21400 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Thanks, Rob M ~ I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want to talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to post here... just like it was it too long to talk off of yesterday, but I like paper. To tell you the truth, I probably would've stopped at 12/Dependent Origination, but was having a hard time coming up with anything for 9 and 11... no doubt that'll be fairly obvious when you read my 11 as 2 ones being life as a mirror. Really, it seems like no matter how high a person wanted to count up, it all comes back down to one, letting go, remainderless. peace, connie Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:50:23 -0000 From: "robmoult" 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 :-) 21401 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:39pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Got it! Looks good. I am going to expand on it and re-work it into an article. It will take a couple of weeks. I will send you what I come up with. As for 11: I am going to add in the 11 benefits of loving-kindness: - Sleep peacefully - He awakes fresh, like a flower opening - No bad dreams - One is dear to human beings - One is dear to non-human beings - One is protected by Devas - Fire, poison and weapons cannot injure one - One'e mind becomes easily concentrated - One's complexion becomes serene - One will die unconfused - One will be reborn in bhahma plane (or higher) (Taken from Anguttara Nikaya XI, 16) Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Thanks, Rob M ~ > I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want to > talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to post > here... just like it was it too long to talk off of yesterday, but I > like paper. To tell you the truth, I probably would've stopped at > 12/Dependent Origination, but was having a hard time coming up with > anything for 9 and 11... no doubt that'll be fairly obvious when you > read my 11 as 2 ones being life as a mirror. Really, it seems like no > matter how high a person wanted to count up, it all comes back down to > one, letting go, remainderless. > peace, > connie 21402 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Hi Jon, As you know, I have had this discussion on the DSG at least twice. Rather than focus on "existence" or "non-existence" (which raises the issues you list below), perhaps we should ask, "are rupas which are independent of consciousness part of the scope of the Buddha's teachings?" My answer is that these rupas are only part of the Buddha's teachings in an extremely limited way. In what extremely limited way? I believe that there are Sutta references that identify "external rupas" as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. I do not believe that there are any Sutta references that extend the analysis any deeper. In the Simsapa Sutta, the Buddha made it clear that he only taught a small fraction of what he knew (leaves in hand vs. leaves in forest). The criteria used by the Buddha was "what is conducive to the holy life..." and "what leads to Nibbana". Clearly, any analysis of external rupas that goes deeper than anicca, dukkha, anatta would not be included. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 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 21403 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > 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? What are you driving at? That the "assumption of self" is different from the "assumption of form is self"? Out of all the possible permutations of blending self with form, which one is missed out by the Buddha? If there is no possible permutation that is missed out by the Buddha, then it implies that self is an assumption. It invalidates all the possible permutations of blending self with form. It implies that self cannot be blended with form. It implies that there is no concrete entity called a self that can be blended with form. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21404 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence > 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? Hi KKT, In case you are confusing between Sujin and Sukin, I just want to clarify that the stress on the distinction between concept and reality was made by me, Sukin, on dsg in a couple or more of my posts. Even this it seems has been taken out of context to mean something other than what I intended. I stated this under two different contexts, the first was that any 'progress' along the path of Buddhadhamma must depend on this distinction being made. This is on the intellectual level. The other context was in reference to claims of enlightenment in other traditions. Here I spoke of making this distinction on the experiential level, that if one does not know the difference, then it can be assumed that no enlightenment took place. How anyone else sees it, I don't know. But I personaly haven't read or heard K. Sujin say anything directly about this in the way that I have. BTW, recently even I have come to see the need to explore other view points i.e. those of traditions outside of Buddhadhamma. But my reason is that they not being dictated by Buddhist concepts can show my own clinging and limitation of perception. However I certainly do not see them as having a proper vision of the same "Diamond" as you seem to suggest. The concept of Nirvana, Eightfold path, Enlightenment, even though the same words are used, doesn't mean that the understanding is the same.... Peace, Sukin. 21405 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:24pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? > Please explain. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit in which you ask. Metta, James 21406 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Connie Congratulations on what sounds like a very successful talk. --- connie wrote: > Thanks, Rob M ~ > I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want > to > talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to > post here... I'm afraid such excuses do not wash here! We'd all like to see it (after all, it was a 'joint effort', no? ;-)). Why not post it in sections? Jon 21407 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Pali Pronounciation Dear Group, Just a quick question: I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's starting a word, or something else? Susukham vata jivama Happy indeed we live verinesu averino friendly amidst the hostile verinesu manussesu amidst hostile men viharama averino we dwell free from hatred metta, Christine 21408 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Pronounciation Hi Chris, Just a quick (possibly ignorant) answer: --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? .... I learnt in Sri Lanka to pronounce all 'v's as 'v's. I just pulled out Narada Thera's transl of Dhammapada and at the beginning in a very simple pronounciation key he confirms this. In Thailand, the 'v's are often/usually (?) pronounced as 'w's as there is no exact 'v' sound I believe and thus there are some differences in Pali pronounciation amongst different groups and countries. I couldn't say what is strictly accurate. Maybe Suan or Jim or someone else may. I like your verses, maybe I'll also try to learn them as I head off to the pool. Perhaps you can give me some simple ones every Sunday and then when we meet we can recite together on buses or boats;-) Susukham vata jivama.... Metta, Sarah ====== > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred 21409 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor I hope you don't mind if I come in on this exchange between you and Howard. The 3 statements you cite here are instances of the same absolute truth being expressed in conventional terms (or, more accurately perhaps, in a combination of conventional and absolute terms). The statement "The five aggregates of clinging are dukkha" expresses the same truth in purely absolute terms. There is no simple 'test' for determining whether something is a truth or not (except that it is said that everything spoken by the Buddha was true). The distinction between 'conventional' and 'absolute' (or 'ultimate') is to be understood in the sense mentioned in the passage from the Majjhima commentary quoted by Swee Boon in his post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21396. Your statement: "Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionally" and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for sophistry." is a statement of opinion. In my own view, however, any suggestion (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of sophistry, are entirely unfounded. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > 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 21410 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 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 > >Jon, Do Rupas exist independantly of consciousness ? This I find is an interesting question, which can be put in several ways. In relation to nama rupa, do you think it would be the same question if I ask: Do things exist beyond our sense faculties ? This reminds me of the Cula Malunkya Sutta, where Munlankyaputta, asked several questions about the existance of the Universe and what happens to the Buddha after his death etc. The Buddha explained that knowing them does not help the spiritual life and irrelevant. Again when the Buddha was in the Simsapa forest, with the monks, he took a handful of leaves and said that what he did not tell is as much as the leaves in the forest and what he had told is as much as the leaves in his hand, and that which is essential to lead a holy life, to finally atain Nibbana . However, Abhidhamma, from the few chapters I was happy to read from Nina's Book, explains how to understand paramatta dhamma from what is happening now. We become aware of arammana through the six sense faculties. Looking for things beyond them would be getting away from the present moment. There is also the other aspect of conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The world does not exist in the sense of the ultimate truth-(paramatta -sacca), but conventianally it continues to exist. My family, that I have left behind in a distant Island, I do not see, but they exist. Therefore, I cannot deny their existance telling my-self that," in reality they do not exist". All this is carrying coal to New Castle. Because, you know all what I had written and perhaps more. Some times these questions prop up in the mind and we should perhaps, look at them as mind(nama) engaged in thinking(rupa). It was a pleasure reading you in the Forum. May you be happy, with metta, Yasalalaka > 21411 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > 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 Thanks for this. So you are saying, 'computer is conditioned'. I would be interested to know what you understand by 'conditioned' here. Thanks. Jon 21412 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon Thanks for bringing up this passage for discussion. I find this a very interesting area to discuss. I would just like to make one or two observations. To my understanding, the conventional way of teaching and the ultimate way of teaching are 2 ways of teaching the same truths. One way employs conventional language and analogies, while the other employs ultimate terms and descriptions. The truths in question are ultimate truths. Ultimate truths can be expressed in conventional terms or in absolute terms. At the time of the Buddha there were many disciples who were capable of understanding ultimate truths, and attaining enlightenment, on hearing the conventional way of teaching. There were others for whom hearing the ultimate way of teaching was the necessary condition for understanding the same truths and attaining the same enlightenment. The suttas contain numerous instances of both ways of teaching. The Abhidhamma is expressed mainly (but not entirely) in the ultimate way. As I see it, both the conventional way of teaching and the ultimate way of teaching teach the development of insight into the presently arising conditioned phenomena. It is the means to teaching that differs, not the matters taught. Jon --- nidive wrote: > 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 21413 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Rob M Good to hear from you ;-)). Yes, we've been here before! To respond to your specific question, I think it depends very much on what you mean by 'rupas which are independent of consciousness'. Do the rupas that are the 5 sense-bases fall within this description? -- they are mentioned frequently in the suttas. I am still doubtful whether this line of enquiry is of any real value ;-)). Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon, > > As you know, I have had this discussion on the DSG at least twice. > > Rather than focus on "existence" or "non-existence" (which raises > the issues you list below), perhaps we should ask, "are rupas which > are independent of consciousness part of the scope of the Buddha's > teachings?" > > My answer is that these rupas are only part of the Buddha's > teachings in an extremely limited way. In what extremely limited > way? I believe that there are Sutta references that > identify "external rupas" as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. I do > not believe that there are any Sutta references that extend the > analysis any deeper. > > In the Simsapa Sutta, the Buddha made it clear that he only taught > a small fraction of what he knew (leaves in hand vs. leaves in > forest). The criteria used by the Buddha was "what is conducive to > the holy life..." and "what leads to Nibbana". Clearly, any > analysis > of external rupas that goes deeper than anicca, dukkha, anatta > would not be included. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21414 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Christine, I really admire your initiative. I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD of the entire Dhammapada for you. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21415 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:40am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi All, I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each slide. Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. Metta, Rob M :-) 21416 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob M > > Good to hear from you ;-)). Yes, we've been here before! > > To respond to your specific question, I think it depends very much on > what you mean by 'rupas which are independent of consciousness'. Do > the rupas that are the 5 sense-bases fall within this description? -- > they are mentioned frequently in the suttas. ===== Good point. These rupas are not subjects of consciousness but are the base for consciousness (eye-consciousness has eye-base as base, etc.). Therefore, the Buddha's teaching are not purely phenomenological but still contrain themselves to "that which is conducive to the holy life" and "that which leads to Nibbana". ===== > > I am still doubtful whether this line of enquiry is of any real value > ;-)). ===== As Victor recently pointed out, the definition of "idle talk" does include "talk of what exists and what does not exist". Metta, Rob M :-) 21417 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:52am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Rob, you lovely man! Thank you! They arrived safe and well and have been joyfully listened to. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I really admire your initiative. > > I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and > verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). > > If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows > Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these > verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. > > I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD > of the entire Dhammapada for you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21418 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Dear Rob M, Sorry to write this on list, I know the moderators won't mind just this once. I tried to download some e-books from Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada's website, ie. the ones in Burmese. I want to give them to some people here who can't read any other language. But I can't download a single of these books and I wrote to the venerable about it to ask for his advice. He wrote back suggesting where in Myanmar I can buy those books and that meanwhile he will ask someone to look up the problem. Since you are going to his Vihara, I wondered if you could get me some hard copies or even printouts, if they are available?! If you do get your hand on anything, could you keep it with you so that next time you come to Bkk, you could then give it to me? Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:25 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Christine, I really admire your initiative. I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD of the entire Dhammapada for you. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21419 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Rob Thanks for this. Unfortunately, the file requires PowerPoint for viewing, which most of our members probably don't have (and I will only have accesss to after the Easter break). If conversion to PDF or similar universal format is possible, you might like to consider this at some future date. Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that > I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21420 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I am not clear. Are you only interested in books in Burmese? Are there any particular books / topics of interest to you (he has written dozens of books on a wide variety of subjects). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > > Sorry to write this on list, I know the moderators won't mind just this > once. > I tried to download some e-books from Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada's website, > ie. the ones in Burmese. > I want to give them to some people here who can't read any other > language. > But I can't download a single of these books and I wrote to the > venerable about it to ask for his advice. > He wrote back suggesting where in Myanmar I can buy those books and that > meanwhile he will ask > someone to look up the problem. > Since you are going to his Vihara, I wondered if you could get me some > hard copies or even printouts, > if they are available?! If you do get your hand on anything, could you > keep it with you so that next time > you come to Bkk, you could then give it to me? > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > Sukin > > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:25 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation > > > Hi Christine, > > I really admire your initiative. > > I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and > verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). > > If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows > Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these > verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. > > I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD > of the entire Dhammapada for you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > Just a quick question: > > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart > (197,198,199). > > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only > the 'v's > > starting a word, or something else? > > > > Susukham vata jivama > > Happy indeed we live > > > > verinesu averino > > friendly amidst the hostile > > > > verinesu manussesu > > amidst hostile men > > > > viharama averino > > we dwell free from hatred > > > > metta, > > Christine 21421 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:41am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Dear Christine, Sarah, Rob, Sukin, and All How are you, Dhamma friends? The letter 'v' in Pali should be pronounced exactly as the letter 'v' in English. Here is a quote from the traditional Pali grammar. "Vakaaro danto.t.thajo." "Va sound is dentally and labially produced." Section 2, Saññaavidhaana, Sandhika.n.da, Padaruupasiddhi By Buddhappiyo. Section 2, Terminology, Chapter on Sandhi, "Finished Forms" By Buddhappiyo. This work is a commentary on Kaccaayana's Grammar. Here is my commentary. "Va" sound is (danto.t.thajo) produced by pressing upper teeth on the lower lip. Myanmars pronounce "v" as "w" because Myanmar script "o" represents both "v" for Pali and "w" for Burmese sounds, which do not include the "v" sound. So when Myanmars, who do not check the Pali grammar texts, see the Myanmar script "o" for "v" in Pali texts, they pronounce it as though it were "w". With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21422 From: Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi, Suan - In a message dated 4/19/03 9:42:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Christine, Sarah, Rob, Sukin, and All > > How are you, Dhamma friends? > > The letter 'v' in Pali should be pronounced exactly as the letter 'v' > in English. > > Here is a quote from the traditional Pali grammar. > > "Vakaaro danto.t.thajo." > > "Va sound is dentally and labially produced." > > Section 2, Saññaavidhaana, Sandhika.n.da, Padaruupasiddhi By > Buddhappiyo. > > Section 2, Terminology, Chapter on Sandhi, "Finished Forms" By > Buddhappiyo. This work is a commentary on Kaccaayana's Grammar. > > Here is my commentary. > > "Va" sound is (danto.t.thajo) produced by pressing upper teeth on the > lower lip. > > Myanmars pronounce "v" as "w" because Myanmar script "o" represents > both "v" for Pali and "w" for Burmese sounds, which do not include > the "v" sound. > > So when Myanmars, who do not check the Pali grammar texts, see the > Myanmar script "o" for "v" in Pali texts, they pronounce it as though > it were "w". > > > With kind regards, > > Suan > ================================ This is very interesting to me. (I like the phonetics/phonemics of languages perhaps most of all language features.) I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. I've been *assuming* that long vowels get the accent, and when no vowel is long, if the word has at least three syllables, it is the third from last which gets the accent, and the next to last in two-syllable words. So, as a couple of examples, I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'-pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be? 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) 21423 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > So you are saying, 'computer is conditioned'. > > I would be interested to know what you understand by > 'conditioned' > here. > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it to arise). smallchap Ps. I hope you do not mind my dispensing with the usual formality and courtesy. :) 21424 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Rob, Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to decide which ones to get. BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. Thanks again. Sukin. 21425 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob > > Thanks for this. > > Unfortunately, the file requires PowerPoint for viewing, which most > of our members probably don't have (and I will only have accesss to > after the Easter break). > > If conversion to PDF or similar universal format is possible, you > might like to consider this at some future date. > > Jon Hi Rob and Jon, I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded it to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for free at this link: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html Metta, James ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in this regard. 21426 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:09am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism OK, Jon, Rob M and All~ Sorry for the feeble excuse. I've added Rob M's 11 benefits of metta and look forward to reading the article. 1 through 4 below. peace, connie DHAMMA - law / reality / truth that upholds the universe "No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is fore-doomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. They come from nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in the sky." Be ye a lamp/island (dîpa) unto yourselves; work out your own salvation with diligence. 1 freedom 'Birth is destroyed, I have lived the holy life and done what had to be done. There is no more birth for me.' Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha.' (Anuradha Sutta--Samyutta Nikaya.) Nibbana: metaphysical deliverance from suffering. psychological eradication of egoism. ethical destruction of lust, hatred and ignorance. Samyutta Nikaya IV: asankhata/the unconditioned, antam/the end, anasavam/without cankers, saccam/the truth, param/the ultimate, nipunam/the subtle, sududdasam/the very hard to see, ajaram/the no-decay, dhuvam/the stable, apalokitam/the taken leave of, anidassanam/the non-indicative, nippapam/the without impediment, santam/the peace, amatam/the deathless, panitam/the excellent, sivam/the fortunate, khemam/the security, tanhakkhaya/the destruction of tanha, acchariyam/the wonderful, abbhutam/the astonishing, anitikam/the freedom from harm, anitikadhammam/the state of freedom from harm, nibbanam, avyapajjho/the harmless, virago/non-attachment, suddhim/purity, mutti/the release, analayo/the done away with, dipam/the island, lena/ the cave, tanam/the shelter, saranam/the refuge, and parayanam/the ultimate goal. Non-Attachment. to not cling or attach to anything, even the religion itself 1 moment/3phases genesis(uppada), static (thiti), dissolution(bhanga) only pure nature (suddhidhamma pavattanti) exists; whatever is real can be proved. time & space / causes and conditions 2 phases - birth & death 2 truths (sacca)- insight(vipassana) conventional (samutta) / ultimate (paramattha): nama-rupa 2 Guardians of the World: a sense of shame and the fear of blame (hiri-ottappa) [Buddhaghosa's 2 iron balls. One is cold and covered with excrement. The other is burning hot] 3 Baskets (Tipitaka) Sutta -conventional teaching, Vinaya - disciplinary code, and Abhidhamma - moral psychology. 3 marks Anicca (transiency) Dukkha ('sorrow') anatta (soul-lessness) santana(flux/continuity) becoming(bhava) sunyata(void) jiva(empirical self) control 3 akusala (unwholesome, unskillful, evil) roots: moha(delusion), dosa(aversion), lobha (greed)/tahna(desire): [generosity (caga), loving-kindness (mettâ) and wisdom (vijjâ)] Abhijjhá (covetousness); Káma (lust); Raga (sensual passion). patigha (repugnance, anger); vyápáda (ill-will). avijjhá (ignorance), annana (not knowing) and adassana (not-seeing.) Shantideva:'There is no sin like anger, no virtue like patience'. one moment of anger can destroy eons of good merit. 3 levels of understanding: ditthi ("views"), nana ("science"), and bodhi ("wisdom"). 4 elements: earth/solidity , water/fluidity, cohesion, air/motion and fire/heat . 4 realities: 1.Citta, momentary states of mind or consciousness, 'that which knows or experiences' an object(arammana). 2.Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta. 3.Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form. 4.Nibbana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final goal. 4 truths - application of the three basic laws to the human condition. found in one's body .Worldly cause-and-effect encompasses the first two noble truths 1)dukkha sacca - understand Suffering is actually an effect of living in time and space *impermanence, suffering, empty and not self 2)samudaya sacca - abandon origin: moha (ignorance), craving or desire (tanha or raga) sensual craving (kama-tanha) craving for existence (bhava tanha)[eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi)] craving for non-existence or self-annihilation (vibhava-tanha)[(Uccheda-ditthi) annihil.] *arising, appearance, cause, and condition .World-transcending cause-and-effect relates to the third and fourth noble truths 3)nirodha sacca - experience end: nibbana no more accumulation of karma *cessation, calm, excellent and definitive liberation 4)magga sacca - practice extinction of mental defilements (afflictions) from the sense organs. *true path, knowing, attaining, elimination (of delusion). 21427 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, Victor and Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott > In my own view, however, any suggestion > (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or > duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of > sophistry, are entirely unfounded. In my view, also. Fortunately I have enough faith in Howard's understanding not to worry too much... mike 21428 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi Again Rob, This took too long to download. Do .ppt's zip well? If you can compress it enough to be practical, please zip it and send me a copy as an attachment--thanks. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 21429 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 0:25pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, I have come to understand that when you say assumption of self, you are 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). In my last message, I wanted to make sure that when you say that the assumption of self is a fabrication, you mean that 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) is a fabrication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > 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? > > What are you driving at? > > That the "assumption of self" is different from the "assumption of > form is self"? > > Out of all the possible permutations of blending self with form, which > one is missed out by the Buddha? > > If there is no possible permutation that is missed out by the Buddha, > then it implies that self is an assumption. It invalidates all the > possible permutations of blending self with form. It implies that self > cannot be blended with form. It implies that there is no concrete > entity called a self that can be blended with form. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21430 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 0:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Ok. Thank you for sharing how your see it. To me the dichotomy of absolute/conventional is unnecessary. Again, thanks for sharing. