arise when one sees through insight that "self" is merely a mental quality that arises and falls away. > Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate > of fabrication?? "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21337 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 9:29:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires only > a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or > that a computer is impermanent. > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. > It is not. > ============================== Are you no longer an astronaut, Victor? (Either you are or you're not. A categorical answer is asked for .. nothing tricky. ;-)) A yes/no question which carries a (considered to be) false presupposition, cannot be truthfully answered either way by one who considers the presupposition to be false. This is the dilemma you present by formulating the question as you have. 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) 21338 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is not misconceived, nor is the answer "A computer is impermanent." In one of the post you said that concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Now you are saying that there is no such thing as concept. Regards, Victor * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21179 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Thanks for this further explanation. I am clear on the question now. > > If a categorical ('yes' or 'no') answer is required, then I believe > the question to be misconceived. > > I would see this as being the same as your question in another post, > namely, Is a concept permanent or impermanent? > > There is no such thing as a concept; by definition a concept > 'isn't'. > > Since there is no concept in the first place, there's no question of > it being said to be either conditioned or unconditioned, permanent or > impermanent. > > The same answer applies as regards 'a computer' (a kind of concept). > It cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. > > In fact, a concept (including the concept 'computer') can't be said > to *be* anything. > > I hope this is clear ;-)) > > Jon > > PS Here again is my question to you: Does a computer arise and fall > away? Looking forward with interest to your answer. 21339 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:35am Subject: Suggestions on buying a Buddha Everyone, I have a quick question. I was thinking of buying a small Buddha statue to display at the house. A Google search turns up a great many places offering what seems to be very overpriced items. So, I was curious if any of you had any recomendations. I'm most interested in the "Thai" styles (as opposed to the Chinese or Japanese styles). Thanks in advance! Peace, Dave 21340 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:06am Subject: Re: Dreams Jeff, see below... > > Jeff: > Well, Dave, interesting point, but then you are on a group that discusses > Dhamma, so presumably you are at least in dialog with people who accept the > concept of enlightenment without question. So, what is the difference in > accepting Stigmata or OOB experiences, and enlightenment? Or, are you so > fixed in your belief in Buddhism that you will not accept that other cultures > and religions may also have a tradition of gnosis, and have their own way of > articulating it, as well as some slightly different manifestations than > Buddhism? > DAVE: Actually, one of the things I like about Buddhism is that the vast majority of it is either confirmable by science or at least not in opposition to science. The parts where I, at this point, perhaps diverge from others are in what I consider to be the embelishments (myths). So, are the 4 Noble Truths legitimate... I think so. Did the Buddha deal with temptation by some diety wanting to prevent enlightenment, I don't think so (since I don't currently accept the idea of divine realms for Mara(?) to be from). Anyway, I guess that, at least how I currently see Buddhism, and enlightenment, I don't see a need to "believe in" astral planes, gods, miracles, or any other paranormal thing. > I personally can accept the concept of Stigmata, even though I have not > myself seen it. There are enough reports of it, that I will accept that it > is a distinct possibility, along with the idea of the Dark Night of the soul, > and other possible manifestations of jhana. I do how ever reserve my belief > of extraordinary claims such as parting the seas, walking on water, and > raising the dead. > DAVE: The stated /visible effects of a Stigmata are not in dispute. The individual has physical scars that can be seen by anyone, even me! It is the cause of those scars. They state that they came from Jesus, the son of the only God. I say, just because they have scars, we should not accept that Jesus must therefore exist to do this. That was the point I was trying to make about OOB. I have no doubt that you have experiences. But, you are drawing a conclusion from them (OOB). And, my thought is that, rather than something "paranormal" we should first look at the "normal" which can include fantasy, dreams, hallucinations, etc. All of which can explain the experience in a more mundane way. Again, I'm just looking for the most simple explaination that describes the experience. > > But, I have a much better experiment to try. I could train you to fly. That > way you could find out for yourself. But, I usually satisfy people's > curiosity in a much simpler fashion. I have found almost everyone has > reported at one time in their life of having a lucid dream. What I mean by a > lucid dream is one that is at least as real as the waking state, if not hyper > real, more real. So, chances are you have had one, perhaps as a child, or > while ill. If you did, then you have proof enough already, I just have mine > every night, not just when I'm sick. > DAVE: Having a vivid or lucid dream would not be evidence of a paranormal event. Scientifically, my understanding of dreams is that they are random synapsis firing. The effect is that they cause the mind to "percieve" the 5 senses but in a non-sensical way. The mind then tries to patchwork these images into a context of some sort, as it does with the input it recieves in waking life. It is that context that it writes to memory as a "dream." They are more neurological flukes than anything else. I do hope that my most vivid dream from childhood was not in some way real... As a youth, I remember one dream. A nightmare where my family was staying at a hotel with a pool that had a Loche Ness Monster in it with the head of Kermit the Frog. Who, proceded to eat my brother, and the entire cast of the Dukes of Hazard (except for Daisy who I managed to recue!). That dream was powerful enough that now, some 25 years later, I can still see it plainly. Perhaps we can draw conclusions of my youthfull preference of Daisy over my brother, but I would hesitate to say I actually traveled there. Anyway, not to make light of your claims. I will just have to wait behind you until science can confirm the existence of paranormal events. And, just in case you do find your way to central Indiana, I'll leave the note on my desk! :-) > > Jeff: > Not at all. I have nothing to hide. I am committed to the relief of > suffering of all beings. And I am committed equally to the dispelling of > ignorance. So, I will not hide any "secret" teaching. In fact I blieve > secret teachings are now only a harm to the dhamma. > DAVE: Do you consider the effort you have put into OOB to be beneficial towards the relief of suffering? How did/does this effort help you towards enlightenment? > I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Best to you, > > layman Jeff You have. This is a very interesting conversation. I suspect that we will have to end it by agreeing to disagree about OOB, but, I at least am learning a lot about it from you and I do thank you for your time and patience in writing with me. Peace, Dave 21341 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:14am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent" does not have any false presupposition. The question you asked does. Regarding your question, I am not an astronaut, and I have never been one before. On the other hand, the categorical answer to the question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is: A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is a straightforward question that requires only a categorical answer. The answer "A computer is impermanent" is a straightforward, categorical answer. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > Are you no longer an astronaut, Victor? (Either you are or you're not. > A categorical answer is asked for .. nothing tricky. ;-)) > A yes/no question which carries a (considered to be) false > presupposition, cannot be truthfully answered either way by one who considers > the presupposition to be false. This is the dilemma you present by > formulating the question as you have. > > With metta, > Howard 21342 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, I think you might want to reread and understand what you quoted. The view "Self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" is exactly the self-identity view that is untenable. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? > > Do you see the difference between the statement "self is not-self" and > the statement "self is not the self"? > > "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' > that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate > of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away > are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' > That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The > aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of > fabrications is not-self. > > Self-identity view cannot arise when one sees through insight that > "self" is merely a mental quality that arises and falls away. > > > Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate > > of fabrication?? > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... > assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. > > "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as > possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. > > "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... > > (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html > > > "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate > fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they > fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form > into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling > into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From > fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate > consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate > fabricated things, they are called fabrications. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21343 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:20am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > I think you might want to reread and understand what you quoted. > > The view "Self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" is > exactly the self-identity view that is untenable. Please understand the difference between the statement "self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" and the statement "my self arises and falls away". The former statement implies that there is no concrete entity called the self that exists. The latter statement implies the opposite; and that statement is untenable. Why? Because there is no self. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21344 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Where did you get the idea that there is no self? Please note that I am not discussing nor am I asking whether there is self or not. Regards, Victor P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Please understand the difference between the statement "self is a > mental quality that arises and falls away" and the statement "my self > arises and falls away". > > The former statement implies that there is no concrete entity called > the self that exists. The latter statement implies the opposite; and > that statement is untenable. Why? Because there is no self. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21345 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 11:16:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent" does not have > any false presupposition. The question you asked does. > > Regarding your question, I am not an astronaut, and I have never > been one before. > > On the other hand, the categorical answer to the question "Is a > computer permanent or impermanent?" is: > > A computer is impermanent. > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is a > straightforward question that requires only a categorical answer. > > The answer "A computer is impermanent" is a straightforward, > categorical answer. > > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================= In ordinary parlance, the question "Is a computer impermanent?" is truly answerable in the affirmative. The question is actually a shorthand for a far more complex set of statements and questions, and the shorthand sums up a multitude of experiences shared by many. But if the statement "A computer is impermanent" is taken literally, as most people do, it carries the presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". Most people accept that presupposition as literally true. Jon and I do not. Thus the sentence "A computer is impermanent", when understood literally, is neither true nor false (for us), but meaningless, because of the buried false (as Jon and I evaluate it) presupposition. Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but literally it is false. I do not expect you to buy the falsehood of the literal existence of computers - I'm just trying to explain what is going on here with me and Jon on this matter. 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) 21346 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, Your example of different cetasikas arising when citta contacts rupa is different from what I had in mind but probably better. I was thinking, in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. Possibly this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. Larry 21347 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. Regards, Victor P.S. I see that the discussion is leaning toward talk on whether computers exist or not. I am not interested and would not engage in that kind of discussion. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > In ordinary parlance, the question "Is a computer impermanent?" is > truly answerable in the affirmative. The question is actually a shorthand for > a far more complex set of statements and questions, and the shorthand sums up > a multitude of experiences shared by many. But if the statement "A computer > is impermanent" is taken literally, as most people do, it carries the > presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called > "computers". Most people accept that presupposition as literally true. Jon > and I do not. Thus the sentence "A computer is impermanent", when understood > literally, is neither true nor false (for us), but meaningless, because of > the buried false (as Jon and I evaluate it) presupposition. Conventionally, > as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but > literally it is false. I do not expect you to buy the falsehood of the > literal existence of computers - I'm just trying to explain what is going on > here with me and Jon on this matter. > > With metta, > Howard 21348 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Where did you get the idea that there is no self? The understanding of not-self leads to the understanding of no self. But the Buddha did not say this outright for fear of (1) bewilderment and (2) annihilation view to arise in others. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think -- Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn109.html The fact that the Buddha employed the technique of counter-questioning the silly monk's thinking "what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self" implies that there is no self. It requires some intelligence to figure this out. The meaning is hidden. > P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of > contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." The statement "self is not-self" is different from the statement "self is not self". Not-self is a term in itself. And self is a term in itself. In the latter statement, "self" implies a concrete entity called the "self" that exists. The term "self" is a noun. In the former statement, "not-self" is not a noun. It doesn't imply a concrete entity called the "self". It has no allusions to that. I think your difficulty in understanding this stems from the lack of knowledge that there is no self. The knowledge of not-self leads to the knowledge of no self. How can it be otherwise? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21349 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Change anicca To Christine In a message dated 4/15/03 10:37:07 AM, cforsyth@v... writes: << Dear Group, I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, not even for a week or two', she mourned. This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should matter, but somehow it does. metta, Christine >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Good question Christine, is this not anicca (impermanence)? Change is the very essence of our moment to moment experience. One of the things that might be worth looking at is anicca is a word often associated with the pleasant sensations of jhana. By allowing jhana to manifest we directly experience the pleasurable sensations of impermanence. Best to you, layman Jeff 21350 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams To Paul: In a message dated 4/16/03 4:04:35 AM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Sorry to pick up on this post, having a delicate nature, but it does cause me to ponder the question, since physical reality is often called an illusion, Marra (Maya), and dreaming is also and illusion, then what is the difference between keeping one's vows in the physical and not in the dream world? While in the case of an unenlightened monastic we would of course say he or she is trying, and if they fail, well they try again. But, in the case of an enlightened being, an Arhat, if he or she is enlightened, should this one be liberated from grasping in the dream world as well as the physical world? best to all layman Jeff 21351 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Sarah, op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: >> >> "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and >> Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what >> is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. > ..... > This is a little unclear, I think. Craving or attachment (tanha) is the > cause of suffering. Kamma arises on account of attachment and the other > defilements. N: When we look at the four analytical knowledges we see how complicated it all is, and depending on the aspect what is cause under one heading may be effect on another heading. See Budhist dictionary about this subject. Also: the Netti (Guide), at the beginning. I find this subject very difficult and I cannot go into it now. However, this does not mean that there are contradictions. When there are seemingly contradictions we should go more deeply into the material that is more complex than we thought at first sight. I had a lot of trouble with the Way: just before the repulsiveness, Way 74 at end: truth of suffering is mindfulness, truth of origination is precraving (we talked of that), which originates that mindfulness. I think Kom said something about this but I still find it difficult. Could Kom perhaps explain again? Also now, Way 76: It shows that there are many aspects. Nina. 21352 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To Dave In a message dated 4/16/03 8:07:38 AM, dwlemen@y... writes: DAVE: Do you consider the effort you have put into OOB to be beneficial towards the relief of suffering? How did/does this effort help you towards enlightenment? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff: I believe you have completely misunderstood my message. In fact I'm not sure if you read the original message I posted on this subject, but I will just clarify for you that I began to have these experiences when I was an adolescent in the late 60s and early 70s far before I had any idea that OOB experiences were possible. In fact I was quite sure I was going insane. I spoke to a few psychologists about my experiences and their assessment was the experiences were symptomatic of psychological problems that they were sure, through lots of medication and regular treatment, they could eradicate for me. When I began a daily meditation practice in 1973 the OOB experiences immediately became more frequent and more intense. It wasn't until an old lady (an old friend); who happened to be a crypto-Coptic mystic, gave me a context for the experiences and provided me with some training; that I gained control over the experiences. So, yes I think my experiences with OOB would be helpful to anyone in the dharma who, like me, began to have OOBs spontaneously some point in their meditation practice. While your humorous Donald Duck story was probably intended to trivialize this conversation, I have a perfectly functional model within which even the silly dreams of a child can conform to the OOB model, which is the central requisite of lucidity, which states: if the experience is lucid, then it falls into the necessary parameters of this inquiry. Just because your child's mind attempted to construct a rational for the experience by constructing cartoon characters out of all of the "characters" in your lucid dream, does not mean you did not have an OOB, which may have been an encounter with hungry ghosts. As for you assertion that dreams are only the subconscious mind trying to make sense out of randomly firing neurons, perhaps your dreams are just that. But, as you deepen your practice to the point that you maintain mindfulness even in deep sleep, I assure you, your dreams will stop being "random firing" of neurons. Best to you layman Jeff 21353 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: Fw: Hello!