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > I hope you don't mind if I come in on this exchange between you and > Howard. > > The 3 statements you cite here are instances of the same absolute > truth being expressed in conventional terms (or, more accurately > perhaps, in a combination of conventional and absolute terms). > > The statement "The five aggregates of clinging are dukkha" expresses > the same truth in purely absolute terms. > > There is no simple 'test' for determining whether something is a > truth or not (except that it is said that everything spoken by the > Buddha was true). > > The distinction between 'conventional' and 'absolute' (or 'ultimate') > is to be understood in the sense mentioned in the passage from the > Majjhima commentary quoted by Swee Boon in his post at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21396. > > Your statement: > "Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionally" > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for > sophistry." > is a statement of opinion. In my own view, however, any suggestion > (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or > duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of > sophistry, are entirely unfounded. > > Jon > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > 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 21431 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the statement. However, this is how I see it: A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes away. A concept is impermanent. It is fabricated, or in your words, assembled. Whatever is fabricated, assembled, passes away. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > 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 21432 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi James, I really appreciate what you have done. Thank you! I used to have the software necessary to create .PDF on my laptop, but my hard disk crashed and the original CD is in Hong Kong. I haven't visited Hong Kong in a while. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the > Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded it > to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those > who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for > free at this link: > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html > > Metta, James > ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; > you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, > but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in this > regard. James, Are the parts that you don't agree with because I have misinterpreted the Tipitaka or because your view differs with the Tipitaka? In either case, I would be interested in hearing more. Metta, Rob M :-) 21433 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:51pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Nina & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:47 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala > > > Dear Sarah, > op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op > sarahdhhk@y...: > > >> > 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. What we have discussed before ended up into 2 explanations: 1) Pre-craving results in rebirth of being which makes possible mindfulness. I think this is clear an uncontroversial. 2) Pre-craving results in mindfulness in this very life. I think this is somewhat controversial. I think we may be able to equate this to jhana meditation. One may want to attain the peaceful state or the brahma rebirth, but the jhana states are wholesome and free of such need. Pre-craving motivates one to develop jhana. I think this is the same as in mindfulness (and I know this point is controversial) of realities. I think the big difference is, with the most subtle attachment still abound, one may still reach the highest level of jhana. But for one to attain enlightenment itself, the pre-craving must be recognized as sankhara and abandoned... That doesn't mean that one needs to have attachment toward mindfulness in order to have mindfulness, but having one is perfectly normal even though it should be recognized as something that is not useful to the development of the path. kom 21434 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:34pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > > I really appreciate what you have done. Thank you! > > I used to have the software necessary to create .PDF on my laptop, > but my hard disk crashed and the original CD is in Hong Kong. I > haven't visited Hong Kong in a while. James, Are the parts that you don't agree with because I have > misinterpreted the Tipitaka or because your view differs with the > Tipitaka? In either case, I would be interested in hearing more. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M.! You are very welcome for the conversion of the PowerPoint into PDF. If you would like, again, the software necessary to do this conversion, contact me off-list with your address and I will mail it to you (for your personal use and not to be sold to others for a profit, of course! ;-). Rob, as far as your other question, you should already know (and I believe you do) that I do not have any problems with your interpretations of the Tipitaka. If anything, I believe you are able to incorporate missing truths and to bridge differences that aren't present in the original texts…much to your credit. However, you are a special case, I believe, and not everyone is going to be so lucky as to be able to differentiate on the fly as you are able to do. Therefore, I make the case against the Abhidhamma Pitaka, without qualification, that I consistently do for a specific purpose (but my opposition doesn't relate or apply to your unique, consolatory, interpretation of the Abhidhamma). In summary, my problem is with the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, not with your interpretation of such… which I hope this makes some sense to you! ;-). Metta, James 21435 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:50pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit > in which you ask. As if I like your sarcastic humour. That's fine. A genuine appeal for help had been rejected and turned into sarcasm. I thought you had been a monk before and you should know this matter better than me. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21436 From: azita gill Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- yasalalaka wrote: > ...snip..... > Yasalalaka > > dear Yasalalaka, I liked what you wrote to Star Kid Hillary, about the warring clans etc. and I want to add to that. the 4 sublime states taught by Buddha: Metta; Karuna; Mudita; Upekkha; these four are said to be excellant or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings [sattesu samma patipatti]. They provide in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnamity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism. Not sure where this came from, I think I may have taken it from one of the letters from dsg. I kept thinking about this when Iraq was being invaded. Wouldn't it be wonderful if world leaders followed the above and guided their people accordingly. Wishful thinking on my part, but in reality 'our' world is in fact the 6 worlds of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching and the appropriate sense fields of visible object, sound, etc. War, warring states, prime ministers, presidents, soldiers, victims of war, all concepts, and cannot be experienced thro any of the sense doors. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer to develop the wisdom to truly know reality. Azita. > 21437 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:38pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > > I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit > > in which you ask. > > As if I like your sarcastic humour. > > That's fine. A genuine appeal for help had been rejected and turned > into sarcasm. > > I thought you had been a monk before and you should know this matter > better than me. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I only use sarcasm in response to hypocrisy. If you noticed, I did answer your question: It has to do with the rules for when and how monks are supposed to teach the dharma. I wasn't going to answer you specifically because you are looking for an argument. I know when people are sincere and when they aren't, and you are the latter. For example, if you were truly sincere you wouldn't be trying to play the victim now to drum up negative appraisal of me. Let's just drop this; it is very tired. Also, I haven't ever been a monk. I was going to be a monk but I discovered the institution nowadays is, for the most part, hypocritical as well. Metta, James 21438 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > 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? Hi KKT, In case you are confusing between Sujin and Sukin, I just want to clarify that the stress on the distinction between concept and reality was made by me, Sukin, on dsg in a couple or more of my posts. Even this it seems has been taken out of context to mean something other than what I intended. < snip > KKT: Thanks for your clarification, Sukin. But there is not confusion from my part, I did mean Sujin. Peace, KKT 21439 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali verses for memorizing. Dear Sarah and Christine, Now we are together reciting and trying to memorize Pali. Christine may get the verses from Pali yahoo, Pali every few days. I shall think of you now and then. I memorize and then when the next text comes along I forget, but it does not matter, still enjoy it. For example, when I am with my father. op 19-04-2003 08:38 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > we meet we can recite together on buses or boats;-) > > Susukham vata jivama.... Nina: This is a wonderful reminder not to be negligent, since we know the teachings > are going to disappear. Quote: . > Gair/Karunatillake - Chapter 1 – Further Readings > Ex. 1. (Part 1 of 2) > 1. > Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m pi > samanupassaami, yo eva.m saddhammassa sammosaaya > antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattati, yathayida.m, bhikkhave, > pamaado. Pamaado, bhikkhave, saddhammassa sammosaaya > antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattatiiti. > > Monks, indeed I do not perceive another single mental > quality that thus leads to the confusion and > disappearance of the true doctrine, other than > negligence. Negligence, monks, leads to the > confusion and disappearance of the true doctrine. > > Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m pi > samanupassaami, yo eva.m saddhammassa .thitiyaa > asammosaaya anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattati, > yathayida.m, bhikkhave, appamaado. Appamaado, > bhikkhave, saddhamassa .thitiyaa asammosaaya > anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattatiiti. > > Monks, indeed I do not perceive another single mental > quality that thus leads to the continuation, > non-confusion, and non-disappearance of the true > doctrine, other than diligence. Diligence, monks, > leads to the continuation, non-confusion, and > non-disappearance of the true doctrine. 21440 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:10am Subject: Metta Dear Group, I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems to have been de-valued. So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that it was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) Christine 21441 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma James (and All) James, thanks very much for doing this. I am now able to view the presentation. As you say, Rob obviously knows his PowerPoint. I look forward to reading through the slides. All, the file is available at this address: z-Introduction to the Abhidhamma-Speaker Notes.pdf Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: ... > Hi Rob and Jon, > > I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the > Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded > it > to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those > who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for > free at this link: > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html > > Metta, James > ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; > you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, > but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in > this regard. 21442 From: sarahdhhk Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Victor (& Rob M), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > 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 ..... I meant to add a couple of comments: 1. Note the sutta is addressed to bhikkhus. What is idle or against the rules for bhikkhus is different than for lay people perhaps. 2. I don't understand the last item mentioned, "bhavabhava" to refer to discussions on "whether things exist or not". In the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". I understand these `becomings' to refer to future lives. As we know, only the arahant has eradicated all bhava -tanha or attachment to `becoming'. On the contrary, understanding `the world' and whether dhammas exist and can be known and what these dhammas lies at the core of the teachings imho. While I'm here, let me also requote from the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) in this connection: ***** "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to." ***** commentary notes: 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and when he attends to any mundane things through the four "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), the taint of ignorance arises and increases." 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." " ********** Metta, Sarah ========= > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > 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". 21443 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:32am Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > If you noticed, I did answer your question: It has to do with the > rules for when and how monks are supposed to teach the dharma. But which rule says specifically what you imply? I have given you a set of 16 rules. Is that rule within those 16? I couldn't understand how that rule is within those 16. Is there another rule? If there is, I would really appreciate if you could point it out. It was straight-forward, and there was no need to make a joke out of my inquiry. > I wasn't going to answer you specifically because you are looking > for an argument. No, I wasn't. A straight-forward inquiry requires a straight-forward reply. > I know when people are sincere and when they aren't, and you are > the latter. I do not concede that you have perfected the art of mind-reading. No, I do not admit that. Because you are entirely wrong. > For example, if you were truly sincere you wouldn't be trying to > play the victim now to drum up negative appraisal of me. Let's just > drop this; it is very tired. In the first place, if you had treated my initial inquiry with sincerity, instead of making a joke out of it, you would have been as sincere as me. > Also, I haven't ever been a monk. I was going to be a monk but I > discovered the institution nowadays is, for the most part, > hypocritical as well. Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps I should not have pursued this Vinaya issue with you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21444 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Christine & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > 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. ...... As you say, this is intellectual understanding which of course has value too. The reason I asked before what ‘everything’ is (or sth like that) was that if we just repeat that ‘everything’ changes or is impermanent or ‘everything’ is marked with the Three Characteristics as you mention, there will not be any deeper understanding of dhammas. So, as I see it, before there can be any real understanding of impermanence of dhammas, first these same dhammas, i.e the namas and rupas, have to be clearly understood and sati has to repeatedly be aware of them for this to happen. If there is no understanding now of seeing or visible object, hearing, feeling or other dhammas, there cannot possibly be the real comprehension of the arising and passing away of those same dhammas. That’s why the first vipassana nana (stage of insight) is clearly comprehending the difference between nama and rupa, not just thinking about it. ..... >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' - ( :-) ..... I don’t have any problem with these comments :-) I think he is stressing (and we read this in the texts) that what is conditioned is in a state of continual flux. Is not the seeing or hearing now in a ‘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." ..... That’s how I understand the term and yes, I think it would take more than your helpful reflections for B.Bodhi to feel rattled :-) ..... > 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. ..... I think the truth is that almost all the time, relentlessly, moha (ignorance) covers up the truth. This is why our perceptions of experience, especially when taken as being ‘my’ experiences, are notoriously unreliable. Usually when we have an idea of ‘everything in daily life’, isn’t this an idea in terms of situations and ‘things’ like computers? ..... > > 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. ..... What I meant to consider was whether there is any direct (rather than thinking) understanding of change of realities/actualities even for a finger-snap, let alone in ‘fits and starts’? ..... >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. ..... As you say, this is thinking;-) ..... > 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". ..... ;-) Wanting to see phenomena as changing or not changing or sometimes changing all sounds like more attachment to me. ..... > > 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. ..... It may be a question of terminology - even when say a rupa is at the stage of ‘presence’(.thiti), I don’t think there is any suggestion of endurance, in that there are already the conditions in place for the same rupa to fall away. Perhaps you could indicate the suttas you have in mind for us all to look at further. Again, we need to consider carefully again the use of conventional language and what we’ve learnt from the Abhidhamma. Not sure if this helps further. Thanks for your feedback, Chris. Perhaps the others will have more comments too. Metta, Sarah ====== 21445 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:49am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill-will or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21446 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > 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. ..... I’m not sure it’s helpful to think of concepts in terms of words at all. Anytime, whether or not in conversation, there are realities appearing and being experienced in between the concepts being thought about. Even when we are using words, aren’t there many moments of hearing, seeing, experiencing tangible objects and so on in between? At the moment of awareness of seeing or hardness, regardless of whether there is any conversation, there is no confusion about realities. ..... > 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 think you mean in the mind-door citta process as opposed to sense-door citta process? (remember, seeing is a citta too..) In this case, yes. Concept cannot be an object in a sense-door process. ..... >I assume vittaka and vicara (thinking) would accompany a > root citta in the javana (reaction) series. Similarly for sati and > ditthi (views). ..... Correct. Vitakka and vicara also accompany other cittas as well. As you know, they are different from our usual idea of thinking. ..... >So in order to make this distinction one would have to > discriminate between words and thinking as concept and reality. Correct? ..... Actually, this sounds pretty good. The cittas and accompanying cetasikas which ‘think’ or experience the concepts are real and can be directly known. Therefore they have characteristics, arise and fall away, are unsatisfactory and not self. On the other hand the words, the computer, the other ideas cannot be directly known. At this moment the experiencing or thinking can be known. I’d like to add a longish quote from an earlier message of Nina’s (to Kom) which I think you may find useful to look at again. I look forward to any further comments as I think this is such an important area of discussion. I'd be glad to hear any further discussion between you and Howard in your own words as well;-) Metta, Sarah ======= Nina: “I think one of the reasons of confusion with regard to concept, as you mentioned, is the word . In some translations thought stands for thinking. Thinking is the act of thinking, the experience, the nama of thinking. Even the word thinking can stand for the cetasikas vitakka, applied thinking and vicara, sustained thinking. They accompany cittas of the sense-door process, except the sense-cognitions of seeing etc., and cittas of the mind-door process, and also cittas not arising in processes(rebirth consciousness, bhavanga and dying-consciousness). Thus we see that they do not accompany only cittas of the mind-door process, that they are not the same as what we mean by thinking in conventional sense. Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the object. The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and vicara in order to experience visible object. We can use thinking in a wider sense: citta experiencing an object through the mind-door, but we have to be careful. Citta can experience through the mind-door paramattha dhammas as well as concepts. We can use the word thinking for citta experiencing concepts. The word *thought*: this is what citta thinks about, the object citta thinks of, and I am inclined to use this for concept, just as you, Kom, explained. You explained about shape and form: this is the concept of a whole. Citta can think of a story, a situation, this is a concept. We can call it also a thought. Thus for me thought is the object of the citta which thinks. For me it is not the act of thinking, the experience which is thinking. Also the long quote about the kinds of concepts given by Larry is very important to consider. When citta does not experience a reality it experiences a concept. As I remarked before, when we reflect on reality and concept the difference cannot be so clear. We may keep on trying to find definitions of reality and concept, of thinking and thought. Only when we learn to be directly aware of at least some realities appearing through different doorways the difference between reality and concept will become clearer. Like the hardness and the table, visible object and (Howard's) tree. I have a mental picture of Howard looking at his tree in the garden. A concept.” ********* 21447 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta Hi Christine, Many thanks for your reminders about metta: > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. ..... I just read over my last message to you (on change) which was a bit rushed and doesn’t sound as friendly as I intended at the outset. We can see how the cittas change - one moment friendly, the next moment impatient or restless perhaps. Hence the value of sincerity (sacca) and honesty. ..... > Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. .... A mental state. I think a behaviour, like writing a letter or talking to someone consists of many different mental states, some kusala, most akusala. ..... >If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. ..... On the other hand, we could say it shows some consideration. For example, if I show my nervousness or fear about the SARS virus or war or anything else to my students or even friends, it isn’t considerate. So I try to smile and reassure others and help them, keeping quiet about my own fears and anxieties. I’m sure this is the same when you are with patients/clients in the hospital. I think there are bound to be these different moments of kindness and metta and then thinking of oneself or fear and anger. When we smile and behave generously, I don’t think there is any anger at those moments. How about you? ..... >And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) ..... :-) Understanding the quality and carefully considering it as you are doing is very helpful. The wishing to strengthen it or have it arise more often is an impediment and contrary to the quality of metta as I see it. I hope others add comments. I only responded to this one now because I wished to apologise for any comments I make (such as in my other post) which could be said with more friendliness. Metta, Sarah ====== 21448 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta Dear Chris and Swee Boon, ----- Original Message ----- From: nidive To: > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill-will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. Even if there's no ill-will, aversion or hypocrisy, true moments of mettaa are rare, I think, and most likely occur amid moments of many other factors--most notably attachment (as Chris wrote earlier: "I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have for friends and congenial people."). In the context of the discourses, by my reading, mettaa can mean very conventional friendliness, amity etc., or the brahma vihaara or divine abode (or abiding) (an absorption, as I understand it). In abhidhamma, I think it's synonymous with the sobhanacetasika ('beautiful mental factor') adosa (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as non-hatred) and is also one of the four illimitables (identical to the brahma viharas). Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in his Guide to the Universal Beautiful Factors, Compendium of Mental Factors (p. 86, CMA): "When non-hatred appears as the sublime quality of loving-kindness (mettaa), it has the characteristic of promoting the welfare of living beings. Its function is to prefer [!?--mn] their welfare. Its manifestation is the removal of ill-will. Its proximate cause is seeing beings as lovable. Such loving-kindness must be distinguished from selfish affection, its near enemy." Though I don't use it as a closing myself for the above reasons, when someone else does I take it to refer to the first meaning--an expression of conventional friendliness, amity etc.--which seems quite harmless to me. mike 21449 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Nina & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:47 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala > > > Dear Sarah, > op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op > sarahdhhk@y...: > > >> > 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. What we have discussed before ended up into 2 explanations: 1) Pre-craving results in rebirth of being which makes possible mindfulness. I think this is clear an uncontroversial. 2) Pre-craving results in mindfulness in this very life. I think this is somewhat controversial. I think we may be able to equate this to jhana meditation. One may want to attain the peaceful state or the brahma rebirth, but the jhana states are wholesome and free of such need. Pre-craving motivates one to develop jhana. I think this is the same as in mindfulness (and I know this point is controversial) of realities. I think the big difference is, with the most subtle attachment still abound, one may still reach the highest level of jhana. But for one to attain enlightenment itself, the pre-craving must be recognized as sankhara and abandoned... That doesn't mean that one needs to have attachment toward mindfulness in order to have mindfulness, but having one is perfectly normal even though it should be recognized as something that is not useful to the development of the path. kom 21450 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Jon ~ Here's 5-7. peace, connie five contemplations I am of the nature to age, I have not gone beyond ageing. I am of the nature to sicken, I have not gone beyond sickening. I am of the nature to die, I have not gone beyond dying. All that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will become otherwise, will become separated from me. I am the owner of my kamma, heir to my kamma, born of my kamma, related to my kamma, abide supported by my kamma; whatever kamma I shall do, for good or for ill, of that I shall be the heir." Matricide - ending all procreative agencies and lust and joy associated with procreation. Patricide - ending ignorance taking life of an Arahant - ending passion and anger creating schism in Sangha - breaking all combinations of aggregates draw blood from Buddha - destroy eightfold body of consciousness. The five components/aggregates, or skandhas, are: 1) rupa, materiality or form, 2) vedana, feelings of pleasure or pain or the absence of either one, 3) sanna, cognitive perception, 4) sankhara, the forces that cooperate to condition the psychic activity of an individual, 5) vinnana, consciousness. The 12 bases, or ayatanas, include the five sense organs and the mind (manas), as well as the five related sense fields and a cognizable object (as reflected in mental perception). five orders or processes (Niyamas) in the physical and mental realms: 1.seasonal laws (utu niyama) physical inorganic order e.g., seasonal phenomena, etc. 2.the biological laws (bija niyama) relating to seasonal changes etc., 3.the kammic law (kamma niyama) relating to moral causation or the order of act and result (vipaka), one of 24 paccaya (conditions) mental impulsion (Javana Citta) Birth (gati), time or conditions (kala), beauty (upadhi), and effort (payoga) act as such powerful aids and hindrances to the fruition of Kamma. Volition of will (cetana) is the doer. Feeling (vedana) is reaper. (A.N. 4.77) 4 imponderables: power of the Buddha; depth and power of jhãna; kamma-vipaka; speculation about the nature of the world. 4.natural phenomena (Dhamma niyama) relating to electrical forces, tides etc., and 5.psychological laws (citta niyama) which govern the processes of consciousness. After my decease, first will occur the five disappearances. And what are the five disappearances? The disappearance of the attainments, the disappearance of the method, the disappearance of learning, the disappearance of the symbols, the disappearance of the relics. five planes of existence (3, 6, 10, 31) (1) sphere of the plane of the devas ("shining beings", "gods"); (2) humans; (3) spirit world; (4) animal world; (5) lower world (duggati, niraya "hells") [(1) the sensuous world (kâma loka); (2) the fine material world (rûpa loka); (3) the immaterial world (ârûpa loka)] Six doors (dvara) = 5 sense rupa + mano-dhatu (mind element) their Six correlated objects (aramanna) Six conciousness (vinnana) total 18 elements (dhatus) 6 natures 1. Raga carita (greedy or passionate) 2. Dosa carita (angry ) 3. Moha carita (deluded) 4. Saddha carita (faithful) 5. Buddhi carita (intelligent) 6. Vitakka carita (ruminating or pondering) 7 universals (sabbacitta) 1.contact (phassa w/arammana) 2.feeling (vedana) 3.perception (sanna) 4.volition (cetana) determines activities 5.concentration (ekaggata)(samádhi) 6.life (jivita) 7.attention (manasikara) 7 Noble Treasures (ariya-dhanani): faith, virtue, a sense of shame, the fear of blame, learning (suta), renunciation (caga), and wisdom 7 powers (balani): faith, energy, a sense of shame, the fear of blame, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom. 7 factors of enlightenment: Mindfulness (Sati-sambojjhanga), investigation of the Law (Dhamma-vicaya), Energy (Viriya), Rapture (Piti), Tranquillity (Passaddhi), Concentration (Samadhi), Equanimity (Upekkha). 7 wrong practices (asaddhamma): lack of faith, lack of a sense of shame, lack of fear of blame, little learning, being slack (kusito), being unmindful (mutthassati), and lack of wisdom. 21451 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:34am Subject: Re: Metta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill- will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Dear Christine, the word love, has different connotations. It denotes attachment and therefore lobha chitta. love in ordinary sense has lot of negative elements, passion, possessiveness, jealosy, pride, anger and fear. Metta on the other hand is, generosity, happiness, friendly interest, sympathy, willingness to help, free from hate and ill- will. It is one of the four Brahama-viharas boundless state( appamanna). The four boundless states are: i) Loving kindness (metta) It is the kindness you extend to all beings, like the mothers love to her only child ii) Compassion (karuna)-quality that arouses tender feeling at the suffering or distress of others. Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) iii) Altruistic joy (mudita)-It is the joy that rises in the heart of one ,seeing the others' success, welfare and happiness. iv) Equanimity (upekkha)-equanimity in both happiness and hardship of life. Brahama Vihara may be used as a daily meditation. For Metta Meditataion one should, sit comfortably in a quiet place where there is no disturbance (preferably before going to bed,or/and, immediately after waking up) . With eyes closed, infuse yourself with kindness and boundless love. Look at yourself with all the kindness you could muster, and wish yourself, health,happiness and contentment. Then extend that same kindness-boundless love,health, happiness and contentment, to those who are near and dear to you, imagining each one of them. Think of all beings, devas, men and women , all beings from smallest insects to biggest animals,and those in lower births and extend the same kindness-boundless love, wishing them, health,happiness and contentment, all beings in all ten directions, North, West, South and East, and directions in between, upwards and downwords. Ending a message or letter with the words " with metta", is a mere expression of goodwill, wishing the other happiness and contentment. with metta, yasalalaka 21452 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:34am Subject: Re: Metta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill- will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Dear Christine, the word love, has different connotations. It denotes attachment and therefore lobha chitta. love in ordinary sense has lot of negative elements, passion, possessiveness, jealosy, pride, anger and fear. Metta on the other hand is, generosity, happiness, friendly interest, sympathy, willingness to help, free from hate and ill- will. It is one of the four Brahama-viharas boundless state( appamanna). The four boundless states are: i) Loving kindness (metta) It is the kindness you extend to all beings, like the mothers love to her only child ii) Compassion (karuna)-quality that arouses tender feeling at the suffering or distress of others. Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) iii) Altruistic joy (mudita)-It is the joy that rises in the heart of one ,seeing the others' success, welfare and happiness. iv) Equanimity (upekkha)-equanimity in both happiness and hardship of life. Brahama Vihara may be used as a daily meditation. For Metta Meditataion one should, sit comfortably in a quiet place where there is no disturbance (preferably before going to bed,or/and, immediately after waking up) . With eyes closed, infuse yourself with kindness and boundless love. Look at yourself with all the kindness you could muster, and wish yourself, health,happiness and contentment. Then extend that same kindness-boundless love,health, happiness and contentment, to those who are near and dear to you, imagining each one of them. Think of all beings, devas, men and women , all beings from smallest insects to biggest animals,and those in lower births and extend the same kindness-boundless love, wishing them, health,happiness and contentment, all beings in all ten directions, North, West, South and East, and directions in between, upwards and downwords. Ending a message or letter with the words " with metta", is a mere expression of goodwill, wishing the other happiness and contentment. with metta, yasalalaka 21453 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:12am Subject: Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Thank you for sharing your comments and quotes from the commentaries. I agree that the discourse, like most of the discourses, is addressed to bhikkhus, not to lay followers. I checked the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and found that under the word "bhava": --abhava this or that life, any form of existence, some sort of existence. I think a bit of etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" might of some interest. bhavati [bhu to become, cp. Sk. bhumi earth; Gr. fu/sis nature (physical), fu/omai to grow; Lat. fui I have been, futurus=future; Oir. buith to be; Ags. buan=Goth. bauan to live, Ger. bauen, also Ags. byldan=to build; Lith. buti to be, butas house Dhtp 1: bhu sattayan] to become, to be, exist, behave etc. You might also find this essay by Martin Heidegger interesting.* He traced the etymology of the word "bauen"/"build" and made a connection between building, dwelling, and being. http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html Regarding the connection between building, dwelling, and being, I find that the Buddha's utterance as recorded in Dhammapada has a striking metaphor reflects this connection. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/11.html#153 The purpose of drawing on the etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" is to show the meaning of the word and how it can be understood in relation to the Buddha's teaching. I would think the core of the Buddha's teaching is not about what exists and what does not exist, or about whether dhamma exists or not. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is about dukkha and cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor * I mentioned this essay in another message that I wrote to you and Howard last March. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12163 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahdhhk" wrote: > Hi Victor (& Rob M), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > 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 > ..... > I meant to add a couple of comments: > > 1. Note the sutta is addressed to bhikkhus. What is idle or > against the rules for bhikkhus is different than for lay people > perhaps. > > 2. I don't understand the last item mentioned, "bhavabhava" to > refer to discussions on "whether things exist or not". In the PTS > transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote > to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". > > I understand these `becomings' to refer to future lives. As we > know, only the arahant has eradicated all bhava -tanha or > attachment to `becoming'. > > On the contrary, understanding `the world' and whether > dhammas exist and can be known and what these dhammas > lies at the core of the teachings imho. > > While I'm here, let me also requote from the Sabbasava Sutta > (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with > the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and > wise attention) in this connection: > ***** > "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They > are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint > of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual > desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and > the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of > ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance > increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he > attends to." > ***** > commentary notes: > > 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed > determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or > unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of > attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for > unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that > mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome > states should be developed." > > 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise > attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five > cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises > and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted > states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and > when he attends to any mundane things through the four > "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), > the taint of ignorance arises and increases." > > 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, > attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the > moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly > apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the > mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and > its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. > Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, > apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." " quotes from earlier message> > ********** > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= 21454 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 0:14pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Christine, Thanks for this message. I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that 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. This is how I see it: It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, passes away, sooner or later. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, Sarah, Mike, Jeff and All, > [snip] > metta, > Christine 21455 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Astrology Dear Group, I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who has been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology to contemplate setting up a small business to draw natal charts, and have consultations. I did not ask (and, under the circumstances, could not) if this was a wholesome buddhist practice or whether it was encouraged or discouraged in the Teachings. I have looked in Access to Insight and have been able to find that Bhikkhus are forbidden to practice astrology, it being considered a wrong mode of livelihood. However, the Buddha established a purely monastic uposatha observance, "which he limited to the final day of the lunar fortnight. To enable the bhikkhus to determine the date of this observance, he relaxed the rule against their studying astrology, which in those days had not yet separated from astronomy, allowing them to learn as much astronomy as needed to calculate whether the full and new moons fell on the fourteenth or fifteenth of a particular fortnight. ("At that time people asked the bhikkhus as they were going for alms, 'Which day of the fortnight is it, sirs?' The bhikkhus said, 'We don't know.' The people were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives don't even know enough to calculate the fortnight. How will they know anything else that's worthwhile?'" -- Mv.II.18.1) But is the practice of Astrology forbidden, or discouraged, or seen as not wholesome as a livelihood, hobby or belief for lay people? I am told that the predictions are quite scientific and uncannily accurate - and this raises other questions about perhaps viewing Astrology as a comfort, support or a skillful means to chart one's aims and goals. And how can it (as it seems to do) scientifically predict the future? I wonder how Astrology fits in with life consisting only of the present moment, with kamma, with anatta, with no-control etc. metta, Christine 21456 From: Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:11pm Subject: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. 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 continued: Everywhere, according to the method already stated beginning: "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." Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally": Thus through the laying hold of the corpse from the state in which it is being eaten by crows and other creatures to the state when it is dust, one dwells contemplating the body in one's own body, or in another's or at one time in one's own body and at another time in another's body. Further having stopped here one should put together the nine cemetery contemplations thus: Ekahamatam va dvihamatam va tihamatam va = "A body dead one, two or three days." This is the first contemplation. Kakehi va khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten by crows." This portion of the Discourse where the devouring of the body of various kinds of animals is stated refers to the second contemplation. Atthikasamkhalikam samamsalohitam naharusamban-dham = "A skeleton together with (some) flesh and blood held in by the tendons." This is the third contemplation. Nimmamsalohitamakkhitam naharusambandham = "A blood-smeared skeleton without flesh but held in by the tendons." This is the fourth. Apagatamamsalohitam naharusambandham = "A skeleton held in by the tendons but without flesh and not besmeared with blood." This is the fifth. Atthikani apagatasambandhani = "Bones gone loose, scattered in all directions." This is the sixth. Atthikani setani sankhavannupanibhani = "Bones white in color like a conch." This is the seventh. Atthikani puñjakitani terovassikani = "Bones more than a year old heaped together." This is the eighth. Atthikani putini cunnakajatani = "Bones gone rotten and become dust." This is the ninth. Evam kho bhikkhave = "Thus, indeed, o bhikkhus." He said this bringing to an end body-contemplation after pointing out the nine cemetery contemplations. The mindfulness which lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations is the Truth of Suffering; the previous craving which originates that mindfulness is the Truth of Origin; the non-occurrence of both that mindfulness and the craving is the Truth of Cessation. The Real Path that understands suffering, casts out the origin, and has cessation for its object is the Truth of the Way. Endeavoring in this way by means of the Four Truths one arrives at peace. This is for the bhikkhu who lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations the portal of deliverance up to arahantship. Now, these are the fourteen portions which comprise body-contemplation: The section on breathing in and breathing out, on the postures, on the four kinds of clear comprehension, of reflection on repulsiveness, on the modes of materiality, and on the nine cemetery contemplations. There, only the sections on breathing in and breathing out and of the reflection on repulsiveness can become meditation-subjects of full absorption. As the cemetery contemplations are stated by way of consideration of disadvantages, dangers or evils, all the remaining twelve are only meditation-subjects of partial absorption. 21457 From: Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, I re-read the definition of concepts in CMA and didn't see anything beyond concepts are words and meanings of words. If you see something more, let's discuss it. Also, I thought of a complication with regard to when concepts can arise in citta process. If sanna (perception) remembers [as, I think, Suan asserts] then sanna possibly has two objects, the object of citta and the remembered object. Should this be the case, then concept could arise with any consciousness by means of sanna. This seems logically possible, but I don't think I have experienced it, at least with the idea that concept = word. Dredging up words seems to be a distinct process in itself. One that gets more difficult as one gets older :-))) Also, I'm looking forward to your reply to KKT regarding the importance of the concept/reality distinction in abhidhamma. Larry 21458 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:23pm Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- 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 Hi Star Kid Hilary! I wanted to give you some quotes about what some different children think about this war, children in England and the USA. As you will notice, they all have different opinions. There isn't one right answer to your question...that is why I am hesitant to answer. But let me make something very clear: The Lord Buddha wasn't anti-war, he was anti-suffering and anti-ignorance. War is just a consequence of the ignorance in the world...the Buddha didn't campaign to stop the symptoms, he campaigned to stop the cause. To be anti-war, without qualification, in the face of the truth of suffering, is juvenile and fantasy-like. I wanted to add more because someone wrote you a post that I don't agree with and is misleading of what the Buddha actually taught. Here are what some children have to say about the current war in Iraq: I would like to say that although the war is a bad thing! It's also a good thing because Saddam Hussein will get the message and just get on with people. From what I have heard not many people over there like him anyway and it's a shame they have to put up with another war! But I'm also very proud of Tony Blair because sooo many people have disagreed with him but he stood by his beliefs and the war has started but already it's going well for us! So hopefully it will be over soon! And not too many people have died! Steph, 15, Birmingham I have mixed feelings about the war. If we didn't go to war Saddam Husein might've used the weapons to attack the U.S. By going to war we are trying to protect our country, but many innocent people will die. Ashley, 10, USA I think by bomming Iraq Saddam might feel to presure to retaliate. Alexandra, 11, Illford I am saddened by the fact we are at war. It is hard to really understand how people are feeling in Iraq because it is so far away. One night on the news there was footage from the troops and people in Iraq - that is the closest I have got to being able to understand how it must be in Iraq for everyone there, and that understanding is minimal. Rachel, 15, Derbyshire I think It is utterley pointless to go to war. But as we are at war we do need to support the people that are fighting for us. I feel sorry for all the people who have family and friends in Iraq and the armed forces. I cannot see why this matter could not be sorted out peacefully Rachel, 14, Burnham War is stupid! So are Tony Blair and George W. Bush for starting this stupid war in the first place! Kirsty and Annie, 14, Dalkeith I'm glad we are doing something to get rid of Saddam because he is an extremely evil and sick man who tortures his own people, but in the process these people are going to die which im not happy about. Jen, 14, Farnborough It doesn't make sense that, even though this is a fight of the countries' leaders it is the innocent that are being killed. And that British people could die, for America. We as kids are taught that two wrongs don't make a right, so why do they not listen to their own advice? Layla, 14, Lancashire I'm upset and scared. I still think that there was some way of sorting it all out. I don't think we had to do this with weapons, I think there should have been more time. If you look at all the facts, this really doesn't make much sense! Even though I am against the cause I still support the troops, I'm proud of them and I want them to know that my heart is with them no matter what. Amethyst, 13, Washington I think that it's sad that we have gone to war but it's necessary. Sadam has done terrible things to his own people and we need to save them. I feel sorry for all of the innocent people especially the children who get caught up in this. Cassandra, 13, Chelmsford I don't think that the war is right, but now we are at war I think we should be supporting the soldiers who are fighting. Rachel, 15, Reading I'm glad we've gone to war. Saddam is a threat to the rest of the world with his wepons of mass destruction. He uses them on his own people so he won't think twice about using them on other countries. Harriet, 12, Edinburgh My father is in the RAF. He has recently been to Oman, and I'm worried he will get called up. This war has a very big emotional imnpact on everyone. Toria, 13, Findhorn It's stupid because innocent people will die. Harriet, 9, Stowmarket I think that Blair and Bush are wrong to go to war without the U.N backing them up. If Sadam has chemical and biological wepons he will use them against us in defence. Rachel, 11, Newcastle Under Lyme I think that now war has started, more terrorists will try to attack innocent people in innocent countries like we saw in 9/11. Although Iraq has little chance of boming us, declaring war on Iraq still puts an amount of danger upon us. Christopher, 11, Witley I didn't think war was possible until 9/11. Now I'm scared for my country and the world. Kids in America have a constant fear of someone striking us everyday. I think that Iraq has messed with the wrong country, especially when it comes to war. My friends try to act tough about this war, but I know they're scared just as every kid is right now. Sarah, 13, Virginia, USA You go Blair and Bush, get Saddam we will back you all the way! Support our boys and girls, bring them safely home. We hope you got Saddam this morning - he needs to be stopped. Stand up for your country, I would never have thought we could be so unpatriotic! Freya, 13, Cornwood I think that now that war has started many people are going to die, and there cannot ever be peace if we hate like this. Some of my friends have gone on a walkout and I think they mat be suspended. I know that my sister is in the military and she could die. Bush and Blair are ruining so many lives. We are all forever doomed if there cannot be peace. Becca, 12, London We feel sorry for the people in Iraq. Why did Tony Blair want to do such a thing? Class 5B, Chesham I can remember back to the week following September 11th 2001 and someone in my class saying that there will probably be war, no matter what. He was right. I can't believe Blair would do this! Soldiers that have families may die! It's horrible to think about what they're going through! Emma, 11 I think this is a terrible course of action and I am disappointed in our leaders' failure to inform and support us. Somebody should tell him that NO WAR doesn't mean NO ACTION. Something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein, but not this. Attacking Iraq is like attacking someone with a tumour rather than removing it. Richard, 15, Windsor My dad fought in the last Gulf war but he hasn't been called up. But I never thought the weapons inspections would amount in war. Hannah, 12, Gloucester I think that war isn't the best solution to this. They could have done this with peace. War is not good for anybody whether they are rich or poor and how powerful they are. And not only that, many people can be killed. Amy, 12, Vancouver I remember my parents always saying they hoped there would never be another war. But this has changed that, and it's pretty terrifying. Even living in Australia, whenever there's a plane overhead everyone tenses up, maybe because we feel the terror of the Iraqi's during those moments of suspense. It's terrible, and the public doesn't know enough information to have an opinion on war. How did we let this happen? Caitlyn, 12, Sydney I have become a different person within the last few hours, and I realize now not to take the essence of life for granted. As I write this, I can see the explosions in Iraq on my television, while I am sitting safe at home. I am in an utter state of shock and disbelief. How can the prosperous and wealthy America attack a deprived impoverished Iraq? My heart goes out to those who will suffer in this atrocity. My friends and I are scared for not only the USA, but for also the world. Arianna, 13, Mississippi, USA I think that war isn't the best solution to this. But we'll probably win anyway considering how many allies we have. Kaelyn, 12, Hillsboro A couple of years ago before 9/11 I thought that war would be impossible. Now that I'm older of course I know it's possible. We're at the beginning of it right now. Americans treasure their rights. I, being one, do too. I'm watching the news more than ever before and I realize that they're giving all this information about the war. Cara, 12, USA Well, as of now war has started. I (like many Americans), am anti- war. However, I think we should support the troops. They do not decide whether they go or not, they are ordered to. They are over there to fight, perhaps even to die, and we should support them, not as soldiers, but as people. People almost seem to forget that soldiers have lives and families, and I doubt that they want to die. Even if we do not support the war, we should support the people who are trying to end it faster. Rachel, 14, New York Metta, James 21459 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:17pm Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Christine, Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda has written a small booklet on Astrology and Buddhism. Here is the link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/pictures/PUBLI/Buddhism%20And% 20Astrology%20-%20edited.pdf Here is the link to the collection of Chief Reverend's books: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of > Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who has > been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. > This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology to > contemplate setting up a small business to draw natal charts, and > have consultations. I did not ask (and, under the circumstances, > could not) if this was a wholesome buddhist practice or whether it > was encouraged or discouraged in the Teachings. I have looked in > Access to Insight and have been able to find that Bhikkhus are > forbidden to practice astrology, it being considered a wrong mode of > livelihood. > > However, the Buddha established a purely monastic uposatha > observance, "which he limited to the final day of the lunar > fortnight. To enable the bhikkhus to determine the date of this > observance, he relaxed the rule against their studying astrology, > which in those days had not yet separated from astronomy, allowing > them to learn as much astronomy as needed to calculate whether the > full and new moons fell on the fourteenth or fifteenth of a > particular fortnight. ("At that time people asked the bhikkhus as > they were going for alms, 'Which day of the fortnight is it, sirs?' > The bhikkhus said, 'We don't know.' The people were offended and > annoyed and spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives don't even > know enough to calculate the fortnight. How will they know anything > else that's worthwhile?'" -- Mv.II.18.1) > > But is the practice of Astrology forbidden, or discouraged, or seen > as not wholesome as a livelihood, hobby or belief for lay people? I > am told that the predictions are quite scientific and uncannily > accurate - and this raises other questions about perhaps viewing > Astrology as a comfort, support or a skillful means to chart one's > aims and goals. And how can it (as it seems to do) scientifically > predict the future? > I wonder how Astrology fits in with life consisting only of the > present moment, with kamma, with anatta, with no-control etc. > metta, > Christine 21460 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I chatted with Chief Reverend yesterday about this. He mentioned that five books had been translated. I went to this link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm and I was able to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" without a problem. "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist" took a long time, but could also be downloaded. The other three books, "The Aim and Way of Life", "How to Overcome Your Difficulties" and "Moral and Ethical Conduct of a Buddhist" caused errors when I tried to download the Burmese versions. I sent an email to the Webmaster about this problem and asked to be notified when it had been fixed. Chief mentioned that there were no hard copies of Burmese books at the temple and that the person who did the translation was Dr. Mehm Tin Mon. I attended Dr. Mon's Abhidhamma lectures last November. He does not have an e-mail address (difficult to come by in Myanmar). Here are Dr. Mon's contact details: Dr. M. Tin Mon 15/19 U Wisara Estate Dagon P.O. Yangon Union of Myanmar. Phone: 95-01-286610 I will let you know if I am notified when the files are fixed. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. > I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but > I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. > And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you > will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to > decide which ones to get. > BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. > > Thanks again. > > Sukin. 21461 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:47pm Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Rob, I've read Dr. K. Sri Dhammadanda's four page article on Astrology. I must say I was expecting an 'anti' article, and instead got the opposite. Very interesting, and it has opened quite another perspective for me. (lucky I didn't say anything on the phone last week! :)) Thank you. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda has written a small booklet on Astrology and > Buddhism. Here is the link: > > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/pictures/PUBLI/Buddhism%20And% > 20Astrology%20-%20edited.pdf > > Here is the link to the collection of Chief Reverend's books: > > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > > Hope that this helps. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of > > Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who > has > > been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. > > This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology 21462 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:53pm Subject: Astrology Re Astrology. Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against it. In the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the future by any means Yet, there are monks who do it. I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but it is wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the future with numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation of $50 dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons Park Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That Luang in Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been very outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a tradition of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own business. All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then received money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological charts. Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is against the Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. Venerable Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. 21463 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:25pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Rob, Thankyou for your help. But I just spend the last 25 minutes trying to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" and I got only to page 5. I think it must be a big file since it is a scanned copy. Besides my phone line is not very good. However they must have done something about it, since on my previous attempts I got only error messages. So I will probably have to write to Dr. M. Tin Mon and hope that something positive will come up. Thanks again. Best wishes, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:27 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I chatted with Chief Reverend yesterday about this. He mentioned that five books had been translated. I went to this link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm and I was able to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" without a problem. "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist" took a long time, but could also be downloaded. The other three books, "The Aim and Way of Life", "How to Overcome Your Difficulties" and "Moral and Ethical Conduct of a Buddhist" caused errors when I tried to download the Burmese versions. I sent an email to the Webmaster about this problem and asked to be notified when it had been fixed. Chief mentioned that there were no hard copies of Burmese books at the temple and that the person who did the translation was Dr. Mehm Tin Mon. I attended Dr. Mon's Abhidhamma lectures last November. He does not have an e-mail address (difficult to come by in Myanmar). Here are Dr. Mon's contact details: Dr. M. Tin Mon 15/19 U Wisara Estate Dagon P.O. Yangon Union of Myanmar. Phone: 95-01-286610 I will let you know if I am notified when the files are fixed. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. > I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but > I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. > And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you > will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to > decide which ones to get. > BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. > > Thanks again. > > Sukin. 21464 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:45pm Subject: Re: Astrology Dear Bhante and All, Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand your concern about fortune telling, and fully agree with it. The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of personalities born under certain star signs. The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm 12th row down, centre column He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Re Astrology. > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against it. In > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the future by > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but it is > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the future with > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation of $50 > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons Park > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That Luang in > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been very > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a tradition > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own business. > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then received > money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological charts. > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is against the > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. Venerable > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal > experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. 21465 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jonothan Abbott, But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by Sarah? I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are not real. I hope you get what I mean. I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely taught the ultimate teaching. [4] "Furthermore... just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain -- wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice -- and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html All these things in the body are merely concepts. Yet the Buddha tells us to contemplate the body in this manner. [5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html Here, the Buddha presents the ultimate teaching. Why would the Buddha present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single sutta? If insight into the four great elements is crucial for everyone, the Buddha would not have presented so many choices as how to be mindful of the body in and of itself. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21466 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 10:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I have downloaded the two books ("Buddhism in Modern Life" and "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist") and will put them onto a CD to send to you using "snail mail". Please send me your "snail mail" address to my email account: rob.moult@j... Metta, Rob M :-) 21467 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: Astrology --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Bhante and All, > > Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand your concern about > fortune telling, and fully agree with it. > > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. > > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" > wrote: > > Re Astrology. > > > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against > it. In > > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the > future by > > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but > it is > > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the > future with > > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation > of $50 > > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons > Park > > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That > Luang in > > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been > very > > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a > tradition > > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own > business. > > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then > received > > money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological > charts. > > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is > against the > > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. > Venerable > > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal > > experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. Dear Christine, Buddha has not spoken of cosmic energy that could change the course of Kamma, in any of his dicourse. These are Hindu beliefs that have crept into Buddhist Societies and are not the teachings of the Buddha. with metta, Yasalalaka 21468 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:43am Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Chris, I haven't read your original post since I haven't caught up with it yet in my reading of dsg material of the past 2 days. But I randomly picked up and found this one and felt a need to respond since it comes at a time when I am trying to get other books by the Venerable. You wrote: > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. Perhaps it is the Venerable's aim that he just wants "people to have less friction as they go through life", maybe he is talking about those of us who would not deeply understand the dhamma anyway. If living a smooth conventional life is the aim, this might sound attractive, but even this will not ultimately work. So I *do* have a problem with this because I think it encourages an attitude that goes against the correct understanding of dhamma. Firstly for me 'sceintific evidence' is no evidence at all. I don't believe in the methods of science when it comes to understanding truth, even if it admits to being partial and one sided, I think a collection of parts put together no matter how extensive does not and will not make a whole or even give a glimpse of it. For example when it comes to personality, it's evidence is based on outer behavior and/ or inference, not direct insight. Based on this inferential knowledge, more inferences are made and so in the end one really gets further away from the actual fact, which is this moment arising and falling away. You and I at least appreciate the fact that there are at any given moment a complex set of conditions which determine the arising of any reality. And this can't be comprehended by anyone let alone to know the arising of any subsequent dhamma. And so far I have only implied citta, cetasika and kamma, now you add environment and you can see how much more complicated it gets. Secondly, even in the Buddha's teachings itself, about carita (sp?), I don't see any use in knowing one's personality type at all. How can knowing this help in understanding the moment? In fact there is a danger in dwelling on such knowledge and taking the attention away from the more important task of understanding the arising reality. "Knowledge is power" they say, I think it is a fetter in this case...;-) > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? I doubt it, and would be surprised if it were. Such ideas seem to be the product of speculation, and I leave it to other's to do whatever want with such kind of thinking, for me it is not helpful at all. Metta, Sukin. 21469 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Sarah, Mike, Swee Boon, Yasalalaka and All, Sarah - I like your example about the SARS and the children - putting their comfort and calmness ahead of your own feelings is (probably) metta. I didn't regard anything in your other post as unfriendly - thank you for making sure there was no misunderstanding. :-) Sometimes I wonder how you and others put up with my questioning, and I'm grateful for people's patience - especially when I asked the same questions last year and seemed to 'get it' at the time. (It would be wonderful if my memory was like 'monkey-lime' for Right Understanding). Mike - Thanks for your thoughts. I find your quotation from Bhikkhu Bodhi rather interesting - the bit about where Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in his Guide to the Universal Beautiful Factors, Compendium of Mental Factors (p. 86, CMA): "When non-hatred appears as the sublime quality of loving-kindness (mettaa), it has the characteristic of promoting the welfare of living beings. Its function is to prefer [!?--mn] their welfare. --- " I wonder how this relates to that sutta (which I can't locate) where it was said (something like) if someone was with three companions and a bandit came and wanted to select one to be killed - it was not showing Right Understanding to volunteer to sacrifice *oneself* - as that was differentiating, and *oneself* was just as valuable as the other three. [I hope I haven't imagined this sutta or misunderstood its meaning]. The Visuddhimagga (Chapter IX 93) takes *the being* out of it, and says: "loving kindness is characterized here as promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in beings. It succeeds when it makes ill-will subside, and it fails when it produces (selfish) affection." Not wishing to revive the old discussion about 'self' or 'other' as the object of metta - but perhaps we have? If my sutta is locatable - wouldn't it mean *oneself* is no more and no less valuable than an *other*.(and equally deserving of metta without differentiation?) Swee Boon - I understand what you mean. This raises a question for me - what do I do with the feeling of ill will and aversion? It belongs to me not to the other person. Sometimes I wonder how I am ever to get to the point of : "Just as a mother would protect her son - her only son - with her life - even so let him cultivate this boundless love to all living beings. Radiating with a full heart loving thoughts of kindness towars all the world, free from anger, malice or anxiety - above, below and in all directions". Yasalalaka - Thank you for your post, and for telling me that the Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) I don't remember hearing of this title before. There have been a number of discussions over the last year on whether metta should be pervaded towards oneself or only towards others; and whether metta could be made to arise in a specific formal practice or whether it just arises in moments of daily living. On this List, there are numbers of people who do formal sitting/walking/standing meditation, and numbers of people who don't. Of course, while the discussions were robust and interesting, I'm not sure too many changed their particular stance. :-) I gather from the description of meditation in your post that you practice formal meditation. Have you heard these Brahma Viharas chant and guided meditations on this site?: http://www.vipassana.com/audio_files/index.php metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" 21470 From: jonoabb Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma Rob M Congratulations on a fine work. I am very impressed with your presentational skills. You invited feedback. I've had a quick look through the slides, and I can see there are a some references I would probably comment on. If you were to post the text to the list in short segments, I'm sure there'd be feedback from me and others. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21471 From: ajahn_paul Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, From the movie Matrix, someone said "Its different from knowing the path and walking the path". ^^ and as i remember,, Buddha had said that "You wont feel full by (talking) about eating". I think its very common, i think many of buddhist r just like that! Pitty to say, many ppl called themselves as buddhist is bcoz buddhism is become (fashion) in sociaties. may be im wrong,, but thats what i can see! @.@ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine 21472 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > 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: mindfulness which lays hold of the four modes of materiality is the > Truth of Suffering.> > It shows that there are many aspects. > Nina. Dear Sarah, Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different things. Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. It is said that the Buddha had, insight into this great teaching on the 7th day after his enlightenment still seated under the Bodhi tree, while he was experiencing the bliss of Nirvana. This unique teaching of the Buddha, along with the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Four Noble Truth, make up the sum total of his teaching. Hetu-phala, explains the ultimate reality , the Dukkha and its causes. Paticchasamuppada, has eleven conditions, which explains in its descending order, beginning from, ignoranace (avijja), leading to suffering (dukkha), and in its ascending order elimination of ignorance (avijja) to attain Nibbana. i) Ignorance (avijja) conditions (paccaya) karma-formations (sankhara) ii) Karma-formations(sankhara) condition consciousness (vinnana) iii) Consciousness(vinnana) conditions mental and physical phenomena(nama-rupa) iv) Mental and physical phenomena(nama-rupa) condition six sense bases(salayatana) v) Six sense bases, including consciousness(salayatana) condition contact (phasso) vi) Contact (phassa) conditions feeling(vedana) vii) Feelings (vedana) condition attachment, desire or craving (tanha) viii) Craving (tanha) conditions clinging (upadanam) ix) Clinging (upadana) conditions the process of becoming(bhavo) x) Process of becoming (bhava) conditions rebirth (jati) xi) Rebirth(jati) conditions death sorrow, lamentation, pain grief (jaramarana) With metta, Yasalalaka 21473 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 2:07am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without a knowledge of Abhidhamma. 21474 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:36am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 2-5 for comment Abhidhamma in the Buddhist Canon Slide Contents ============== Tipitaka (Three Baskets) Vinaya - Authorative teaching - Lists of rules and regulations for monks and nuns - "Avoid evil" Suttas - Conventional teaching - Has the form of recorded speeches - Uses common, imprecise language - "Do good" Abhidhamma - Ultimate teaching - Has the form of an advanced textbook - Uses precise, technical language - "Purify the mind" Speaker Notes ============= A "Canon" is a set of sacred books. In Theravada Buddhism, the sacred books are called "Tipitaka", which in Pali means "Three Baskets". All together, the Tipitaka is about eleven times the size of the Christian Bible. The first basket in the Tipitaka is the Vinaya. In the Vinaya, the Buddha used his authority to lay down rules of behaviour for monks and nuns. The Vinaya tells us to avoid evil through awareness. In society, "evil" usually implies hurting somebody else; in Buddhism, "evil" means contaminating our own minds. A contaminated mind is the forerunner of all evil speech or deeds. The second basket in the Tipitaka is the Suttas. These are the recorded speeches of the Buddha. They often start with the phrase, "Thus have I heard …" The Buddha used everyday, conversational language in the Suttas, depending on the audience to whom He was speaking. Many of the Suttas tell us to be good through effort and determination. In society, "being good" usually implies helping somebody else; in Buddhism, "good" means purifying our own minds. A pure mind is the forerunner of all good speech or deeds. The third basket in the Tipitaka is the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma has the form of an advanced textbook; like a textbook, it is difficult to sit down and start reading the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma uses precise technical terms. As an analogy, the common, imprecise language used by the Suttas are like an image on TV screen, whereas the technical, precise language used by the Abhidhamma are like the coloured dots which form image. The focus of the Abhidhamma is to purify the mind by seeing things as they truly are and thereby uprooting defilements. The Suttas and the Abhidhamma are two different ways of saying the same thing. 21475 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT (Larry & All), Sorry for any delayed replies. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > KKT: I study Buddhism as a << whole >> > ie. all different traditions without distinction. the diamond from different angles. ..... One thing for sure is that ‘truth’ or ‘actuality/reality’ is the same regardless of the words used and regardless of any comprehension or lack of it. ..... > 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? ..... From the start of CMA, ch 1-2 “The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.” (“Tatha vutt’aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Cittam cetasikam ruupam Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa”) In B.Bodhi’s Guide to this, he writes: “According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are two kinds of realities - the conventional (sammuti) and the ultimate (paramattha). Conventional realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pa~n~natti) and conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as living beings, persons, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. The Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate validity, for the objects which they signify do not exist in their own right as irreducible realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by reason of their own nature. Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). Thee are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existnce, the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of experience. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama = ultimate, highest, final, and attha = eality, thing.” ***** Many more quotes from Abhidhamma and Sutta sources on this topic will be found in posts under ‘concepts and realities’ and ‘concepts’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts When I read any sutta, regardless of the language used, I understand it to be about paramattha dhammas and to be stressing the importance of understanding these. Examples where this may be more apparent are ones like ‘The All’ or ‘The World’, or others which discuss paramattha dhammas in similar language to the Abhidhamma. For some like the ‘Mulapariya Sutta’, we read a phrase such as used in the introduction: “sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya” = the exposition of the root of all things, and need to look at the commentary and sub-commentary for clarification which stresses the same importance in understanding the distinction you ask about: Cy, B.Bodhi p32: “.....Here the word (dhamma) occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.nam dhaarentii ti dhammaa) Sub Cy: ***** “They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics, this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributions as that of a “being” etc. Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence,etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as “sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas (i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. These dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities. And though there is no real distinction (between these dhammas and their characteristics), still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device (upacaaramatta). Or else they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa). ***** As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this passage supports the following: 1) all dhammas have characteristics, 2)these dhammas (i.e.5 khandhas) have sabhava, 3) dhammas are anatta, 4) concepts are not “real actualities” whereas those with sabhava are, 5) dhammas cannot be separated or distinguished from their characteristics (lakkhana), 6) they can only be known by ‘their specific nature” (yathaasabhaavato) or characteristics. I hope this helps and I’ll be very glad to hear more feedback from you. Metta, Sarah ====== QUOTE from a post from Rob Eddison: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus(lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found[i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)” ***** 21476 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Rob & Mike, > --- robmoult wrote: > > 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..." ..... In the recently published PTS transl of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha I now see it gives all the detail and explanation of to the points we were discussing and which B.Bodhi based many of his comments on. So let me quote directly from it: Prologue 2, p7: “Ultimate means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate. Consciousnes (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: ‘Consciousness has the characteristic of knowing objects.’ for although such causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object. Or else consciousness is the means by which asociated dhammas are conscious (cintana). For it is its mere occurrence in accordance with conditions that is called ‘a dhamma with its own particular nature’ (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular natures of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute; the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma’s being treated as an agent, by attributing the status of ‘self’ to the particular function of a dhamma, and also its being (treated) in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart from the particular nature of a dhamma. The meaning of the word citta is also elaborated as that which causes variegation and so on. Thus it is summarized: “It is consciousness because it causes variegation (vicitta), or because it is itself variegated; it is gathered (cita) by kamma and defilements, or it preserves what has been gathered thus; it gathers its own continuity, and it has a variety of objects.” (Abhidhammaavataara 2,v-9) That which exists in the mind (cetasi) by occurring in dependence upon it is mentality (cetasika). For it is unable to take an object without consciousness; in the absence of consciousness there is no arising of any mentality at all. But consciousness does occur with an object in the absence of certain mentalities; so mentality is said to occur in dependence upon consciousness. Therefore the Blessed One has said: “Dhammas have mind as their forerunner.” (Dhp 1) This refutes erroneous opinions such as that happiness, etc, are permanent and exist in the absence of consciousness. (Cf Vism XV1, 85). Alternatively mentality is that which is combined with consciousnes.” ***** The text continues with a discussion on rupa. Any further comments? With metta, Sarah ===== 21477 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta Hi Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:44 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Metta > Mike - > I wonder how this relates to that sutta (which I can't locate) where > it was said (something like) if someone was with three companions and > a bandit came and wanted to select one to be killed - it was not > showing Right Understanding to volunteer to sacrifice *oneself* - as > that was differentiating, and *oneself* was just as valuable as the > other three. [I hope I haven't imagined this sutta or misunderstood > its meaning]. I remember reading this too but am not able to put my finger on it at the moment. > The Visuddhimagga (Chapter IX 93) takes *the being* out of it, and > says: > "loving kindness is characterized here as promoting the aspect of > welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the > removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in > beings. It succeeds when it makes ill-will subside, and it fails > when it produces (selfish) affection." This makes more sense. I suspect these are both excerpts from Atthasaalinii with variations in translation. I really must get a copy (in English, of course and unfortunately). > Not wishing to revive the old discussion about 'self' or 'other' as > the object of metta - but perhaps we have? If my sutta is > locatable - wouldn't it mean *oneself* is no more and no less > valuable than an *other*.(and equally deserving of metta without > differentiation?) I don't think so--I don't think 'valuable' or 'deserving' enter into it at all. Mettaa is undifferentiated and inclusive of all 'beings', as I understand it. No need to bring self or other into it at all (ditto with the other illimitables). Does this make sense to you? I hope someone can come up with the sutta you cited above. This one isn't about mettaa (exactly) but seems somewhat pertinent to me: "Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? The one who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The one who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own. The one who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others. The one who practices for his own benefit and for that of others. "Just as a firebrand from a funeral pyre -- burning at both ends, covered with excrement in the middle -- is used as fuel neither in a village nor in the wilderness: I tell you that this is a simile for the individual who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The individual who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own is the higher & more refined of these two. The individual who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others is the highest & most refined of these three. The individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others is, of these four, the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. Just as from a cow comes milk; from milk, curds; from curds, butter; from butter, ghee; from ghee, the skimmings of ghee; and of these, the skimmings of ghee are reckoned the foremost -- in the same way, of these four, the individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of other is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. "These are the four types of individuals to be found existing in the world." Anguttara Nikaya IV.95 Chavalata Sutta The Firebrand mike 21478 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation: To Howard Dear Howard How are you? You wrote: "I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. ...I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'- pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be?" The accent you place on the chosen syllables in those examples is the way it should be. This is only my intuitive answer, though. The syllable accenting is part of Pali learning to be taken up, in addition to the subject of poetics (Alankaara), when one is composing Pali verses. The subject that covers the syllable accenting, syllable counting and measuring is called "Chandam". I do have this text handy, but I haven't come round to studying it properly as I do not have any immediate plan to compose poetry in Pali. When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly be able to tell you more about syllable accenting. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan - This is very interesting to me. (I like the phonetics/phonemics of languages perhaps most of all language features.) I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. I've been *assuming* that long vowels get the accent, and when no vowel is long, if the word has at least three syllables, it is the third from last which gets the accent, and the next to last in two-syllable words. So, as a couple of examples, I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n- a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'-pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be? With metta, Howard 21479 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I re-read the definition of concepts in CMA and didn't see anything > beyond concepts are words and meanings of words. If you see something > more, let's discuss it. ..... I’m not sure which part of CMA you’re looking at. In ch V111,29 p325, we read that apart from the aggregates and nibbana that “what remains are concepts..” Mental images, for example when there is some recognition without words, or for a baby, are still pannatti (concepts) and not any of the aggregates. We read about atthapa~n~atti or concepts as meanings as well as naamapa~n~natti or concepts as names. On pp 326-7 we read about the different kinds of atthapannatti which “become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things.” I think the last category, kasina signs, nimittapannatti (sign concepts) are a good example of mental images without words. “They correspond to mental signs gained by meditative development”. Note that some of the same examples, such as ‘land’ and ‘mountain’ are used in the categories of atthapannatti and namapannatti. “Woman’s voice” can be recognised with or without words. Either way, it is “a concept of the real by means of the unreal, since the sound of the voice ultimately exists but not the woman”. I notice in the commentary, atthapannatti is translated as ‘conceptual idea’ and namapannatti as ‘conceptual name’. ..... > Also, I thought of a complication with regard to when concepts can arise > in citta process. If sanna (perception) remembers [as, I think, Suan > asserts] then sanna possibly has two objects, the object of citta and > the remembered object. Should this be the case, then concept could arise > with any consciousness by means of sanna. ..... Sanna accompanies every single citta and ‘marks’ its object, one object at a time. The object will be the same as for the citta and this means that sometimes it is a reality (a nama or rupa) and sometimes it is a concept. A concept never arises with consciousness. It can only ever be the object and doesn’t arise and pass away. Remember it’s a ‘shadow’ and doesn’t have sabhava or characteristics. From the Abhid.Sangaha, ch 8, as transl in the Comy,p323 “(There is a concept as) the objective field of the mind-door (process) which arises immediately after the occurrence of an ear consciousness process in the wake of the sound of speech; it is in conformity with this that meanings are afterwards discerned. A concept such as this is to be seen as created through ordinary conventions.” Extract to this passage (see also CMA p328) from the Comy: “And here, ‘an ear-consciousness process’ is stated as also including in that same process of ear-consciousness the proces at the mind-door which comes into being immediately after the ear-consciousness process. For when one hears the word ‘drum’, etc, for every sound there are two courses of impulsion by way of a present and past object, (while) there is one (course of impulsion) taking the sequence of syllables which constitute the conceptual name apprehended by one’s intellect; in this way the conceptual name is apprehended immediately after the proces of impulsion that has as its object the past sounds and that occurs immediately after the (actual) ear-consciousness process; after that, so the teachers say, one understands the meaning.” ..... >This seems logically possible, > but I don't think I have experienced it, at least with the idea that > concept = word. Dredging up words seems to be a distinct process in > itself. One that gets more difficult as one gets older :-))) ..... I know what you mean. Now, just because I might forget the names of students or of suttas doesn’t mean that all concepts disappear;-) This is why I think it is misleading if one considers concepts as literally words. Also, understanding of realities bears no relationship to how good one’s memory is (as we conventionally use the term). ..... Let me know how this sounds so far, Larry and whether you have any further comments/queeries on the other post to KKT or this one. They are great points you’re both raising imho. With metta, Sarah ===== 21480 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism 8-11: eight kinds of suffering: birth, old age, sickness, death, separation from loved ones, confrontation with enemies, inability to attain what one seeks and the suffering of the five aggregates. eight worldly concerns --gain, loss, fame, blame, rebuke, praise, pleasure, and pain. eight fold path I. Morality (sila) Right Speech (samma vaca) (1)Lying, (2)Slander and tale-bearing, (3)harsh speech, and (4)Frivolous and meaningless talk. Right Action (samma kammanta) precepts - Pratimoksha (lit. The root of freedom) Right Livelihood (samma ajiva) "... this holy life is not for cheating people, scheming, nor for profit, favor, and honor... this holy life is lived for the sake of restraint, for abandoning [delusion], for dispassion, for cessation." II. Concentration (samadhi) two benefits: mental and physical well-being, comfort, joy, calm, tranquillity. capable of seeing things as they truly are, and prepares the mind to attain wisdom. Right Effort (samma vayama) - enthusiasm, positive attitude/determination reject evil that has already arisen; prevent the arising of evil; develop unarisen good; maintain the good which has arisen. Right Mindfulness (samma sati) six objects of mindfulness: the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, the precepts, the merits of renouncing worldliness, and the merits of good deeds. four foundations of mindfulness of body, of sensation, of mind, and of dharmas (external and mental objects) Right Concentration (samma samadhi) leads to mental and physical well-being, comfort, joy, calm, tranquillity and prepares the mind to attain wisdom. III. Wisdom (pañña) [bodhi, vipassana] Right Understanding/View (samma dithi) go beyond views Wrong View (micchaditthi): nihilism (natthika-d.), inefficacy-of-action(akiriya-d.), acausality (ahetuka-d.) "Right understanding understands not a person or a Buddhist." Right Thoughts (samma sankappa) renunciation (nekkhamma) loving-kindness (metta) harmlessness (avihimsa) compassion (karuna) sympathetic joy (mudita) equanimity (upekkha) Passion, aversion, delusion, anger, resentment, arrogance, insolence, envy, & stinginess. One who has abandoned these nine things is capable of realizing arahantship. Parami - Perfections 1. Dana - Generosity 2. Sila - Morality 3. Nekkhamma - Renunciation 4. Panna - Wisdom 5. Viriya - Energy 6. Khanti - Patience 7. Sacca - Truthfulness 8. Adhitthana - Determination 9. Metta - Loving-kindness 10. Upekkha - Equanimity ten meritorious deeds are: 1. Charity 2. Morality 3. Mental culture 4. Reverence or respect 5. Service in helping others 6. Sharing merits with others 7. Rejoicing in the merits of others 8. Preaching and teaching the Dhamma 9. Listening to the Dhamma 10. Straightening one's views Precepts - "rules of training" (sikkhapada) 1-5. principles of non-injury and loving-kindness, honesty, sexual propriety, truthfulness and sobriety. 6. Abstaining from eating after mid-day 7. Abstaining from dancing, singing, music and shows 8. Abstaining from garlands, scents, cosmetics and adornment 9. Abstaining from luxurious beds 10. Abstaining from accepting gold and silver The third precept is also expanded to a rule enjoining chastity. ten fetters (sayojanâ) that bind people to the phenomenal world. five lower: personality belief, sceptical doubt, clinging to rite and ritual, sensuous craving and ill-will, and five higher:0craving for "fine material" existence, craving for "immaterial existence", conceit, restlessness, and ignorance. 10 kilesas (delusions, passions, defilements):0desire, hate, delusion, pride, wrong views, doubt, rigidity, excitability, shamelessness, and no conscience. create the causes and conditions (vexations) 11 benefits of loving-kindness: - Sleep peacefully - He awakes fresh, like a flower opening - No bad dreams - One is dear to human beings - One is dear to non-human beings - One is protected by Devas - Fire, poison and weapons cannot injure one - One'e mind becomes easily concentrated - One's complexion becomes serene - One will die unconfused - One will be reborn in bhahma plane (or higher) (Taken from Anguttara Nikaya XI, 16) [RobM] 11 as two ones: life a mirror 11 kinds of physical pain and mental agony: lust, hatred, illusion, sickness, decay, death, worry, lamentation, pain (physical and mental), melancholy and grief. 21481 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation: To Howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 4/21/03 9:35:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say > about syllable accenting. ...I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but > vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'- > pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be?" > > The accent you place on the chosen syllables in those examples is the > way it should be. This is only my intuitive answer, though. > > The syllable accenting is part of Pali learning to be taken up, in > addition to the subject of poetics (Alankaara), when one is composing > Pali verses. > > The subject that covers the syllable accenting, syllable counting and > measuring is called "Chandam". I do have this text handy, but I > haven't come round to studying it properly as I do not have any > immediate plan to compose poetry in Pali. > > When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly > be able to tell you more about syllable accenting. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > ================================ Thanks very much, Suan. With regard to "When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly be able to tell you more about syllable accenting," I look forward to hearing more from you on this in the future. 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) 21482 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:44am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor (and Christine), I have some thoughts, hope you don't mind me expressing them. Victor, you said; > I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that > > > 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. > > > This is how I see it: > It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the > change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, > chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the > sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such > as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a > relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, > perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, > disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, > passes away, sooner or later. Let us say we have a broken chair, how would this show impermanence? By associating it with a memory of an unbroken one, no? Without this association, where is impermanence to be seen? So isn't this just 'thinking' impermanence? Can this kind of thinking lead to insight? May be, but most likely not. Because the only thing that would lead to insight would be the actual perception of impermanence, not thinking about it. Thinking I believe may condition at best a calm acceptance of the inevitability of all things to come to an end. But this will always be in relation to a self, "one's own end or that of others". But this line of approach in and of itself, seems to me unlikely to lead to vipassana knowledge. One must have accumulated a great deal of panna to see through the concept to the underlying truth. Otherwise one will revolve only on this level. Besides this kind of perception is not unique to Buddhism, nor is it that only certain religious philosophers have seen this, but even a common man can come upon this kind of understanding independently. To say that "everything changes" is like saying that everything is dhamma without having insighted a single dhamma. But worse, because at least the word dhamma can refer to paramatthadhammas, but 'everything' in your statement refers to non-existents as well. In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can be used by one person at different times, in different places and by any number of persons to refer to something constant. These were the thoughts. What do you think Victor? Best, Sukin. 21483 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:45am Subject: Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 We read in the Commentary to this passage: The Bodhisatta who was in that life named Dipåyana, went to see his friend Mandavya. He (Mandavya) was impaled on a stake and because Dipåyana excelled in síla he did not neglect this recluse. He stood there leaning on a spear throughout the three watches of the night. He acquired the name Kanhadipåyana (kanha meaning black), because his body became black by the drops of blood that streamed from the recluse Mandavya¹s body and that had dried up. Question: What is the cause that the Great Man who during many thousands of existences had the inclination to renunciation and who found happiness in the brahma-faring, was in this life dissatisfied with it? Answer: This was because of the instability that is characteristic of non-enlightened people. Question: Why did he not enter again the married state? Answer: At first he saw the disadvantage in the sense pleasures, and because of his inclination to renunciation he became a monk. However, because of the lack of wise consideration he became dissatisfied with the brahma-faring. Although he could not abandon that dissatisfaction, he disliked to be blamed by people who might say, ³Kanhadipåyana raves on and on, he is unreliable. He left his wealth and went forth from the household life; he left his possessions and then he wants to return again to these.² Because he feared that his sense of shame and fear of blame would be destroyed, the Great Man, full of suffering and unhappy feeling, even cried and shed tears that streamed over his face. In this way he continued the brahma-faring and he did not leave it. As we read in the ³Basket of Conduct², the Bodhisatta highly valued truthfulness, he spoke the truth, saying that he was only for seven days a recluse wholeheartedly, with full confidence in kusala. He expressed his confidence in kusala and in truthfulness by a solemn utterance, an ³Assertion of Truth². This was the condition for the brahman youth to recover. An ³Assertion of Truth² is a forceful affirmation of faith in the truth which can create a direct effect on someone else¹s condition [15] . Some people may have doubts about the ³Assertion of Truth² referred to in the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an Assertion of Truth can bring its result according to one¹s wish. However, when a person has to experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to overcome his suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what truthfulness is and without understanding its high value. It is essential that one, before making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the benefit of truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the perfection of truthfulness. If someone develops kusala and his goal is the realization of the four noble Truths, he should know that the way leading to this goal is the development of all the perfections. If someone accumulates the perfection of truthfulness together with the other perfections so that they gain strength, and if he sees the benefit of truthfulness, he may express an Assertion of Truth. However, not everyone can do so, it also depends on the power of his kusala and the degree of his understanding of truthfulness. Footnote: 15. I have added this whole paragraph with an explanation of ³Assertion of Truth². 21484 From: Michael Newton Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Astrology --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Bhante and All, > > Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand > your concern about > fortune telling, and fully agree with it. > > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about > Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the > types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to > indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality > characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some > help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony > with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they > go through life. > > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He > says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which > pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy > interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and > determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this > 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) > a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the > scriptures at all? > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" > wrote: > > Re Astrology. > > > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am > very much against > it. In > > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not > alowwed to read the > future by > > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or > Thai monks, but > it is > > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple > Prayorkyo reads the > future with > > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day > and gets a donation > of $50 > > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao > Temple in St Jhons > Park > > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. > Venerable Abbot of That > Luang in > > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot > cards. I have been > very > > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told > that this is a > tradition > > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I > should mind my own > business. > > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years > and all of then > received > > money as donations for them for reading the cards > and astrological > charts. > > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the > future, it is > against the > > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all > the time. > Venerable > > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) > I know by personal > > experience about this. This is a battle that I > will never win. >Dear Noble Sangha; I'm not really sure how I feel about Astrology as it relates to the Buddhist path,except that Buddhism teaches living from moment to moment-not putting too much concern about the future,so I wonder about these Lao and Cambodian monks doing these readings and charging $50.It appears to me that monks are not supposed to be handling money in this respect,unless my understanding incorrect.However,it's different in the West on this maybe.Please correct me if I'm wrong. YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METT,MICHAEL > 21485 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:47am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thank you for the message. I appreciate the points that you brought up. This is how I see it: A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one sees it as a new computer or an old one. Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that might be of some interest: "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-060.html#anicca Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor (and Christine), > > I have some thoughts, hope you don't mind me expressing them. > Victor, you said; > > > I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > This is how I see it: > > It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the > > change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, > > chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the > > sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such > > as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a > > relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, > > perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, > > disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, > > passes away, sooner or later. > > Let us say we have a broken chair, how would this show impermanence? > By associating it with a memory of an unbroken one, no? Without this > association, where is impermanence to be seen? So isn't this > just 'thinking' impermanence? Can this kind of thinking lead to > insight? May be, but most likely not. > Because the only thing that would lead to insight would be the > actual perception of impermanence, not thinking about it. Thinking I > believe may condition at best a calm acceptance of the inevitability > of all things to come to an end. But this will always be in relation > to a self, "one's own end or that of others". But this line of > approach in and of itself, seems to me unlikely to lead to vipassana > knowledge. One must have accumulated a great deal of panna to see > through the concept to the underlying truth. Otherwise one will > revolve only on this level. > Besides this kind of perception is not unique to Buddhism, nor is it > that only certain religious philosophers have seen this, but even a > common man can come upon this kind of understanding independently. > > To say that "everything changes" is like saying that everything is > dhamma without having insighted a single dhamma. But worse, because > at least the word dhamma can refer to paramatthadhammas, > but 'everything' in your statement refers to non-existents as well. > In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or > impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would > say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me > a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > any number of persons to refer to something constant. > > These were the thoughts. > What do you think Victor? > > Best, > Sukin. 21486 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:27pm Subject: Re: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. Dear Larry, Can one do the Cemetery Contemplations without an actual corpse as object? Ganges Sangha have made available photos of an corpse in 15 stages of decomposition to assist in this contemplation. I'm not quite sure how these photos relate to the descriptions of the nine contemplations in the two posts you have made from The Way of Mindfulness. http://www.geocities.com/~madg/gangessangha/Death.html Interesting to me were my thoughts on pondering the images. Immediately I realised that the corpse was male - therefore, not like me. Then I realised the corpse was of a different ethnic group - therefore, not like me. Then I ruefully realised what I was doing ... so I'm really not going to live for ever? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > 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 continued: > > Everywhere, according to the method already stated beginning: "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." > > Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally": Thus through the laying hold of the > corpse from the state in which it is being eaten by crows and other > creatures to the state when it is dust, one dwells contemplating the > body in one's own body, or in another's or at one time in one's own body > and at another time in another's body. > > Further having stopped here one should put together the nine cemetery > contemplations thus: > > Ekahamatam va dvihamatam va tihamatam va = "A body dead one, two or > three days." This is the first contemplation. > > Kakehi va khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten by crows." This > portion of the Discourse where the devouring of the body of various > kinds of animals is stated refers to the second contemplation. > > Atthikasamkhalikam samamsalohitam naharusamban-dham = "A skeleton > together with (some) flesh and blood held in by the tendons." This is > the third contemplation. > > Nimmamsalohitamakkhitam naharusambandham = "A blood-smeared skeleton > without flesh but held in by the tendons." This is the fourth. > > Apagatamamsalohitam naharusambandham = "A skeleton held in by the > tendons but without flesh and not besmeared with blood." This is the > fifth. > > Atthikani apagatasambandhani = "Bones gone loose, scattered in all > directions." This is the sixth. > > Atthikani setani sankhavannupanibhani = "Bones white in color like a > conch." > This is the seventh. > > Atthikani puñjakitani terovassikani = "Bones more than a year old > heaped > together." This is the eighth. > > Atthikani putini cunnakajatani = "Bones gone rotten and become dust." > This > is the ninth. > > Evam kho bhikkhave = "Thus, indeed, o bhikkhus." He said this bringing > to an end body-contemplation after pointing out the nine cemetery > contemplations. The mindfulness which lays hold of the nine cemetery > contemplations is the Truth of Suffering; the previous craving which > originates that mindfulness is the Truth of Origin; the non- occurrence > of both that mindfulness and the craving is the Truth of Cessation. The > Real Path that understands suffering, casts out the origin, and has > cessation for its object is the Truth of the Way. Endeavoring in this > way by means of the Four Truths one arrives at peace. This is for the > bhikkhu who lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations the portal of > deliverance up to arahantship. > > Now, these are the fourteen portions which comprise body- contemplation: > The section on breathing in and breathing out, on the postures, on the > four kinds of clear comprehension, of reflection on repulsiveness, on > the modes of materiality, and on the nine cemetery contemplations. > There, only the sections on breathing in and breathing out and of the > reflection on repulsiveness can become meditation-subjects of full > absorption. As the cemetery contemplations are stated by way of > consideration of disadvantages, dangers or evils, all the remaining > twelve are only meditation-subjects of partial absorption. 21487 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:10pm Subject: Thing .... everything Hi all, While I was reading Heidegger's essay http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html I came across the following passage: Gathering or assembly, by an ancient word of our language, is called "thing." I looked into the etymology of the word "thing" and found the following: thing - O.E. þing "meeting, assembly," later "entity, being, matter" (subject of deliberation in an assembly), also "act, deed, event," from P.Gmc. *thengan "appointed time." Old sense is preserved in second element of hustings and in Icelandic Althing, the nation's general assembly. To me it is interesting to see that the word "thing" had that meaning of meeting/assembly (Pali: sangha) and later "what brings together"/"entity, being, matter subject of deliberation in an assembly" It appears to me that the word "thing" has always retained the sense of "assemblage"/"gathering together". A thing is what comes/brings together. What comes/brings together, breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent. Regards, Victor 21488 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: > > The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for > Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual > who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of > understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept the Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) > > Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, > but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based > on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. > The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the > Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of > insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, > unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the > periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of > the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth and understanding of the dhamma?) > > We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we > experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge > of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and > explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most > important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, > Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without > a knowledge of Abhidhamma. (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of the opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say so...or didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who fashioned the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) Metta, James ps. I believe these questions are going to throw you for a loop, because I really don't see you as thinking in these terms at all. But perhaps a different perspective would be nice. 21489 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. Hi Christine, If you are asking is it ok with me if you contemplate corpses in pictures the answer is yes. I think it would be good to contemplate the decay of the body even without a direct visual aid. The idea is to let go of attachment to one's own body and any other body one may cherish, as I'm sure you know. One might also be aware of attachment in morbid fascination and hatred of death. Whatever arises, is it me? if not why not? and are you really convinced? Larry 21490 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, In the "Analysis of Concepts" chapter p. 325 in CMA I don't see where it says mental images are concepts. The reference to jhana is unclear but I take it to be confined to counterpart signs only and not mental images such as occur in dreams and memories. Certainly the shape of a computer or the red light of a stop sign are not concepts any more than the sound of speech is a concept. Concepts are dhammas so they are real. I think the expression "no own-nature" simply means there is no hardness in the concept of hardness, for example. To say the *meaning* of a concept has no own-nature is _not_ to say the *referent* of a concept has no own-nature. Hardness has its own nature (characteristic) but "hardness" is a concept. I think there is considerable confusion in the texts regarding this point. Some concepts have a real referent and some do not. Some concepts are true but have no paramatta dhamma as a referent (impermanence, for example). All concepts have no own nature. In other words, their meaning can't be experienced. We can't experience "Sarah" or the *meaning* of "hardness" but we can talk to you and experience hardness. I don't see abhidhamma making a big issue out of the discrimination of concept and reality but most meditative traditions do use this discrimination in a conventional sense to get beginning meditators to recognize discursive thinking and wandering mind. So there is no reason why abhidhammikas shouldn't engage in a similar practice. I think it is a beginning step in recognizing thinking as not self. However, as a philosophical issue, there are many subtle and controversial points. I don't find it particularly helpful to say concepts don't exist or are not real. It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by focusing mainly on the sense of touch, probably because touch isn't mixed with concept very much. A similar emphasis on touch can be seen in the preliminary stages of anapanasati. I think it would be beneficial to extend this discrimination to the other khandhas but trying to be absolutely paramatta in one's analysis would just lead to confusion and be useless. The main idea is that feeling, recognizing, and intending could be separated from concept. Even a little bit of looseness could result in seeing "this feeling is not self" or "this concept is not self", for example. That is the main point, imo. Is there anything you would care to share regarding A. Sujin's approach or your own experience with this practice? Larry 21491 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:13pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi James, I love your questions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: > > > > The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for > > Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual > > who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of > > understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. > > (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept the > Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual > development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please > answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) ===== I am convinced that it is an issue of accumulations (what Chief Reverend called "temperaments"). Personally, I am strongly drawn to the Abhidhamma. I believe that this is because of my past experiences (especially past life experiences). Others (such as yourself) may not be attracted to the Abhidhamma at all. This is because of your accumulations. No value judgement here, just different accumulations. I am a "terrible meditator" whereas I understand that you have developed yourself in this area. This is also because of accumulations. No value judgement. I have two sons; one is better at music, one is better at art. They have different accumulations, no need for any value judgement. ===== > > > > > Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be > harmonized, > > but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based > > on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. > > The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the > > Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of > > insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, > > unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the > > periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of > > the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. > > (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be > thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater > depth and understanding of the dhamma?) ===== You have raised a key issue. What happens to us is a result of our past actions (vipaka). How we react to what happens to us creates new kamma. There are four options: - Like what happens to us -> akusala kamma (lobha) - Dislike what happens to us -> akusala kamma (dosa) - Indifferent to what happens to us -> akusala kamma (moha) - See things as they truly are (anicca / dukkha / anatta) through wise attention (yoniso manisakara) -> kusala kamma Which of the four options are followed depends on our accumulations (habits). When we do sit doing vipassana meditation, we practice seeing things as anicca, dukkha, anatta and develop a habit of wise attention. We can then carry this habit of wise attention into our daily life. If we can do this, then we see paramattha as paramattha, then we see concepts as concepts. Seeing concepts is not wrong; as long as they are not mistaken as realities. James, you asked, "What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth and understanding of the dhamma?" I think that you have to "un-ask" this question. This question assumes that you have to think about something other than what you are currently doing. The correct perspective is that with wise attention, you see whatever is presented to us "as it truly is". ===== > > > > > We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we > > experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge > > of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and > > explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most > > important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, > > Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without > > a knowledge of Abhidhamma. > > (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws > that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of the > opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no > knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say so...or > didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who fashioned > the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) ===== According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the Abhidhamma. There is no doubt that the Buddha had complete understanding of Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna. The Buddha explained these terms using "conventional language". The Abhidhamma is simply another way of explaining the same concepts using more technical language. I am not aware of any discrepencies between the Suttas / Vinaya and the Abhidhamma. Two different ways of saying the same thing. ===== > > Metta, James > ps. I believe these questions are going to throw you for a loop, > because I really don't see you as thinking in these terms at all. > But perhaps a different perspective would be nice. ===== James, No loop. I liked your questions. Thank you. Metta, Rob M :-) 21492 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 6-8 for comment History of Abhidhamma Slide Contents ============== - Realized by the Buddha the fourth week after His enlightenment - Taught to the Devas in Tâvatimsa heaven for three months during the seventh rainy season retreat - Each day, Buddha gave outline to Sâriputta, who "filled in details" Speaker Notes ============= In the fourth week after enlightenment, the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six colours. The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and many other Devas. It took three months of human time (the entire rainy retreat) for the Buddha to complete this task; equivalent to 3.6 minutes of Deva time. Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, He created a Buddha after His own image and willed that the created Buddha teach the Dhamma so much during His absence. After alms-round, He met Sariputta and told him that so much of the Dhamma had been taught during the interval. Three versions of Abhidhamma: - Taught by Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven (long) - Taught by Buddha to Sariputta (short) - Taught by Sariputta to 500 monks (medium, passed to us) 21493 From: nidive Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:55pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 6-8 for comment Hi robmoult, > Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, He created a Buddha > after His own image and willed that the created Buddha teach the > Dhamma so much during His absence. It seems that Buddha had become God. ;-) Something like the Holy Trinity. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21494 From: Michael Newton Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:33pm Subject: The Vinaya Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk would be disrobed. There seems to be convincing scriptural passages against supporting wars which would apply to both Monks and Lay Buddhists. Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and fear,and hatred. There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. A Buddhist would not support war. MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL 21495 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:22pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > I love your questions. (James: I am glad; you are a genuninely nice guy.) > > (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept > the > > Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual > > development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please > > answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) > ===== > > I am convinced that it is an issue of accumulations (what Chief > Reverend called "temperaments"). > > Personally, I am strongly drawn to the Abhidhamma. I believe that > this is because of my past experiences (especially past life > experiences). Others (such as yourself) may not be attracted to the > Abhidhamma at all. This is because of your accumulations. No value > judgement here, just different accumulations. I am a "terrible > meditator" whereas I understand that you have developed yourself in > this area. This is also because of accumulations. No value > judgement. I have two sons; one is better at music, one is better at > art. They have different accumulations, no need for any value > judgement. (James: Rob, I believe that you are somewhat mixing up accumulations and personality, which I don't see as related necessarily…at least what you describe doesn't match my understanding of accumulations. Yes, the both of us have lived several lifetimes; we have had our various experiences and have learned our various lessons; therefore we have different accumulations. However, during each of those lifetimes we had a unique personality, shaped somewhat by our accumulations and shaped somewhat by our environment (especially what others project onto us). The accumulations move from lifetime to lifetime, but the personality doesn't; personality is anatta and doesn't last, accumulations are karma and do transmigrate. This is what I am thinking of when I think of accumulations. Therefore, talent in either art or music wouldn't necessarily fall under the category of accumulations…they would probably fall under the categories of environmental influence and genetic predispositions. With this in mind, some people have accumulations that move them closer to the truth (like the Lord Buddha), and some people have accumulations that move them farther away from the truth (like Adolf Hitler). What I asked is where do you see your accumulations and my accumulations, as is evidenced by either accepting or rejecting the Abhidhamma, in relation to which is closer to the truth (dharma)? You had a very long laundry list of things which you said couldn't be truly understood without knowing the Abhidhamma. Now, for someone who knows and then rejects the Abhidhamma, where do you think that puts me in relation to the Buddhadhamma?) > > (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be > > thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a > greater > > depth and understanding of the dhamma?) > > ===== > > You have raised a key issue. > > What happens to us is a result of our past actions (vipaka). How we > react to what happens to us creates new kamma. There are four > options: > - Like what happens to us -> akusala kamma (lobha) > - Dislike what happens to us -> akusala kamma (dosa) > - Indifferent to what happens to us -> akusala kamma (moha) > - See things as they truly are (anicca / dukkha / anatta) through > wise attention (yoniso manisakara) -> kusala kamma > > Which of the four options are followed depends on our accumulations > (habits). When we do sit doing vipassana meditation, we practice > seeing things as anicca, dukkha, anatta and develop a habit of wise > attention. We can then carry this habit of wise attention into our > daily life. If we can do this, then we see paramattha as paramattha, > then we see concepts as concepts. Seeing concepts is not wrong; as > long as they are not mistaken as realities. > > James, you asked, "What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking > during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth > and understanding of the dhamma?" I think that you have to "un-ask" > this question. This question assumes that you have to think about > something other than what you are currently doing. The correct > perspective is that with wise attention, you see whatever is > presented to us "as it truly is". (James: Actually, this is what I was leading to. We simply have to see things for what they are. I am not sure how knowledge of the Abhidhamma is supposed to be able to lead to this; but it seems to work beautifully for you. But as I said before, I think you are a special case. Not everyone can spin straw into gold.) > > (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws > > that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of > the > > opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no > > knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say > so...or > > didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who > fashioned > > the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) > > ===== > > According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma > completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it > along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed > down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma > while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another > 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe > that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along > by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual > and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the > Abhidhamma. > > There is no doubt that the Buddha had complete understanding of > Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna. The > Buddha explained these terms using "conventional language". The > Abhidhamma is simply another way of explaining the same concepts > using more technical language. > > I am not aware of any discrepencies between the Suttas / Vinaya and > the Abhidhamma. Two different ways of saying the same thing. (James: Perhaps there aren't any discrepancies in how you view the Abhidhamma and Sutta/Vinaya, but I don't think that could be said for everyone. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Abhidhamma there are! I mean, how many different ways can a computer be viewed! (ref: "Computer as Dukkha" thread). If you want to believe that the Buddha and Sariputta co-taught the dharma that is fine. I obviously don't have any evidence from the Buddha stating, "People are going to say in a few thousand years that I taught something called the Abhidhamma to Sariputta and Sariputta taught it to those intellectual monks without a penchant for meditation. This will not be true. Don't believe it." But I think we all could use some common sense here. If Sariputta and the Buddha were both teaching the same truth through different versions, I believe the Buddha would have been stating as much several different times. He didn't want to leave anything to chance after all. Don't you think he would have mentioned that? Very directly and often?) > > ===== > > James, No loop. I liked your questions. Thank you. (James: No, thank you Rob for taking the time and making the effort to answer them. I appreciate it.) > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Metta,(Which I believe means a lot more than just being nice. Ref: 'Metta' thread.) James 21496 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:41pm Subject: Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > would be disrobed. > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > against supporting wars which would apply to both > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > fear,and hatred. > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > A Buddhist would not support war. > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL Hi Michael, Then by your definition, the Lord Buddha wasn't a very good Buddhist. Please read the beginning part of this sutta "The Last Days of the Buddha": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Vassakara and the Lord Buddha discuss an upcoming war against the Vajjis. The Lord Buddha ultimately tells Vassakara to do whatever he sees fit in waging war against the Vajjis. The Lord Buddha, contrary to popular opinion, wasn't anti-war. Metta, James 21497 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:55pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you don't mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of yours about "things", I think there is some connection. Victor: > This is how I see it: > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one sees it as a new computer or an old one. Sukin: But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object is impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, not the concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there is a danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences take place quite subtly without our knowing that. This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if not considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', but in your description of things, it seems to imply that there are moments that they do. And again a coming together is just the working of different elements in a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of a 'thing' here, except for convenience. To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on inferential knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, an attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still be dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these elements will end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this goes. At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not for the different theories about their existence which come along. This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The seed for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you have wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even qualify as idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. Victor: > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > might be of some interest: > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > perception of inconstancy." Sukin: So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially it is just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day be strong enough for direct experience!? Waiting for your feedback. Best, Sukin 21498 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Yasalalaka, --- yasalalaka wrote: > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > things. ..... I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. ..... > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. ..... Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn’t aware that hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me this. It may avoid some confusion. I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I realised. In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: Hetu ==== 1. cause, reason, condition. “In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg “n’atthi hetu n’atthi paccaya” D 1.53 In later use, they are distinguished 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. Phala ====== 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. “bursting”. 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of attainment. 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and sometimes synonymous with “fruition, benefit, profit”. ********** Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from the Nyantiloka dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html hetu ===== 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka-patth; Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. ditthi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ phala ====== lit. 'fruit'. - 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of Recluseship'; D.2). As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in Vis.M. XXIII. ********** Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. With metta, Sarah ===== 21499 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Victor, Appreciating all your recent posts;-)) --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for sharing your comments and quotes from the commentaries. .... Likewise, many thanks for your detailed and very interesting comments;-) ..... > I agree that the discourse, like most of the discourses, is > addressed to bhikkhus, not to lay followers. > > I checked the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and found > that under the word "bhava": > --abhava this or that life, any form of existence, some sort of > existence. > > I think a bit of etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" might of > some interest. .... Thank you so much for inc. the other dictionary entry, Heidegger link and the Dhp verse (gahakaaraka is used, I note, for house-builder in that context, but I understand your point of the metaphor). What we are looking at specifically is the meaning of bhavabhava in the sutta under topics of idle chatter. In this context, I understand the definition you give above, referring to ‘any form of existence’ to be correct. As I mentioned, in the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". B.Bodhi adds an interesting paragraph on ‘bhava’ and its translation in his introduction to Samyutta Nikaya, p52: “Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence” used in my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not “existence” in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitaa. Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In th formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity.” I take it you would not agree with these comments either? ..... > The purpose of drawing on the etymology of the > word "bhava"/"bhavati" is to show the meaning of the word and how it > can be understood in relation to the Buddha's teaching. I would > think the core of the Buddha's teaching is not about what exists and > what does not exist, or about whether dhamma exists or not. I would > say that the Buddha's teaching is about dukkha and cessation of > dukkha. ..... “sankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa - briefly, the five khandhas of attachment are suffering”. In other words, as I was discussing with Christine regarding change, suffering as the 1st Noble Truth cannot be understood apart from the 5 khandhas of attachment. So the khandhas (and ‘existing’ dhammas which make up the khandhas) have to be clearly known by panna. As I understand, without the clear comprehension of these dhammas and the unsatisfactory nature of them, and of craving as origin, there cannot be the path leading to the cessation of that same craving. Thanks again for your helpful and interesting references. I’ll be glad to hear any further feedback. Metta, Sarah ====== 21500 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:28am Subject: Re: Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > > things. > ..... > I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) > which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary > entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. > ..... > > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. > ..... > Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used > to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware > that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to > conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn't aware that > hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me > this. It may avoid some confusion. > > I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that > hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I > realised. > > In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: > > Hetu > ==== > 1. cause, reason, condition. > "In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg > "n'atthi hetu n'atthi paccaya" D 1.53 > In later use, they are distinguished > > 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) > > i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites > > hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. > > Phala > ====== > 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. "bursting". > > 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta > (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and > also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of > attainment. > > 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and > sometimes synonymous with "fruition, benefit, profit". > ********** > > Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from > the Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html > > hetu > ===== > > 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it > is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together > with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). > > In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, > q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it > is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the > Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka- patth; > Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) > for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with > and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth > consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or > with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). > > Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. > ditthi. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > phala > ====== > > lit. 'fruit'. - > > 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); > > 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of > Recluseship'; D.2). > > As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane > consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of > path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of > the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) > still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the > 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in > Vis.M. XXIII. > ********** > > Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your > other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > Dear Sarah, Thankyou very much for looking over my post, and appreciate you explaining. I admit Hetu-phala may be used both as cause and effect, and as action and reaction, or action and result. This term hetu-phala seemed to me more often used in reference to Causal Genesis (paticcasamuppada), cause (hetu), and effect (phala), and in speaking of kamma as, action (kamma) and reaction or result (kamma-vipaka). These are after all words and what is important is, what we have in mind when refering to one or the other aspect of dhamma. In my mind 'hetu-phala' stood for paticcasamupada and "karma and kamma-vipaka", for action and their results. Please pardon my rather assertive sentense "Hetu-phala is not karma- and vipaka. These are two different things." Perhaps there was a touch of manna (conceit)...! with metta, Yasalalaka > 21501 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Sukin, Thanks for sharing your thought. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or > impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would > say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me > a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > any number of persons to refer to something constant. Let's listen to the Buddha: Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta ---------------------- "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html smallchap 21502 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT (Larry & All), Sorry for any delayed replies. > KKT: > 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? From the start of CMA, ch 1-2 "The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana." ("Tatha vutt'aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Cittam cetasikam ruupam Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa") < snip > KKT: Thanks for your long post with many quotes, Sarah. I see now that the importance of making the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas is << inherently >> in the teaching of Abhidhamma. Sujin just points out this important point. I have some more questions but before asking I want to draw the whole picture to see more clearly (correct me if I'm wrong) __The Buddha taught 2 truths: Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. All the two Truths lead to enlightenment, to liberation. __Abhidhamma treats << exclusively >> the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth is about the << true >> reality that is rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. But because the Buddha's main concern is to liberate man (my teaching has only one taste, the taste of liberation) therefore what He taught should lead man to detachment, to be dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. My question is: What is the << concrete, practical >> way of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? Thank you, Sarah. Metta, KKT 21503 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:38am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > (James: Rob, I believe that you are somewhat mixing up accumulations > and personality, which I don't see as related necessarily…at least > what you describe doesn't match my understanding of accumulations. > Yes, the both of us have lived several lifetimes; we have had our > various experiences and have learned our various lessons; therefore > we have different accumulations. However, during each of those > lifetimes we had a unique personality, shaped somewhat by our > accumulations and shaped somewhat by our environment (especially what > others project onto us). The accumulations move from lifetime to > lifetime, but the personality doesn't; personality is anatta and > doesn't last, accumulations are karma and do transmigrate. This is > what I am thinking of when I think of accumulations. Therefore, > talent in either art or music wouldn't necessarily fall under the > category of accumulations…they would probably fall under the > categories of environmental influence and genetic predispositions. > > With this in mind, some people have accumulations that move them > closer to the truth (like the Lord Buddha), and some people have > accumulations that move them farther away from the truth (like Adolf > Hitler). What I asked is where do you see your accumulations and my > accumulations, as is evidenced by either accepting or rejecting the > Abhidhamma, in relation to which is closer to the truth (dharma)? > You had a very long laundry list of things which you said couldn't be > truly understood without knowing the Abhidhamma. Now, for someone > who knows and then rejects the Abhidhamma, where do you think that > puts me in relation to the Buddhadhamma?) ===== I see "accumulations", "habits", "tendencies", "character" and "personality" as different ways of saying pretty much the same thing. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about this in "Questions on Kamma": http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm Firstly let us deal with the psychological effect of kamma. When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future. I see three stages of development; study, practice and wisdom. Study forms the basis for practice and wisdom can only achieved through practice. As the Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126), results are only obtained through right practice, never because of strong desire (and I would add, never because of intellectual study). Your practice seems more developed than mine (sometimes I get trapped in "analysis paralysis"). At some point, your practice may present you with an experience that your knowledge of the Abhidhamma helps you to understand / appreciate better. If you were to ask me if somebody could attain enlightenment without detailed knowledge of the Abhidhamma, I would answer, "Certainly... the Buddha did!". For those with the right accumulations (such as myself), the Abhidhamma can be of great help along the path. ===== > (James: Actually, this is what I was leading to. We simply have to > see things for what they are. I am not sure how knowledge of the > Abhidhamma is supposed to be able to lead to this; but it seems to > work beautifully for you. But as I said before, I think you are a > special case. Not everyone can spin straw into gold.) ===== I like it because the Abhidhamma combines the tools of analysis (breaking things into component parts; paramatthas) and synthesis (natural laws of how one thing conditions another). I am an engineer by training... what more can I say :-) ===== > (James: Perhaps there aren't any discrepancies in how you view the > Abhidhamma and Sutta/Vinaya, but I don't think that could be said for > everyone. Just look at how many different interpretations of the > Abhidhamma there are! I mean, how many different ways can a computer > be viewed! (ref: "Computer as Dukkha" thread). ===== Sorry, I have to admit that I wasn't following that thread. But even if we were to restrict our discussion only to the Suttas, there would still be lots of opportunity for disscussion and dialogue. ===== > > If you want to believe that the Buddha and Sariputta co-taught the > dharma that is fine. I obviously don't have any evidence from the > Buddha stating, "People are going to say in a few thousand years that > I taught something called the Abhidhamma to Sariputta and Sariputta > taught it to those intellectual monks without a penchant for > meditation. This will not be true. Don't believe it." But I think > we all could use some common sense here. If Sariputta and the Buddha > were both teaching the same truth through different versions, I > believe the Buddha would have been stating as much several different > times. He didn't want to leave anything to chance after all. Don't > you think he would have mentioned that? Very directly and > often?) > ===== You raise an excellent point. I have a hard time saying I am convinced of the truth of the story of the Buddha teaching the Abhidhamma in heaven and then reporting it on earth. I don't say that I don't believe it; the jury is still out. If I run across any discrepency between the Abhidhamma and the Suttas, then I will almost certainly side with the Suttas. However, so far, I am not aware of any, so I consider the Abhidhamma merely another way of presenting the same material. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: I will soon be posting something on the Metta thread! 21504 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:49am Subject: For your viewing pleasure .... Dear Group, Just to let you know that a new photo, one taken of Betty on the Sri Lanka trip, has been added to Album 1 'Members'. [Thanks Betty, gives me itchy feet again! :-)] and two photos of K. Sujin (also taken in Sri Lanka) have been added to Album 4 'Others': http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst And may I take this opportunity to invite any of you who have been thinking of adding a photo, to do more than just think :-) We'd love to have you join us all - ourselves, our kids, our dog, and our friends. Think of it as "enhancing our posting experience" by allowing us to see who we are writing to. :-) metta, Christine 21505 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:01am Subject: Re: The Vinaya Hello Michael, Thanks for your post. It encouraged me to further reflection on some of the many references in the Teachings against violence, killing and war - just a few are quoted below. metta, Christine From Kuddakapatha 2 "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking life." From the Samyutta Nikaya XLII.3 To Yodhajiva " When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'" "I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of professional warriors who said: 'When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' " From Majjhima Nikaya 13 "it's with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge slippery bastions while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are splashed with boiling cow dung and crushed under heavy weights, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality. " Dhammapada v.129-130 All tremble at the rod, all are fearful of death. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. All tremble at the rod, all hold their life dear. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. From Anguttara Nikaya VIII.39 "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift -- original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning -- that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests." From Samyutta Nikaya XLII.8 "There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing & conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened, blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' <> A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > would be disrobed. > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > against supporting wars which would apply to both > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > fear,and hatred. > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > A Buddhist would not support war. > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL 21506 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thank you for the response. Yeah, there is some connection between "Thing" post and the "Change" post!! Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you don't > mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of > yours about "things", I think there is some connection. > Victor: > > This is how I see it: > > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with > > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one > sees it as a new computer or an old one. > Sukin: > But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object is > impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and > chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is > actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, not the > concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there is a > danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences take > place quite subtly without our knowing that. > This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; > > " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, > breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." > > This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if not > considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', but in > your description of things, it seems to imply that there are moments that > they do. > And again a coming together is just the working of different elements in > a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of a 'thing' > here, except for convenience. > To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not > informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on inferential > knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, an > attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still be > dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these elements will > end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this goes. > At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our > consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not for the > different theories about their existence which come along. > This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is > indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The seed > for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree > with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you have > wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and > how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. > And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of > something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even qualify as > idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. > > Victor: > > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > > might be of some interest: > > > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a > > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to > > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is > > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, > > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy > > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > > perception of inconstancy." > > Sukin: > So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially it is > just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day be > strong enough for direct experience!? > > Waiting for your feedback. > > Best, > Sukin 21507 From: Connie Parker Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:50am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Dependent Origination - Paticca "because of, or dependent upon"; Samuppada "arising or origination." (1) Ignorance, (2) Volitional formations (sankhâra), (3) consciousness, (4) mind-and-form, (5) sense-bases, (6) contact, (7) feeling, (8) craving, (9) clinging, (10) becoming, (11) birth, (12) old-age-and-death. paragraph in the fifth book of the Vinaya Pitaka, Parivara: Discipline (Vinaya) is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquility, tranquility for the sake of pleasure, pleasure fr the sqke of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding without clinging. The first noble truth, the existence of suffering, is related to the seven-fold links of consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense faculties, contact, sensation, birth, and aging/death. The second noble truth, the origin of suffering, is related to the five-fold links of ignorance, action, desire, grasping, and existence. thirteen Mixtures (vimissaka) common to both moral and immoral consciousness six Particulars (pakinnaká) 1. vitakka (initial application) 2. vicára (sustained application) 3. viriya (effort) 4. píti (pleasurable interest) 5. chanda (desire-to-do) 6. adhimokka (deciding). seven Common Properties (sabbacitta) 1. phassa (contact) 2. vedaná (feeling) 3. saññá (perception) 4. cetaná (volition) 5. ekaggatá (concentration of mind) 6. jívita (psychic life) 7. manasikára (attention). fourteen Immorals (papajáti) l. lobha (greed) 2. dosa (hate) 3. moha (dullness) 4. ditthi (error) 5. mána (conceit) 6. issá (envy) 7. macchariya (selfishness) 8. kukkucca (worry) 9. ahirika (shamelessness) 10. anottappa (recklessness) 11. uddhacca (distraction) 12. thína (sloth) 13. middha (torpor) 14. vicikicchá (scepticism) The millionth of the second that the arammana is experienced by the vinnana cittas of the different panca dvaras is followed by the vithi vara cittas of the dvara and then the mano dvara arises to experience the same arammana in sequence, so the arammana is always known by its own dvara vithi vara and the mano dvara vithi vara, after some bhavanga interposes. The same arammana can be thought of through the mano dvara vara over and over, before the vinnana cittas arise again to know another arammana, or the arammana that arises from the conditions that haven't fallen away that had produced the previous arammana. This can happen after other dvara vinnana cittas arise as well, such as at present there are visible objects, after the cakkhu vinnana cittas arise followed by the rest of the cakkhudvara vithi [preceeded by the atita bhavanga, bhavanguppaccheda and the dvaravajjana cittas] and after the javanas [and possible tadalambana cittas] have fallen away, and bhavanga cittas interpose, then the mano dvara vithi cittas would arise and immediately experience the same arammana as the preceeding vithi and think or experience that arammana through the mano dvara without fail. This is true for all the five sense dvaras. With sati arising, the javana would experience the arammana for what they really are, instead of taking them for their ghana sanna or sammatti pannattis. When sati doesn't arise, we see the whole of the memories based on the experience: people, the computer, us, and not just visible objects so different from what is experienced through other dvaras; that arise and fall away, impermanent, ever changing, and not under our control; not us at all. end 21508 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:00am Subject: Buddhism Dear James: The SARS has been spreading everwhere in Hong Kong. I think Tung Chee Wah (the Hong Kong chief executive) is very disorganised! He just isn't the right person to be HOng Kong's leader. He is not flexibile. By the time he decided to act, he virus has already spreaded out. And anyway, back to Buddhism. Here are a few questions: 1. Did the Buddha create the world? 2. Did he create humans and all the other things, including animals, plants, and planets, stars,etc? 3. Why do we die, according to Buddhism? 4. Is there a devil and a hell, according to Buddhism? 5. Is the Buddha holy? Thank you for answering Yours truly Philip 21509 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:02am Subject: Buddhism 2 Dear Kom: thanks for explaining to me about non-self. I think everything is non-self, you cannot get hold of it. And anyway, questions: 1. Did the Buddha create us? 2. Did the Buddha create the universe and all the living things? 3. Is the Buddha holy? 4. According to the Buddha, is there a devil and a hell? Thank you for answering. Philip Chui 21510 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Yasalalaka --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Do Rupas exist independantly of consciousness ? > > This I find is an interesting question, which can be put in several > ways. In relation to nama rupa, do you think it would be the same > question if I ask: Do things exist beyond our sense faculties ? Well, I suppose that would depend on what kind of 'things' are being referred to ;-)) Of course, there is a qualitative difference between conventional 'things' and rupas (which are ultimate 'things'). How do you see it? > This reminds me of the Cula Malunkya Sutta, where Munlankyaputta, > asked several questions about the existance of the Universe and > what > happens to the Buddha after his death etc. The Buddha explained > that knowing them does not help the spiritual life and irrelevant. > Again > when the Buddha was in the Simsapa forest, with the monks, he took > a handful of leaves and said that what he did not tell is as much > as the leaves in the forest and what he had told is as much as the > leaves in his hand, and that which is essential to lead a holy > life, to finally atain Nibbana . > > However, Abhidhamma, from the few chapters I was happy to read > from > Nina's Book, explains how to understand paramatta dhamma from what > is happening now. We become aware of arammana through the six sense > faculties. Looking for things beyond them would be getting away > from the present moment. > > There is also the other aspect of conventional truth and the > ultimate truth. The world does not exist in the sense of the > ultimate truth-(paramatta -sacca), but conventianally it continues > to exist. My family, that I have left behind in a distant Island, > I do not see, but they exist. Therefore, I cannot deny their > existance telling my-self that," in reality they do not exist". > > All this is carrying coal to New Castle. Because, you know all > what > I had written and perhaps more. Some times these questions prop up > in the mind and we should perhaps, look at them as mind(nama) > engaged in thinking(rupa). Thanks for these useful reminders and snippets from the teachings. Always welcome. Just a question about your reference to mind as nama and thinking as rupa. Could you explain a little further? To my understanding, there is no rupa in thinking. > It was a pleasure reading you in the Forum. It's a pleasure to have you here. Jon > May you be happy, > with metta, > Yasalalaka 21511 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Good and pertinent citations, thanks. I find I'm in agreement with Bhikkhu Bodhi's take in general (as well as I'm able to understand it) and the textual quotes make sense to me too. The quote from Abhidhammaavataara reminds me of something similar in 'Survey' about variegation. Haven't quite figured this one out yet (the 'glazed eyes' problem...!). Thanks again, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) > Hi Rob & Mike, > > > --- robmoult wrote: > > > 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..." > ..... > In the recently published PTS transl of the commentary to the > Abhidammattha Sangaha I now see it gives all the detail and explanation of > to the points we were discussing and which B.Bodhi based many of his > comments on. So let me quote directly from it: > > Prologue 2, p7: > > "Ultimate means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is > the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and > ultimate. > > Consciousnes (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it > knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: 'Consciousness has the > characteristic of knowing objects.' for although such > causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also > relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and > therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This > rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object. > > Or else consciousness is the means by which asociated dhammas are > conscious (cintana). For it is its mere occurrence in accordance with > conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' > (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the > particular natures of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute; the > explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be > seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's being treated as an > agent, by attributing the status of 'self' to the particular function of a > dhamma, and also its being (treated) in consequence as an instrument, by > attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both > taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms > should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of > an agent, etc apart from the particular nature of a dhamma. The meaning > of the word citta is also elaborated as that which causes variegation and > so on. Thus it is summarized: > > "It is consciousness because it causes variegation (vicitta), or because > it is itself variegated; it is gathered (cita) by kamma and defilements, > or it preserves what has been gathered thus; it gathers its own > continuity, and it has a variety of objects." (Abhidhammaavataara 2,v-9) > > That which exists in the mind (cetasi) by occurring in dependence upon it > is mentality (cetasika). For it is unable to take an object without > consciousness; in the absence of consciousness there is no arising of any > mentality at all. But consciousness does occur with an object in the > absence of certain mentalities; so mentality is said to occur in > dependence upon consciousness. Therefore the Blessed One has said: > "Dhammas have mind as their forerunner." (Dhp 1) This refutes erroneous > opinions such as that happiness, etc, are permanent and exist in the > absence of consciousness. (Cf Vism XV1, 85). Alternatively mentality is > that which is combined with consciousnes." > ***** > The text continues with a discussion on rupa. > > Any further comments? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > 21512 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hetu-Phala Dear Yasalalaka and Sarah, Thanks for this exchange. It's useful to have someone with a slightly different usage of Pali terms remind us dsg'rs that our accustomed usages aren't uniquely valid--especially, for me, when different usages help to bridge the gap between 'suttanta method' and 'abhidhamma method'. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: yasalalaka To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 1:28 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > > things. > ..... > I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) > which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary > entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. > ..... > > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. > ..... > Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used > to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware > that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to > conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn't aware that > hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me > this. It may avoid some confusion. > > I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that > hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I > realised. > > In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: > > Hetu > ==== > 1. cause, reason, condition. > "In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg > "n'atthi hetu n'atthi paccaya" D 1.53 > In later use, they are distinguished > > 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) > > i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites > > hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. > > Phala > ====== > 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. "bursting". > > 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta > (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and > also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of > attainment. > > 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and > sometimes synonymous with "fruition, benefit, profit". > ********** > > Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from > the Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html > > hetu > ===== > > 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it > is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together > with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). > > In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, > q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it > is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the > Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka- patth; > Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) > for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with > and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth > consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or > with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). > > Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. > ditthi. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > phala > ====== > > lit. 'fruit'. - > > 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); > > 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of > Recluseship'; D.2). > > As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane > consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of > path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of > the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) > still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the > 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in > Vis.M. XXIII. > ********** > > Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your > other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > Dear Sarah, Thankyou very much for looking over my post, and appreciate you explaining. I admit Hetu-phala may be used both as cause and effect, and as action and reaction, or action and result. This term hetu-phala seemed to me more often used in reference to Causal Genesis (paticcasamuppada), cause (hetu), and effect (phala), and in speaking of kamma as, action (kamma) and reaction or result (kamma-vipaka). These are after all words and what is important is, what we have in mind when refering to one or the other aspect of dhamma. In my mind 'hetu-phala' stood for paticcasamupada and "karma and kamma-vipaka", for action and their results. Please pardon my rather assertive sentense "Hetu-phala is not karma- and vipaka. These are two different things." Perhaps there was a touch of manna (conceit)...! with metta, Yasalalaka > 21513 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Victor and Sukin, Hope you don't mind my butting in. I agree with both of you. With an apology for harping on this point, it seems to me that, from the point of view of the 'suttanta method', chair is impermanent. From that of the 'abhidhamma method', chair is not impermanent (in the sense of the tilakka.na) because it is is not paramattha. To me, the latter is more literally true but it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of the good (sammuti-sacca). That said, it seems to me that from a point of view informed by abhidhamma, the suttanta method (as well as the abhihdamma method) still makes perfect sense, while from a point of view uniformed by abhidhamma, the suttanta method can still make perfect sense while the abhidhamma method makes little sense, if any. It's this initially counterintuitive quality of abhidhamma that so often puts off those well-informed by the suttanta, or so it seems to me. I think it's well worth the trouble of illuminating this hurdle for those who see the value in jumping it. Thanks for your patience with my hobby-horse. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: yu_zhonghao To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) > Hi Sukin, > > Thank you for the response. Yeah, there is some connection > between "Thing" post and the "Change" post!! > > Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating > how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a > chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. > > Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: > I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical > objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very > a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is > rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, > on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. > A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair > the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, > closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does > not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. > > As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha > taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the > five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, > as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. > > Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you > don't > > mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of > > yours about "things", I think there is some connection. > > Victor: > > > This is how I see it: > > > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > > > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > > > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > > > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > > > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair > with > > > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > > > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one > > sees it as a new computer or an old one. > > Sukin: > > But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object > is > > impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and > > chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is > > actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, > not the > > concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there > is a > > danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences > take > > place quite subtly without our knowing that. > > This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; > > > > " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, > > breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." > > > > This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if > not > > considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', > but in > > your description of things, it seems to imply that there are > moments that > > they do. > > And again a coming together is just the working of different > elements in > > a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of > a 'thing' > > here, except for convenience. > > To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not > > informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on > inferential > > knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, > an > > attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still > be > > dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these > elements will > > end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this > goes. > > At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our > > consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not > for the > > different theories about their existence which come along. > > This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is > > indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The > seed > > for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree > > with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you > have > > wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and > > how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. > > And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of > > something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even > qualify as > > idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. > > > > Victor: > > > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > > > might be of some interest: > > > > > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case > where a > > > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or > to > > > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling > is > > > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are > inconstant, > > > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on > inconstancy > > > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > > > perception of inconstancy." > > > > Sukin: > > So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially > it is > > just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day > be > > strong enough for direct experience!? > > > > Waiting for your feedback. > > > > Best, > > Sukin 21514 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: ... > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it to > arise). Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are some of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > smallchap > > Ps. I hope you do not mind my dispensing with the usual > formality and courtesy. :) Not at all! Be as informal as you like ;-)) Jon 21515 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Connie --- connie wrote: > OK, Jon, Rob M and All~ > > Sorry for the feeble excuse. I've added Rob M's 11 benefits of > metta > and look forward to reading the article. > > 1 through 4 below. > > peace, > connie Thanks for sharing this with us. I can see a lot of thought and work went into it. A very eclectic set of groupings. I'm sure your audience found it fascinating. Was there any particular group that they seemed interested in, or were their questions unrelated to your groupings (i.e., the usual ones about rebirth as an ant etc.)? Jon > DHAMMA - law / reality / truth that upholds the universe > > "No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance > like > seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is fore-doomed at their > birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. They come > from > nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in > the > sky." 21516 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:35am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to meditate." I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from my cushion. I choose to sign off all my business emails with a " Thanks, Rob :- ) ". Ending my messages with the familiar form of "Thanks" and adding the emoticon is important to me. It has become a habit for me; not a blind ritual but a wholesome habit. This habit is part of my effort to be more friendly and personable in my email communication. I choose to sign off my DSG messages with a " Metta, Rob M :-) ". I chose to make this my habit because I want to instill more Metta in my dealings with others. The amount of "true Metta" (if there is such a thing) in my heart as I type my DSG message varies significantly from "almost none", to "considerable". That is okay with me. Just as I do not feel like a hypocrite when I am sitting without results, I do not feel like a hypocrite when I end a message with the word "Metta" when there is less than 100% "true Metta" during the typing. Each time I type the word "Metta", the term "Metta" arises in my mind. Even if the contemplation on the term and the concept arise only for a short time, it is better than nothing. I also like to read the word "Metta" when used by others. Reading the word "Metta" causes the term and the concept to arise in my own mind and that is kusala. When people vary their closing a bit (such as "With Extreme Metta") or when a closing is uncommon (such as Connie's "Peace"), it gives me even more pleasure to read it. In fact, it often causes me to smile. I do not see Metta as "mental lightning" that jumps from the originator to the recipient. Metta works on our own minds. I attended a Dhamma talk on Metta more than a year ago. A lady asked, "Each evening, I radiate metta towards this nasty person at work, but there is no effect. What should I do?" The monk answered, "Metta is to be used by your own mind, it is not for the other person. The next step is to put the metta into action. Do something nice for the other person, motivated and driven by your own metta. Many people change if you do something nice for them. Even if they do not change, no problem, your action motivated by metta will bring you good kamma." As we practice metta, either by sitting, by "signing off", by reading and contemplating or though our actions, we develop a habit. This habit of metta will cause us to react to future situations in a "metta" (kusala) way. In summary, I strongly support the idea of using "Metta" as a sign- off. I believe that it makes the world a slightly better place. It helps both the writer and the reader. I see dana, sila, bhavana and metta as our duty, our responsibility. Metta (and I mean it!), Rob M :-) PS: Consider this; for us to be reborn as a human, our last thought must have included alobha (dana), adosa (metta) and probably amoha (panna). In other words, our human subconscious (bhavanga) citta is the result of a thought of metta. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine 21517 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Ok. Thank you for sharing how your see it. To me the dichotomy of > absolute/conventional is unnecessary. > > Again, thanks for sharing. > > Regards, > Victor If by 'unnecessary' you mean 'optional' (for some), you might be right ;-)), in the sense that in many suttas the teaching is given in both conventioonal and absolute terms, presumably to cater for different accumulations and capabilities. I'd like to give an example i came across the other day. You will recall that recently you and I were talking about the Noble Truth of suffering, and you pointed out the 'conventional' nature of the references to birth, aging and death. I then mentioned the 'ultimate' nature of the reference to the five aggregates in the same truth. In the 'Analysis of Dependent Origination' Sutta (SN 12:2, CDB trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.534), there are descriptions of birth, aging and death, in the context of dependent origination. The translations from the commentary to this passage (Spk) that are included as footnotes to the sutta mention the distinction between conventional and absolute. +++++++++++++++++++ Death Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is [aging-and-]death? ... The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death...." Commentary: "By the terms from "passing away" through "completion of time" he expounds death in worldly conventional terminology (lokasammutiyaa); by the expressions "breakup of the aggregates" and "the laying down of the carcass" he expounds death in the ultimate sense (paramattha). For in the ultimate sense it is only the aggregates that break up; there is no "being" that dies." Birth Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth." Commentary: "From "birth" through "production" the teaching is conventional (vohaaradesanaa); the last two terms are an ultimate teaching (paramatthadesanaa). For in the ultimate sense it is only the aggregates that become manifest, not a being." ++++++++++++++++++++ To my understanding, the distinction between conventional and absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. Jon 21518 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > away. Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of reference, to be seen. Jon PS Without wishing to labour a point, Victor, I'd be interested to hear your answer to the question, 'Does a computer arise and fall away?' 21519 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > away. Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. KKT: Allow me to pop in here. I think there is wisdom in regarding a computer (or whatever 'conventional' thing) as something that doesn't last forever. Such seeing makes one more detached from the mundane things. Metta, KKT ============ The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of reference, to be seen. Jon 21520 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, I know you are setting me up. I am a willing victim. :) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > --- smallchap wrote: > ... > > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it > to > > arise). > > Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are > some > of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > > Jon Yes. It does arise. Here are some of the conditions for it arising: 1. the intention to build a computer; 2. the availability of the necessary materials and components for building a computer; 3. the facilities; 4. and the knowledge of building a computer. smallchap 21521 From: Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:35am Subject: Encouragement (Re: [dsg] Re: Metta) Dear Rob - In a message dated 4/22/03 9:36:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in > Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an > extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After > initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said > that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight > and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My > wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to > anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. > > The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice > was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated > because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. > You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to > your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to > yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to > meditate." > > I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. > > I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but > meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a > habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These > habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the > benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from > my cushion. > > =============================== Thank you for this beautiful piece. In a laid back way, you have just given what I consider to be superb encouragement to practice. I'm very grateful for your having written it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 21522 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Hi Jon, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. To me, the five aggregates are a very broard classification of conditioned things/phenomena/situations. As I see it, this classification is a short hand that refers to whole range of, again, conditioned things/phenomena/situations. When stating the noble truth of suffering, the Buddha started with specific phenomena/situations as being dukkha, and ended with the statement "In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging is dukkha." I understand the word "aggregate" as collection or set. The aggregate of form is a collection/set of certain phenomena. So is the aggregate of feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Instead of listing each and every things/phenomena/situations being dukkha, the Buddha stated collectively that "In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha." That is how I see it: it is not much of the dichotomy of conventional/absolute in the Buddha's teaching. The statement "computer is impermanent" is as true as the statement "form is impermanent." However, the latter is much more general than the former in the sense that computer is form but not everything that is form is computer. I would not say that the distinction between conventional and absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. I would say that this distinction is not part of the Buddha's teaching. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > If by 'unnecessary' you mean 'optional' (for some), you might be > right ;-)), in the sense that in many suttas the teaching is given in > both conventioonal and absolute terms, presumably to cater for > different accumulations and capabilities. > > I'd like to give an example i came across the other day. > > You will recall that recently you and I were talking about the Noble > Truth of suffering, and you pointed out the 'conventional' nature of > the references to birth, aging and death. I then mentioned the > 'ultimate' nature of the reference to the five aggregates in the same > truth. > > In the 'Analysis of Dependent Origination' Sutta (SN 12:2, CDB trans. > Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.534), there are descriptions of birth, aging and > death, in the context of dependent origination. The translations > from the commentary to this passage (Spk) that are included as > footnotes to the sutta mention the distinction between conventional > and absolute. > > +++++++++++++++++++ > Death > Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is [aging-and-]death? ... The passing > away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their > perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of > time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: > this is called death...." > Commentary: "By the terms from "passing away" through "completion of > time" he expounds death in worldly conventional terminology > (lokasammutiyaa); by the expressions "breakup of the aggregates" and > "the laying down of the carcass" he expounds death in the ultimate > sense (paramattha). For in the ultimate sense it is only the > aggregates that break up; there is no "being" that dies." > > Birth > Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various > beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent > [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the > obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth." > Commentary: "From "birth" through "production" the teaching is > conventional (vohaaradesanaa); the last two terms are an ultimate > teaching (paramatthadesanaa). For in the ultimate sense it is only > the aggregates that become manifest, not a being." > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > To my understanding, the distinction between conventional and > absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. > > Jon 21523 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Thanks for the question. I would go along with what KKT said in his reply to your message. Furthermore, this is how I see it: The five aggregates are mundane. They are the world. Regarding the question 'Does a computer arise and fall away?', I would say yes. It arises in the sense it comes to be through fabrication, manufacturing. It falls away in the sense that it breaks down, disintegrates, and it does not last. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > > away. > > Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as > something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence > is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my > understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of > reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not > the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. > > The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object > appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is > a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the > object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of > reference, to be seen. > > Jon > > PS Without wishing to labour a point, Victor, I'd be interested to > hear your answer to the question, 'Does a computer arise and fall > away?' 21524 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Hi Victor & Jon, > I would not say that the distinction between conventional and > absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. I would say > that this distinction is not part of the Buddha's teaching. Basically, I agree with this, but I would not venture so far as to say that this is not part of the Buddha's teaching. I think that whether the teaching is conventional or ultimate, it must cultivate the arousal of these seven perceptions. Seven Perceptions 10. "Seven further conditions leading to welfare I shall set forth, bhikkhus. Listen and pay heed to what I shall say." "So be it, Lord." "The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they cultivate the perception of impermanence, of egolessness, of (the body's) impurity, of (the body's) wretchedness, of relinquishment, of dispassion, and of cessation. So long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to welfare endure among the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21525 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > > away. > > > Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as > something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence > is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my > understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of > reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not > the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. > > > > > KKT: Allow me to pop in here. > > I think there is wisdom > in regarding a computer > (or whatever 'conventional' thing) > as something that doesn't last forever. > > Such seeing makes one more > detached from the mundane things. > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > > ============ > > The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object > appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is > a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the > object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of > reference, to be seen. > > Jon Computer as Dukkha I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered and came out with the following thoughts…… Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in this comparative state of meditation you understand the three lakkhana. From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. With metta yasalalak 21526 From: Lee Dillion Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalak: I haven't posted here for some time, but I wanted to second your comments. Two ideas in particular caught my eye - the first was "What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho-physical phenomena" and the second was "One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes in contact with one of the sense faculties." I find these two ideas keep my own practice grounded. --- Lee yasalalaka wrote: > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > lakkhana. > >>From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > With metta > yasalalak 21527 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked > any one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an > in animate object. I agree with yasalalaka too. Also, the mere insight into the four great elements as impermanent and not-self is not enough. One must also apply that insight to this very body to obtain further insight. [5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html I think this is one of the mistakes that Abhidhamma fundamentalists make, thinking that being aware of the present moment's dhamma is sufficient for liberation. Correct me if I am wrong. ;-) Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21528 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalak, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is how I see it: I wouldn't call any psycho-physical phenomenon mine, what I am, my self. Any psycho-physical phenomenon is impermanent. It is dukkha. It is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I would not call what is not mine mine, what I am not I, what is not my self my self. I agree that a computer is an inanimated object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Thanks for again for sharing the thoughts!! Regards, Victor > Computer as Dukkha > > > > > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > lakkhana. > > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > With metta > yasalalak 21529 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:54pm Subject: Re: Metta Hi Rob, Thanks for your post. I hadn't quite thought of meditation in the light of 'dutiful habit-formation' before. You've given me food for thought. Would you say that the accumulations we often hear mentioned on this list, are these same habits formed from some repeated behaviour or thought (kusala or akusala)? I know that mostly these are unintentional, simply arising from doing what we *want* to do - but, perhaps, the same principle could work for modelling what we want to achieve. And is this the same as 'ayuhana'? As regards metta not being 'psychic lightning' ... didn't the Blessed One tell Ananda [who was trying to put himself in front of the Buddha to protect him from the full charge of an attacking elephant] to step aside, as all that was needed to bring the elephant to its knees was the pervading of metta? Or is that an apocryphal story? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in > Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an > extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After > initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said > that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight > and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My > wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to > anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. > > The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice > was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated > because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. > You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to > your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to > yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to > meditate." > > I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. > > I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but > meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a > habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These > habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the > benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from > my cushion. > > I choose to sign off all my business emails with a " Thanks, Rob :- > ) ". Ending my messages with the familiar form of "Thanks" and > adding the emoticon is important to me. It has become a habit for > me; not a blind ritual but a wholesome habit. This habit is part of > my effort to be more friendly and personable in my email > communication. > > I choose to sign off my DSG messages with a " Metta, Rob M :-) ". I > chose to make this my habit because I want to instill more Metta in > my dealings with others. The amount of "true Metta" (if there is > such a thing) in my heart as I type my DSG message varies > significantly from "almost none", to "considerable". That is okay > with me. Just as I do not feel like a hypocrite when I am sitting > without results, I do not feel like a hypocrite when I end a message > with the word "Metta" when there is less than 100% "true Metta" > during the typing. > > Each time I type the word "Metta", the term "Metta" arises in my > mind. Even if the contemplation on the term and the concept arise > only for a short time, it is better than nothing. I also like to > read the word "Metta" when used by others. Reading the word "Metta" > causes the term and the concept to arise in my own mind and that is > kusala. > > When people vary their closing a bit (such as "With Extreme Metta") > or when a closing is uncommon (such as Connie's "Peace"), it gives > me even more pleasure to read it. In fact, it often causes me to > smile. > > I do not see Metta as "mental lightning" that jumps from the > originator to the recipient. Metta works on our own minds. I > attended a Dhamma talk on Metta more than a year ago. A lady > asked, "Each evening, I radiate metta towards this nasty person at > work, but there is no effect. What should I do?" The monk > answered, "Metta is to be used by your own mind, it is not for the > other person. The next step is to put the metta into action. Do > something nice for the other person, motivated and driven by your > own metta. Many people change if you do something nice for them. > Even if they do not change, no problem, your action motivated by > metta will bring you good kamma." > > As we practice metta, either by sitting, by "signing off", by > reading and contemplating or though our actions, we develop a habit. > This habit of metta will cause us to react to future situations in > a "metta" (kusala) way. > > In summary, I strongly support the idea of using "Metta" as a sign- > off. I believe that it makes the world a slightly better place. It > helps both the writer and the reader. I see dana, sila, bhavana and > metta as our duty, our responsibility. > > Metta (and I mean it!), > Rob M :-) > > PS: Consider this; for us to be reborn as a human, our last thought > must have included alobha (dana), adosa (metta) and probably amoha > (panna). In other words, our human subconscious (bhavanga) citta is > the result of a thought of metta. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I > realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, > just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things > that > > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most > important. > > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes > seems > > to have been de-valued. > > > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya > Buddharakkhita. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It > means > > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing > to > > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted > that > > it > > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of > it > > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant > to > > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above > it > > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > > Christine 21530 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:21pm Subject: Tidy Posts Dear Group, Apologies for not trimming my last post on "metta". As you know, Kom and I are assisting the moderators with the running of the list in routine areas, one of which is reminding members about trimming posts - so it is galling when I am not mindful myself and send an unnecessarily large post into everyone's mailbox. However, (in the true spirit of projection) may I, whilst reminding myself, also take the opportunity to remind everyone else that when replying, please delete any part of the original message that is not directly relevant to your reply. This saves the reader from having to scroll through large chunks of text, and saves archive space which is limited. Also, please avoid quoting large chunks of text that are available elsewhere on-line -- use links instead. Put your own post at the TOP of the PART of the message to which you are replying (this is essential for the ease of any sight-impaired members who have no choice and cannot simply scan through a post, but must sit through everything on the screen one word at a time). Thus, keeping the re-posting of material to which we are replying at