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > wow, I really didn't know that there are so many > things behind the Buddhist religion. > Everything has a story or meaning. I really > appreciated the answers and I learned a lot. > > I am quite interested to know more. > Could, you please write some rules or details about > how the monks use the 'Alms Bowl' !! Hi Star Kid Anne-Catherine! You are very welcome for the answers and thank you for expressing your gratitude so nicely; you must be a very respectful and proper young lady, someone your parents must be proud of. Yes, there are a lot of things behind the Buddhist religion…a lot more than most think. You ask a lot of different questions about the Alms bowls and eating, and I am glad that you are so interested. Many people consider Buddhism a philosophy because they tend to forget that Buddhism requires people to `do' a lot of things, rather than just `think' a lot of things. Dietary rules, restrictions, and guidelines are, what I consider, the most forgotten and overlooked aspect of Buddhism, even by Buddhists; and yet it is one of the most important aspects of Buddhism. I am going to lump all of your questions about food together and just write some about Buddhism and eating. Buddhist monks have 227 different rules (precepts) that they must follow (Buddhist nuns have 250 precepts). Of those precepts, the majority of them concern food and eating! Why all the important emphasis on eating? Because it is through food, and how it is approached, that lays the groundwork for most of our thinking about the world and our ability to control desire. When people are able to eat whatever they want whenever they want, they usually make all the wrong choices. One place I really hate to go to is a grocery store in the USA! They are usually so flashy, overloaded with food choices, unnatural, and decadent that I feel like I have just walked into a Casino! The food in a grocery store isn't usually what is healthy for people, it is what appeals to their most basic desires and intensifies their instinctual fears. The end result is that most of the American population is overweight and suffering from various nutrition-based illnesses. The major thing is that Buddhist monks are supposed to eat only one meal a day…which is usually done before noon. This sounds brutal and difficult to most people, but it really isn't. I have done it for 10 days during meditation retreats and I actually like the practice. If the food during the one meal is nutritionally balanced and natural, that is all a person needs for the entire day…even if doing a lot of physical activity (I also help clean the temple everyday, for about two hours, during retreats...and one meal is enough and I don't get hungry). As far as the alms bowl, there are a few specific rules I can mention: Monks are to focus on the bowl itself while receiving food, and monks are not supposed to hide curry or other foods under rice so that they will receive more. And everything that the monks eat goes into the bowl, there are no compartments to keep food separated like we do on plates. That is because the food is supposed to be eaten to help the body live and that is it; it isn't supposed to be eaten for pleasure, taste, etc. Anne-Catherine, you ask some other questions in this letter, but I am going to answer them in an additional letter. I don't like my letters to be too long (Don't laugh! ;-). Let me end with some of the actual rules for monks while eating, so that you can get an idea of how important the act of eating is, and how we all should be more mindful of it: 27. I will receive almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed. 28. I will receive almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. 29. I will receive almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. 30. I will receive almsfood level with the edge (of the bowl): a training to be observed. 31. I will eat almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed. 32. I will eat almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. 33. I will eat almsfood methodically: a training to be observed. 34. I will eat almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. 35. I will not eat almsfood taking mouthfuls from a heap: a training to be observed. 36. I will not hide bean curry and foods with rice out of a desire to get more: a training to be observed. 37. Not being ill, I will not eat rice or bean curry that I have requested for my own sake: a training to be observed. 38. I will not look at another's bowl intent on finding fault: a training to be observed. 39. I will not take an extra-large mouthful: a training to be observed. 40. I will make a rounded mouthful: a training to be observed. 41. I will not open the mouth when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it: a training to be observed. 42. I will not put the whole hand into the mouth while eating: a training to be observed. 43. I will not speak with the mouth full of food: a training to be observed. 44. I will not eat from lifted balls of food: a training to be observed. 45. I will not eat nibbling at mouthfuls of food: a training to be observed. 46. I will not eat stuffing out the cheeks: a training to be observed. 47. I will not eat shaking (food off) the hand: a training to be observed. 48. I will not eat scattering rice about: a training to be observed. 49. I will not eat sticking out the tongue: a training to be observed. 50. I will not eat smacking the lips: a training to be observed. 51. I will not eat making a slurping noise: a training to be observed. 52. I will not eat licking the hands: a training to be observed. 53. I will not eat licking the bowl: a training to be observed. 54. I will not eat licking the lips: a training to be observed. 55. I will not accept a water vessel with a hand soiled by food: a training to be observed. 56. I will not, in an inhabited area, throw away bowl-rinsing water that has grains of rice in it: a training to be observed. Metta, James Ps. No, it isn't really that hard to write poetry. If you were in my English class, I would teach you to write poetry with no problems at all ;-). 21354 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/16/03 7:37:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > Your example of different cetasikas arising when citta contacts rupa is > different from what I had in mind but probably better. I was thinking, > in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very > least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying > any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. Possibly > this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to > hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory > answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. > > Larry > ============================= You're right! All positions are just opinions, and even when they are right, they're restrictions of the full story, and mere reflections of reality to begin with, not the thing itself. We really ought to give our own positions and postures and suppositions a rest, and just study what the Buddha said and follow his teachings as best we can, and maybe finally get to the point where we won't need positions, because we'll see directly exactly what is what! 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) 21355 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 8:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you > but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my misunderstanding it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my apology. It seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, but I could of course be mistaken. -------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. I see that the discussion is leaning toward talk on whether > computers exist or not. I am not interested and would not engage in > that kind of discussion. > > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: As you wish, Victor. It seemed to me that that was the crux of the matter. But be that as it may, you are of course free to engage or not engage in a discussion of that or any other topic as you see fit. ========================= 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) 21356 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, Just to follow this a little further - --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, >I was thinking, > in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very > least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying > any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. ..... Absolute realities (paramattha dhammas) remain as such regardless of what other paramattha dhammas arise with them, experience them and so on. As you rightly say, rupa can only be experienced by consciousness. A concept (pannati)is not defined as a ‘conglomeration’ in this sense of two or more and I don’t think Howard suggested this (but I’ll leave him out of this in case I get into trouble as he just did with Victor;-)). A concept is that which is thought about or imagined either based on the actual or not. In other words, the rupa such as sound can be directly known even though it is always experienced as the object of a citta such as hearing consciousness and cetasikas. When the same sound is experienced repeatedly through the mind door, it is marked and embellished or proliferated about. In other words, it is a concept of ‘sound’ or ‘bird’ or ‘loud’ that is now the object. The experiencing of concept is not necessarily at all in words as I think you may have suggested. In one of your posts to Howard (21195) you made some good points and gave very useful quotes from Way. You said rightly I think: “The main point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by accumulations....”. This is true even for a baby with no words. I liked the quote you gave very much which showed how there is no extreme lobha, dosa or moha with strong kammic results in the sense-door process on account of “the brevity of the same impulsion”, but these arise in the following mind-door processes. Still, the “impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition.” So the strongest kilesa arise with concepts as object. It helps to understand a little about processes, but understanding the difference between concepts and realities is, I think, even more important for the development of satipatthana. As you correctly summarised: “So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and therefor the seat of self-view ....” >Possibly > this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to > hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory > answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. ..... ;-) When there is “the appearance of being a compact whole”, we can be sure that there is no awareness or understanding but thinking of concepts again. If there is awareness of sound or hardness or other rupas, this doesn’t mean there is or should be no thinking of wholes such as computers and chariots. It just depends whether there is any wrong view at such moments of thinking or not. In a different thread to Nina, you mentioned that a king and his servant may experience similar kamma results (vipaka cittas) and I thought it was a good comment. The sound or visible object experienced by consciousness at this moment may be good or bad kamma results for either. It’s very helpful to appreciate, as you do, the distinction between kamma results and defilements (kilesa) arising on account of those experiences in the following mind-door processes in particular. Appreciating your reflections and Howard’s too. I think they're important points you are both addressing. Metta, Sarah ====== 21357 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hi Paul. --- ajahn_paul wrote: > actually, i come visit everyday,, but may not have time to read all > the messages! ^_~ ..... ^_~ In that case you may have skipped the quote I gave recently with reference to arahants not dreaming. I’ll requote the relevant few lines again below. ..... > i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of > desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have > sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion > on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! ..... @.@ I am really SURE you won’t find anything to support this is any of the Pali texts or commentaries so I’d take ‘some books’ with a pinch of salt. Others may have the same question, so let me try to add quotes from texts. This is from the extract I quoted the other day about the 4 kinds of dreams from an ancient Abhidhamma commentary. Sammohavinodani (dispeller of Delusion), comy to Vibhanga, PTS, 2051ff: ********** “BUT ONLY TRAINERS AND ORDINARY MEN SEE THESE FOUR KINDS OF DREAMS OWING TO NON-ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. NON-TRAINERS DO NOT SEE THEM OWING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS.” ********** Non-trainers are arahants who have eradicated all defilements and abandoned all perversions. Therefore they don’t dream. Furthermore, in the Kathavatthu(Points of Controversy), which is another Abhidhamma text, various issues or controversies concerning arahants which arose after the Buddha passed away are raised. The first one relates to your question. The controverted point is “that an arahant has impure discharge”. The commentary to the Kathavatthu gives a clear summary and I’ll quote the first part here (ch 11,1): “Whether there can be impure discharge from an arahan? is asked by the Sakavadin concerning a notion now entertained by some, for instance, by the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas. these have noted seminal discharge among those who profess arahanship, in the belief that they have won that which is not won, or among those who profess arahanship, yet are over-confident and deceitful. And they wrongly attribute to devas of the Mara group the conveyance hereof, to such. The opponent affirms it. Now the question: “Has an arahan lust?” is asked, because seminal discharge is caused by lust, and its meaning is clear......” ****** And to read more, you’ll all have to buy or borrow these Abhidhamma texts ^_~ No attachment = No dreams and No ‘impure discharge’. Metta, Sarah ====== 21358 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > Your remarks are really good for everybody here, so I answer now on dsg. On > this forum we can also write very personal letters, we can share these with > others because it is about Dhamma. Are you from Sri Lanka? And whereabouts? > See below. > ---------- > Van: "yasalalaka" > Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:54:22 -0000 > Aan: nilo@e... > Onderwerp: Abhidhamma and Meditation > > I presume this e-mail is being directed to Ms.Nina Van Gorkom. I > read with interest your letters and am reading the Abhidhamma in > Daily Life. You write on Nama-rupa and how to see it in meditation > to understand the ultimate reality and no-self. There is not much > problem in noting the nama and rupa in hearing , seeing,tasting, > smelling,feeling and thinking. Problem is doing actions... there is > the causal aspect along with the nama and rupa. When walking for > instance how should one note nama rupa, or when cutting, cooking etc. > > Nina: As Howard explained, all this is not a matter of taking the book in > hand and then pinpoint this is such, that is such. We should see the > Abhidhamma as a foundation knowledge and let it sink in. It helps you to see > that whatever happens in your life is only conditioned realities. You do not > have to try to catch realities. > I take a momentary approach to samatha and to vipassana. There is no need to > try to do anything, let cittas arise by conditions. Otherwise the idea of > self becomes so strong, but the aim is less clinging to self. > Samatha: this means a moment of kusala citta. Vipassana: this means > beginning to develop understanding of the present reality, whatever it may > be, as non-self. There is no rule that you have to do this first, then that, > just let it arise naturally. Then there is no obstacle, no idea of I have to > sit, or, I am distracted by daily activities. As you could read in my post > about attending to the sick, such activities do not distract. We can think > with confidence of the Buddha, a moment of samatha. Then sometimes, but not > often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and > developing understanding of the present reality, and that this is the > highest respect to him. There is sound, there is hardness, we do not have to > sit somewhere else to experience them. They can be objects of the > development of understanding. I say, development, because we should not > expect clear understanding yet of: hearing is nama, sound is rupa. > In theory we learn that nama experiences and that rupa does not experience > anything. It is an extremely slow process to learn their characteristics > when they appear in daily life, for example, when hearing now. This is not > just noting, it is understanding of those characteristics which develops, > not you who notices them. We cannot force the growth of understanding. We > should have confidence that listening to the Dhamma, intellectual > understanding of it, considering thoroughly what we heard are the conditions > for direct awareness and understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to > understand that awareness and understanding arise when there are the > appropriate conditions, not because of "I" who try to have them. > I appreciate very much what the subcommentary to the Satipatthana sutta > states about four meditation subjects for every occasion: > the Buddha, loving-kindness, mindfulness of death, and meditation of > foulness.> > Don't we have many opportunities to recollect them in the midst of our > activities? > We have to know that we cling immediately to kusala citta, or to the > pleasant feeling that may accompany it. Without the Abhidhamma we would not > know this. > There are many citttas with attachment in a day. I was having some > correspondance with someone about lobha arising because of another person's > kind words, and I said we are such a mixture of kusala and akusala. But more > important than pointing out the lobha, attachment, is understanding that it > is conditioned. Otherwise we may try not to have it and in that way we are > deluding ourselves. We should not try not to laugh, being afraid of lobha, > because such trying is again motivated by lobha. Behaving in a unnatural > way, suppressing laughing (I could not anyway, I like laughing), is not the > Middle way and then we are on the wrong Path. > I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not hesitate to bring up your > questions, > with appreciation, > Nina. Nina, It was indeed a great pleasure (a little attacment, perhaps) to read your reply to my querry. I am from Kandy in Sri Lanka and living in France for nearly forty years now. I meditated with, Godwin Samararatne and Ven. Amata Gavesi. I am now trying to make the best of my "after retirment" in the Dhamma. Your writing on the Abhidhama is really appreciated. As you had pointed out nama-rupa is a very beneficial way to be with the Dhamma in our daily life. This is also a vipassana experience in our daily living, as an extension of sitting meditation. In being aware of the arammana in a sedentary state, without the 'disturbance' of activities outside it, I find is very profitable. But watching or being aware of, conditional dependance in sitting meditation becomes complex. For instance when you hear( nama) a sound, you can merely be aware of it as a sound (rupa). There is nama and rupa, and that is it. But when you 'direct' the mind to listen to the sound (hetu), you hear(phala). If you get a smell, you be aware(nama) of it as a smell(rupa). If you do not rest at that, but wants to know what the semell is (hetu) you smell it (phala). In meditation, awareness does not go beyond the contact of the arammana. But in daily activity, differentiate nama and rupa from hetu -phala , becomes complex due to there being so many nama rupa playing their part in the same activity......... That is why I pose you that question for clarification. I understand that conditional dependance is a different aspect of the Buddhas teaching, some even say it is another name for the teachings of the Buddha, and different from the Abhidhamma-which is all about citta-cetasika. I hope that you would go into this aspect of the dhamma and write about the application of it in daily life. with metta, yasalalaka 21359 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" < I am from Kandy in Sri Lanka and living in > France for nearly forty years now. I meditated with, Godwin > Samararatne and Ven. Amata Gavesi. I understand that > conditional dependance is a different aspect of the Buddhas teaching, > some even say it is another name for the teachings of the Buddha, and > different from the Abhidhamma-which is all about citta-cetasika. > I hope that you would go into this aspect of the dhamma and write > about the application of it in daily life. > > with metta, > yasalalaka ________ Dear Yasalalaka, It is good to have another member from Sri lanka here, there are a few already. I knew Godwin and stayed at his lovely place above the tea plantation for 3 weeks in 1989. In the Vibhanga , the second book of the Abhidhamma, the Paticcasamuppada(dependent origniation) is given a large chapter. And in fact much of the Abhidhamma is about conditionality. Citta, cetasika and rupa are defined so that they can be seen and their conditional nature understood. It is a good topic, we can lean alot by discusiing this. RobertK 21360 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, No, whether computers exist or not was not the crux of the matter. In fact, whether things exist or not is not the crux of the Buddha's teaching. Talk on such topic springs from complication in thought and leads to complication in thought and speculative views. Regarding your previous message,* here is a list of assumption that you made. 1. Most people presuppose that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". 2. The presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers" is false. 3. If the statement "A computer is impermanent" is taken literally, it carries the presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". Those assumptions in and of themselves have nothing to do with the question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is the following quote: Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but literally it is false. What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth and falsehood. Regards, Victor * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21345 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my misunderstanding > it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my apology. It > seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, but I > could of course be mistaken. [snip] > As you wish, Victor. It seemed to me that that was the crux of the > matter. But be that as it may, you are of course free to engage or not engage > in a discussion of that or any other topic as you see fit. > ========================= > With metta, > Howard 21361 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma > discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. I am interested in the quotes from the Vinaya Pitaka that says this. I can't seem to find it at AccessToInsight. Your help is appreciated. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21362 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:30am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The discourses you quoted do not support the view that there is no self. Seeing each and every aggregate being not self does not lead to the view "there is no self." The view "there is no self" is a speculative view. Regards, Victor P.S. The statement "self is not-self" is a contradiction like the statement "self is not self". --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > Where did you get the idea that there is no self? > > The understanding of not-self leads to the understanding of no self. > > But the Buddha did not say this outright for fear of (1) bewilderment > and (2) annihilation view to arise in others. > > Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on > arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange > of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he > was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable > Gotama, is there a self?" > > When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. > > "Then is there no self?" > > A second time, the Blessed One was silent. > > Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. > > Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda > said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer > when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" > > "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is > a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be > conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of > eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If > I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with > those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism > [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I -- > being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were > to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the > arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" > > "No, lord." > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no > self -- were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered > Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used > to have now not exist?'" > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of > a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, > perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is > not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what > is not-self?" > > Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of > thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible > that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with > craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in > this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is > not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then > what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' > Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard > to this & that topic here & there? What do you think -- Is form > constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is > inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it > fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: > 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn109.html > > > The fact that the Buddha employed the technique of counter- questioning > the silly monk's thinking "what self will be touched by the actions > done by what is not-self" implies that there is no self. It requires > some intelligence to figure this out. The meaning is hidden. > > > > P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of > > contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." > > The statement "self is not-self" is different from the statement "self > is not self". > > Not-self is a term in itself. And self is a term in itself. > > In the latter statement, "self" implies a concrete entity called the > "self" that exists. The term "self" is a noun. > > In the former statement, "not-self" is not a noun. It doesn't imply a > concrete entity called the "self". It has no allusions to that. > > I think your difficulty in understanding this stems from the lack of > knowledge that there is no self. > > The knowledge of not-self leads to the knowledge of no self. How can > it be otherwise? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21363 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > The discourses you quoted do not support the view that there is no > self. > > Seeing each and every aggregate being not self does not lead to the > view "there is no self." > > The view "there is no self" is a speculative view. So be it. I tried, and that's good enough. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21364 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:09am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok. That is fine. Not seeing the contradiction in the statement "Self is not-self" won't get anyone too far in rational reasoning, let alone clearly understanding the Buddha's teaching. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > So be it. I tried, and that's good enough. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21365 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:39am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Ok. That is fine. Not seeing the contradiction in the > statement "Self is not-self" won't get anyone too far in rational > reasoning, let alone clearly understanding the Buddha's teaching. I would not accept such an accusation. (a) (assumption of) self is a fabrication (b) fabrication arises and falls away (c) fabrication is not-self (d) (assumption of) self is not-self If the (assumption of) self is a fabrication, then it implies that there is no concrete entity called a self that exists. It is merely a mental fabrication. "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21366 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > the following quote: ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > and falsehood. > ====================== Manipulatively ;-), but 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) 21367 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, What you wrote is disturbing. Where did you get the idea that I feel disturbed? And, are you really sorry? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > > the following quote: > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > > and falsehood. > > > ====================== > Manipulatively ;-), but with metta, > Howard 21368 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: productive and supporting kamma Dear Larry and all, As promised here are some texts about kamma: Summary of Topics of Abh and Commentary, Ch 5, Process Free, Commentary (p. 174, the new edition of Abhidhammata Sangaha and Co): N: You remember the Siivaka sutta and Co? We see the intricate manner of the working of different kammas and other conditions as well. Another text about kamma: seed and sprout, in Ch 8, Causal Condition (Dependent Origination), Commentary (p. 292): N: When we study the Dependent Origination, one of the factors is becoming, bhava. This has two aspects: as cause: kamma bhava, and as result: rebirth process, uppatti bhava. Here we return to Dave's question about hetu and phala. Again an example that there are two aspects, and it depends on what heading we consider them. Here is no contradiction. We have to consider deeply the Dependent Origination. It is not a theory but pertains to our life. Nina. Nina. 21369 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, truthfulness, no. 18 Perfections, Ch 8, truthfulness, no. 18 We read in the ³Basket of Conduct² III, 11, Conduct of Kanhadípåyana [13] : And again, when I was Kanhadípåyana [14] , a seer, I fared dissatisfied for more than fifty years. No one knew of this dissatisfied mind of mine for I told no one; the dissatisfaction went on in my mind. A fellow Brahma-farer, Mandavya, a friend of mine, a great seer, in connexion with a former deed, acquired impalement on a stake. I, after attending to him, restored him to health. Having asked permission I went back to what was my own hermitage. A brahman friend of mine, bringing his wife and little son- the three people, coming together, approached as guests. While I was exchanging greetings with them, seated in my own hermitage, the youth threw a ball along (and) angered a poisonous snake. Then that little boy, looking for the way by which the ball had gone, touched the head of the poisoned snake with his hand. At his touch, the snake, angered, relying on its strong venom, angry with utmost anger, instantly bit the youth. As he was bitten by the poisonous snake the youth fell to the ground, whereby afflicted was I; that sorrow (of the parents) worked on mine. Comforting them that were afflicted, shaken by grief, first of all I made the highest, supremely glorious asseveration of truth: ³For just seven days, I, with a mind of faith, desiring merit, fared the Brahma-faring. Until that time, my faring for more than fifty years I fared unwillingly. By this truth may there be well-being, the poison destroyed, may Yaññadatta live.² With this (asseveration of) truth made by me, the brahman youth who had trembled with the strength of poison, rousing himself, stood up and was well. There was no one equal to me in truth- this was my perfection of Truth. Footnotes: 13. See also Kanhadípåyana Jåtaka, no. 444. 14. Kanha means black. His body became stained when he sat under his friend Mandavya¹s body who was impaled on a stake and dripping with blood. 21370 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 0:43pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Please clarify what you wrote "(assumption of) self is a fabrication." Are you saying the the statement "self is a fabrication" is an assumption? Or, are you saying that the assumption of self is a fabrication? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with "(assumption of) self is a fabrication." Thanks. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > I would not accept such an accusation. > > (a) (assumption of) self is a fabrication > (b) fabrication arises and falls away > (c) fabrication is not-self > (d) (assumption of) self is not-self > > If the (assumption of) self is a fabrication, then it implies that > there is no concrete entity called a self that exists. It is merely a > mental fabrication. > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... > assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a > fabrication. > > "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self > as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. > > "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... > > (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21371 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:46pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, Sarah, Mike, Jeff and All, My thinking over impermanence, change (anicca) began when I was wondering about how all of us, blinded by Wrong View, could ever understand what Right View really is. I intellectually understand that Right View means to "see" things in their real nature as marked with the Three Characteristics of Suffering (dukkha or "unsatisfactoriness"), Impermanence and Not-Self; that all phenomenal existence without exception is intrinsically unsatisfactory in that there is no "thing" which can yield lasting happiness; that this is in large part because of the second characteristic - Impermanence. Everything which comes into existence passes away eventually; there is no stability or permanence anywhere to be found. Reading further on Impermanence, I came across Bhikkhu Bodhi's teaching on Anicca: "According to the Buddha all momentary happenings go through three stages, three submoments: a moment of arising, finally a moment of perishing, and between the two "a transformation of that which stands". This intermediate stage means that even in the brief moment that a thing exists it isn't static but changing, a process, a flux of becoming. The stable entities that we see are really bundles of events, "packages" of momentary flashings strung together by laws of conditionality. http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/threeStages.htm I feel a little uncomfortable with this 'flux of becoming' - ( :-) though I don't imagine Bhikku Bodhi would feel at all rattled by that remark :-)) 'Flux' means "The act of flowing; a continuous moving on or passing by, as a flowing stream; constant succession; change." This doesn't mirror what I experience as happening to everything in daily life. My experience is that change, though relentless, doesn't happen at a constant rate with all things. It is discontinuous. Sarah asked: Do we (or panna) even see this `everything' changing in `fits and starts'? CJF: No, I don't, always see the changing - I notice that 'how things are' has changed. But I don't think that is necessarily an indicator that there is continuous imperceptible changes occuring in every moment or sub-moment. I think everything is subject to change, and could change at any time, and must change sooner or later, yet also things endure for varying periods. At some times they change and at other times they don't. It seems to me somehow that the idea/belief of "continuous imperceptible changes" could be the result of people seeking a type of defense or barrier against sudden chaotic happenings, against dukkha. *Everything* changes *all the time* is predictable and comforting in some way. Could it be a search for a type of certainty? Variable unpredictable change is more frightening than the smooth certainty of flux. I am reminded of a common reaction in those facing unresolvable uncertainty - build barriers of mental and physical busy-ness - the 'workaholic' syndrome, "I'm busy and have goals to be met, reports to be written, meetings to attend - therefore I exist and I'm safe". Bhikkhu Bodhi says "according to the Buddha" - can someone point me to Suttas that teach a doctrine of constant flux? I've found a few that indicate while things arise and pass away, they also endure. metta, Christine 21372 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor - In a message dated 4/17/03 1:19:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > What you wrote is disturbing. Where did you get the idea that I > feel disturbed? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: 'Disturbing' means disturbing to someone. I'm not disturrbed by what I wrote. I presume that you were, or, if not, then you thought that someone is disturbed by it, or should be. ---------------------------------------------------- > > And, are you really sorry? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I am. I am really sorry that you wrote an "attack piece" to me, describing my ideas (ideas!) as disturbing, and, especially, suggesting an attempt at manipulation of truth on my part. I had written to you honestly, expressing my perspective, and you responded in what I consider to be an unkind way. But you caught me, Victor. You definitely caught me at being annoyed. I found your post to be unfriendly, as I also find the post of yours to which I'm currently replying. But I am happy for the opportunity to look at and let go of the anger arising in me. I see it clearly. Mild as it is, it is definitely a disturbance of the mind, definitely dukkha. I also know that you did not cause that anger. I can see its sources in myself, and I know that my anger is my problem, and not yours. By attending to the anger, and seeing how it is nothing but painful and useless, I am managing to let it go. (It is actually subsiding quite quickly! :-) --------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > > the following quote: > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > > and falsehood. > > > ====================== > Manipulatively ;-), but 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) 21373 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Way 77, Cemetary Contemplations Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section on the Nine Cemetery Contemplations After explaining body-contemplation in the form of the modes of materiality, the Master said, "And further," in order to explain body-contemplation through the nine cemetery contemplations. Uddhumatam = "Swollen". By reason of the swelled state of the corpse comparable to a pair of wind-filled bellows owing to the gradually uprising bloattedness after death. Vinilakam = "Blue" is stated to be the color of fully differing shades [viparibhinnavannam]. Blue is that corpse which is reddish in the protuberantly fleshy parts, and whitish in the purulent parts, while, in those parts which are predominantly blue it seems to be as though covered with a blue mantle. This is the descriptive statement of the "blue" corpse. Vipubbakajatam = "Festering" is the corpse that is full of pus flowing from the broken parts or from the nine openings of the body. So imameva kayam upasamharati ayampi kho kayo evam dhammo evam bhavi evam anatitoti = "He thinks of his own body thus: 'This body of mine, too, is of the same nature as that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past the condition of becoming like that body.'" This has been stated: By the existence of these three: life [ayu], warmth [usma], consciousness [viññanam], this body can endure to stand, to walk, and do other things; by the separation of these three however this body is indeed a thing like that corpse, is possessed of the nature of corruption, is going to become like that, will become swollen, blue and festering and cannot escape the state of being like that, cannot transcend the condition of swelling up, become blue and festering. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." Thus by laying hold of the state of swelling and so forth, in regard to one's own body or another's, or at one time in regard to one's own and at another in regard to another's, one dwells contemplating the body in the body. Khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten": When crows and other creatures after sitting on the belly or another part of the corpse are eating the carcass by picking the flesh of the belly, of the lips, the corners of the eye and so forth. Samamsalohitam = "Together with (some) flesh and blood": With the flesh and blood still remaining. Nimmamsalohitam = "Blood-besmeared (skeleton) without flesh": When, though rid of flesh, the blood is still not dry. Aññena = "In a different place": In a different direction. Hatthatthikam = "Bone of the hand": the sixty-four kinds of bones of the hand; when these are lying in different places separate from one another. In the explanation of the bone of the foot and so forth, the method is the same as this. Terovassikani = "More than a year old": beyond a year in a state of exposure. Putini = "Rotten": just those in the open become rotten by being exposed to wind, sun and rain for over a year. Bones buried in the earth last longer. Cunnakajatani = "Become dust": scattered in the form of powder. 21374 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] productive and supporting kamma Hi Nina, Thanks for all this info. My main interest in productive and supportive kamma is can a so called 'compact whole' be the result of kamma. In other words, is the assembly of rupas called 'Rob's computer' a result of kamma? How do you understand this? Larry 21375 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Dear KKT, Firstly, I've been most impressed by your careful consideration of the Theravada teachings and Abhidhamma here, even though I know you are well-versed in other traditions. I think it's a good example of what Nina was referring to as listening to the message before shooting down the messenger;-) KKT: I study Buddhism as a << whole >> ie. all different traditions without distinction. Such approach helps me alot to deepen my understanding. The teaching of the Buddha is like a diamond and we have different interpretations because people have different visions of the diamond from different angles. I have a question: Sujin insists on the importance of making the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas. I agree that this is a very important point. My question is that this insistence is proper to Sujin's teachings or of Abhidhamma in general? Metta, KKT 21376 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Please clarify what you wrote "(assumption of) self is a > fabrication." > > Are you saying the the statement "self is a fabrication" is an > assumption? > Or, are you saying that the assumption of self is a fabrication? > > I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with "(assumption of) > self is a fabrication." The assumption of self is a fabrication. If self is merely an assumption, then it implies that self as a concrete entity does not exist. It implies that there is no self. It then follows that self is a fabricated thing. Is it possible to separate fabrication from the fabricated thing? No. Because fabrications fabricate fabricated things. That is what they do. Without fabrications, there are no fabricated things. Therefore, self, a fabricated thing that arises out of an assumption that is a fabrication, is not-self. "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood... From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21377 From: connie Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:42pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Friends. Thank you again to everyone who helped me with today's talk. Especially, Sarah, your reminder of metta... I had a great time. I ended up inspired (if I can claim that) by the Samanera Pañha -- Questions to be Answered by a Novice: One is what? All beings subsist on food. Two is what? Name and form (mind and matter). Three is what? Three kinds of feeling. Four is what? Four Noble Truths. Five is what? Five aggregates subject to grasping. Six is what? Internal six-fold base. Seven is what? Seven Factors of Enlightenment. Eight is what? The Noble Eightfold Path. Nine is what? Nine abodes of beings. Ten is what? He that is endowed with ten attributes is called an Arahant. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/khp/khp-b.html Mine was something like: 1. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha... Anuradha Sutta 2. samutta & paramattha (nama & rupa) truths 3. anicca, dukkha, anatta & Tipitaka 4. 4 realities & 4 Noble Truths 5. different niyamas or 'natural laws of order' ...etc. through 14 with some numbers looking like multiple choice, just in case. I told them to go ahead and interrupt any time they wanted and it was over in no time even though it went longer than it was supposed to and I'd've been happy to keep going. peace, connie 21378 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, Thanks for the well ordered and comprehensive analysis. I didn't have a problem wth any of it. It occurred to me that an interesting arena in which to discriminate between concept and reality is in a conversation. Concept is the words and reality is the emotional reactions to the words. A more subtle analysis could occur using the discursive thinking process. Would it be correct to say concept can only be an object in citta process? I assume vittaka and vicara (thinking) would accompany a root citta in the javana (reaction) series. Similarly for sati and ditthi (views). So in order to make this distinction one would have to discriminate between words and thinking as concept and reality. Correct? Larry 21379 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and duplicity, is what I found disturbing You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not intended to be. Regard, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Dear Victor - > [snip] > 'Disturbing' means disturbing to someone. I'm not disturrbed by what I > wrote. I presume that you were, or, if not, then you thought that someone is > disturbed by it, or should be. [snip] > Actually, I am. I am really sorry that you wrote an "attack piece" to > me, describing my ideas (ideas!) as disturbing, and, especially, suggesting > an attempt at manipulation of truth on my part. I had written to you > honestly, expressing my perspective, and you responded in what I consider to > be an unkind way. > But you caught me, Victor. You definitely caught me at being annoyed. > I found your post to be unfriendly, as I also find the post of yours to which > I'm currently replying. > But I am happy for the opportunity to look at and let go of the anger > arising in me. I see it clearly. Mild as it is, it is definitely a > disturbance of the mind, definitely dukkha. I also know that you did not > cause that anger. I can see its sources in myself, and I know that my anger > is my problem, and not yours. By attending to the anger, and seeing how it is > nothing but painful and useless, I am managing to let it go. (It is actually > subsiding quite quickly! :-) [snip] > With metta, > Howard 21380 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:49pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok, now I see what you are saying. Please also clarify this for me. When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? Thanks. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > The assumption of self is a fabrication. If self is merely an > assumption, then it implies that self as a concrete entity does not > exist. It implies that there is no self. > > It then follows that self is a fabricated thing. > > Is it possible to separate fabrication from the fabricated thing? No. > Because fabrications fabricate fabricated things. That is what they > do. Without fabrications, there are no fabricated things. > > Therefore, self, a fabricated thing that arises out of an assumption > that is a fabrication, is not-self. > > > "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate > fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do > they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate > form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling > into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood... From > fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate > consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate > fabricated things, they are called fabrications. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21381 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Congratulations on your successful talk. The approach of "Buddhism by the Numbers" sounds like a very interesting way of introducing Buddhism. I am thinking that it might make a good magazine article. I note that the Anguttara Nikakaya only goes up to 11, yet you went to 14. You have obviously added some material. I would be interested in getting more details from you on your groupings and classifications. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends. > Thank you again to everyone who helped me with today's talk. > Especially, Sarah, your reminder of metta... I had a great time. I > ended up inspired (if I can claim that) by the Samanera Pañha -- > Questions to be Answered by a Novice: > One is what? All beings subsist on food. > Two is what? Name and form (mind and matter). > Three is what? Three kinds of feeling. > Four is what? Four Noble Truths. > Five is what? Five aggregates subject to grasping. > Six is what? Internal six-fold base. > Seven is what? Seven Factors of Enlightenment. > Eight is what? The Noble Eightfold Path. > Nine is what? Nine abodes of beings. > Ten is what? He that is endowed with ten attributes is called an > Arahant. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/khp/khp-b.html > > Mine was something like: > 1. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of > Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha... Anuradha Sutta > 2. samutta & paramattha (nama & rupa) truths > 3. anicca, dukkha, anatta & Tipitaka > 4. 4 realities & 4 Noble Truths > 5. different niyamas or 'natural laws of order' > ...etc. through 14 with some numbers looking like multiple choice, just > in case. I told them to go ahead and interrupt any time they wanted and > it was over in no time even though it went longer than it was supposed > to and I'd've been happy to keep going. > > peace, > connie 21382 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:57pm Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > You know the war now between America and Iraq. I > absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my > family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big > drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I > mean a real scream. > > Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war > against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about > anti-war? > > If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will > they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, > if yes, most likely into what? > Metta, > > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary! Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that the war coverage on TV upset you. I didn't see anything on TV news coverage with blood going across the camera lens like you describe, but I probably would have been rather upset also. I hope that you are better now. Hilary, I'm sorry, but I am not going to answer any of your questions about war, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is a very volatile subject and my answers are incorrectly viewed as me pushing a personal agenda. Frankly, I don't feel safe or accepted in this group discussing this subject. I wish I could help you, but I can't. I hope you can understand. If I ever meet you face-to-face, I will then answer your questions about war. Metta, James 21383 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > > ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma > > discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. > > I am interested in the quotes from the Vinaya Pitaka that says this. I > can't seem to find it at AccessToInsight. > > Your help is appreciated. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and you will get the picture. Metta, James 21384 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? > > Hi Star Kid Hilary! > > Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that the war coverage on TV upset you. I > didn't see anything on TV news coverage with blood going across the > camera lens like you describe, but I probably would have been rather > upset also. I hope that you are better now. > > Hilary, I'm sorry, but I am not going to answer any of your questions > about war, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is a very > volatile subject and my answers are incorrectly viewed as me pushing > a personal agenda. Frankly, I don't feel safe or accepted in this > group discussing this subject. I wish I could help you, but I > can't. I hope you can understand. If I ever meet you face-to- face, > I will then answer your questions about war. > > Metta, James Dear Hillary The Sakya and the Koluiya Clans had a dispute over the sharing of the waters of the river Rohini. They were about to start a war. The Lord Buddha appeared between the warring parties and asked them, what was more important, water or human blood. They agreed that human blood was more important . The Buddha then spoke to them and the warring parties dispersed peacefully. Buddha was for peace and non-violence. He is known as the one who has given up the punishing rod (nihita-danda). Only weapon he used was love and compassion. Angulimala , way laid people and killed them to take their thumb to make a garland of thousand fingers. Lord Buddha, met him and tamed him by words spoken to him. He later became an Arahat. Some are tamed by cudgels, Some by goads and some by whips. With neither club nor weapon, I by the steadfast one was tamed. So did Buddha tame much feared Alavaka, and even a drunken Elelphant Nalagiri. Buddha's compassion had no limit. He extended it to the smallest animal . He made no distinction, between, men or women, high and low, rich and poor. His boundless love had no religious or class barriers. The well known King Asoka the Great of India was a cruel monarc he was ambitious and wanted to annex the kingdom of Kalinga and in this war thousands were killed and many more wounded and disabled or taken prisnors. He came accross Buddha's teaching and was touched by his great spirit of love and compassion. He became a Buddhist and became the great Buddhist Emperor of India in the third century B.C. "...when he followed the Buddh's creed of compassion he realised the folly of killing. He felt very sad when he thought of the great slaughter( in the Kalinga war), and gave up warfare. He is the only military monarch on record who after victory gave up conquest by war( dig-vijaya) and inaugurated conquest by righteousness (dharma- vijaya). As his rock Edict XIII says, " he sheathed the sword never to unsheath it, and wished no harm to living beings"..The Buddha's Ancient Path by Thera Piyadassi. Yasalalaka 21385 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap Thanks for this suggestion. Yes, it's a good question. OK, I give up. What's the answer? ;-)) Jon 21386 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: So your definition of sabhava is > << having its own individual, unique characteristic >> > but not necessarily << unconditioned >> ? > (and therefore not << independent, self-existing >>) > > And each paramattha dhamma has its own > sabhava (intrinsic nature/individual essence) > Is this correct? > > > The reason I ask you is > because this notion of sabhava > (Sanskrit: svabhava = self-nature) > is very important in Mahayana. > > But in Mahayana, svabhava means > self-sufficient, independent existence > & lasting substance. > > Therefore according to Mahayana, > because the paramattha dhammas > arise and fall away because of > << conditions >>, thus they are not > self-existing, independent, permanent. > In other words, they are EMPTY or > << devoid of self-nature (svabhava) >> > > This is the definition of Emptiness. > > Emptiness = empty of self-nature (svabhava) > ----------------- Thanks for this very clear explanation of the Mahayana teaching on 'sabhava'. From the Theravada perspective (on my reading): (a) The attributes you describe as ‘arising and falling away because of conditions’, ‘not self-existing’, ‘not independent’ and ‘not permanent’ are all encompassed by the twin attributes of ‘conditioned’ and ‘impermanent’. (b) The attribute you describe as ‘devoid of self-nature’ (also referred to as ‘empty/emptiness’) is not found. Only ‘not-self’ (also referred to as ‘empty of self’) is found. The attribute of ‘individual essence' is a vital component of the scheme of things generally. It is the irreducible aspect of dhammas that (partly) earns them the description of ‘ultimate’ (‘paramattha’). To my understanding, ‘sabhava’ has no relation to the ‘conditioned/unconditioned’ issue. I hope this answers your specific questions above. Jon PS I will respond to the other part of you post separately. 21387 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:18am Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage > for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such > quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the > Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and > you will get the picture. James, I didn't say anything about Internet usage. I meant where is the quote that says that monks should not teach laypeople about the Dhamma 'proactively' as in participating in this forum. Your humour is sarcastic. The best I could find at AccessToInsight is: Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma [go to top] 57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 58. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 59. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 60. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 61. [62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. 63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed. 65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed. 67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 68. Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. 69. Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. 70. Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed. 71. Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed. 72. Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html#18 Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? Please explain. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21388 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:27am Subject: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __Now if you turn your back > to the 'monitor', ie. there are > no more visible data and tangible data > to be experienced at your sense-doors, > then you don't know whether those datas > << still exist >> independently of you? > > (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next > to you, continues to experience those datas) > > > To sum up and make more clearly, > I want to know whether the exterior > world exists << independently >> > of an observer/experiencer? > > But I think your answer is negative > since you wrote: > > << > As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing > independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be > speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that > question would be of any value. > >> > > I agree that the answer to such > question should be purely speculative > (only for the sake of speculative > philosophic pleasures :-)) > and useless for the practice. I am familiar with the theory that 'rupas do not exist independently of our experience of them'. Stated like this I think it contains some questionable or at least imprecise underlying assumptions ('rupas existing', for example -- does 'existing' here mean the same as 'continuing to arise and fall away'?). However, putting these considerations aside for the moment, I have a few observations: (a) There is no passage in the suttas directly addressing this question. (b) The theory seems to be contradicted by the Abhidhamma. For example, according to the Abhidhamma: - All rupas are conditioned by 1 of 4 different factors (kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature), and the rupas that the inanimate things such as mountains are conditioned by temperature alone (consciousness has nothing to do with it). - Only a rupa that has already arisen can be the object of consciousness. (c) Any personal view held on this question must by definition be based on deduction or be otherwise speculative, since it concerns something not currently being experienced. I must admit there are some aspects of the theory I have difficulty grasping or taking seriously. For example: (a) It seems to imply that those parts of our body that are not at this moment the object of our (or someone else's) consciousness would not be 'existing'. (b) The frequently-posed question about the sound of the falling tree in the forest could not arise because there could be no 'tree' in the first place, if the '[visible object that is] tree' was not the object of someone's experience at that moment. I hope this clarifies my earlier post. Jon 21389 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as computer Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear KKT, ... > I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. > Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. > > Is computer computer? > > From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended > it > to. No, if it is otherwise. > > > smallchap This would be my answer, too! If it doesn't work as it should (i.e., according to my idea of how it should), then what's the use? Jon 21390 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the > assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in > self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? Yes. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21391 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent > or > impermanent?" is not misconceived, nor is the answer "A computer is > impermanent." I note your assertion that 'a computer is impermanent'. However, I'm not sure what significance you attach to it, in terms of the teachings. Would you care to elaborate? > In one of the post you said that concepts are simply assembled > ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door > impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously > assembled concepts). > > Now you are saying that there is no such thing as concept. Yes, that's right. A concept, by definition, is simply a means of referring to/pointing at something. There is no such 'thing' as concept. That's why it doesn't make any sense to talk about a concept as being impermanent or as arising and falling away. I think a problem can arise for some from the fact that concept is said to be the 'object' of the consciousness that thinks. Perhaps we think of sense-door consciousness and its object which, as we know, is a rupa (i.e., a separate dhamma). But it seems to me that the moment of consciousness with concept as 'object' is different; the only thing 'existing' at such moment is the consciousness itself. Jon 21392 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/16/03 8:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you > > > but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my > misunderstanding > it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my > apology. It > seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, > but I > could of course be mistaken. > -------------------------------------------------- I can assure you you have not misrepresented my position in the slightest. I thought your post to Victor was spot on. We are indeed very much on the same page here, Howard (and may I say what a delight it is ;-)). Jon 21393 From: Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/18/03 12:30:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is > conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false > but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Because of what follows, Victor, I've decided no to respond to issues such as you raise in the foregoing. Please do not continue attempting to discuss these matters with me. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis > for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what > is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and > duplicity, is what I found disturbing > > You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. > The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the > duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not > intended to be. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You have my respect for speaking truly and directly in these last two paragraphs. That aside, what you say there is reason for me to longer discuss any of these issues with you. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Regard, > 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) 21394 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Swee Boon, Thank you, Sir. When there is disagreement between my opinions and Dhamma/Vinaya, I think it's a good idea discard the opinion in favor of one in keeping with Buddhadhamma. Some don't agree. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nidive To: > Hi James, > > > You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage > > for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such > > quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the > > Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and > > you will get the picture. > > James, I didn't say anything about Internet usage. I meant where is > the quote that says that monks should not teach laypeople about the > Dhamma 'proactively' as in participating in this forum. > > Your humour is sarcastic. > > The best I could find at AccessToInsight is: > > Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma [go to top] > > 57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand > and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 58. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 59. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 60. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 61. [62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather > [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a > training to be observed. > > 65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees > and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a > robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 68. Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting > on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 69. Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting > on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 70. Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 71. Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 72. Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking > on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html#18 > > Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? > Please explain. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21395 From: smallchap Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > S: Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" J: Thanks for this suggestion. Yes, it's a good question. OK, I give up. What's the answer? ;-)) S: Yes. Smallchap 21396 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:12am Subject: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Buddhaghosa said in Section 57, Anangana Suttavannanaa, Mulapannaasa, Majjimanikaaya Atthakathaa. "The Buddha Bhagavaa's way of teaching is twofold in terms of the conventional way of teaching (sammutidesanaa) and the ultimate way of teaching (paramatthadesanaa). There, such way of teaching as person, sentient being, woman, man, Royals, Brahmin, gods, and maaro is the conventional way of teaching. Such way of teaching as impermanence, misery, selflessness, aggregates, elements, venues, and Establishment of Recollection (Satipatthaana) is the ultimate way of teaching. There, the Buddha Bhagavaa delivers the conventional way of teaching to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by hearing the teaching in conventional terms, penetrating the meaning, and removing ignorance. On the other hand, the Buddha delivers the ultimate way of teaching to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by hearing the teachings in ultimate terms, penetating the meaning, and removing ignorance." Buddhaghosa also made the following statement in Atthasaalinii, page 223, in Roman edition. "Abhidhamma is the ultimate way of teaching." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12867 Which means that there is no contradiction between both types of teaching. Which means whether one contemplates on concepts or ultimate realities makes no difference. Which means that mere insight into what is concepts and what is ultimate realities would not get anyone near the Gates of Liberation. Which means that vipassana is not the mere development of insight into what is concepts and what is ultimate realities. Of course, I stand corrected if necessary. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21397 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:48am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick. Dear friends, Lodewijk said again that he has no difficulty understanding the text about attending to the sick. He finds it a powerful message. When I help my father to drink he reminds me that I attend to the Buddha. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:08:12 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick. Dear Eltopo, op 16-04-2003 21:42 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: > Can I just ask when you say that in attending > your father, you attend to the Buddha, does this mean the historical > Buddha who lived many centuries ago or a kind of timeless Buddha? If > the latter, I can understand this in a Mahayana sense, but is it ok > in a non-Mahayana sense? I agree with what you say about your father > and this is how it seems to me... N: The Buddha passed away completely: anupaadisesa nibbaana. He left us the Dhamma. Now the Dhamma is our teacher in his stead. That is the meaning of, who sees the Dhamma, sees me. Do you pay respect to the Triple Gem? We can still pay respect and think with confidence and gratefulness of the Buddha, also now. When we do this with kusala citta, not expecting any gain for ourselves, it is a moment of samatha, calm. We do not have to select a specific time for this, we can do it many times a day, amidst our activities. I read in the subcommentary to the Satipa.t.thaanasutta, that there four four meditation subjects for all occasions: These are very daily, like metta, it is the practice. The Buddha's message dating from 600 B.C. contained in the Tipi.taka, is most powerful, it comes through the centuries directly to us, and it is meant for each one of us personally. We also need the Abhidhamma, because without it we would not know that happy feeling does not only arise with kusala citta, when paying respect, but also with clinging, the citta with lobha. We like happy feeling, or we may look for protection outside ourselves with clinging. The Abhidhamma teaches us to scrutinize ourselves. We should know that the Buddha said, be your own refuge, and that is, through satipa.t.thaana. This is a very rare teaching, only Buddhas teach satipa.t.thaana; it is the way to understand the truth of non-self. As we read in the text given by John: In each sutta we are reminded not to be neglectful, to have the full benefit of the rare occasion to hear true Dhamma. Thus, when attending to my father there are many different types of cittas, akusala cittas, with clinging or aversion, and kusala cittas. Sometimes, but not often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and the development of understanding of the present reality, and that this is the highest respect to him. We should remember what the Buddha taught Rahula: different physical phenomena and mental phenomena. These have characteristics, they appear now. Nina. 21398 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:02am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok, I see what you mean now. So when you say "assumption of self is a fabrication," do you mean that the assumption is a fabrication, where the assumption is the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" and so on for the other four aggregates? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the > > assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in > > self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? > > Yes. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon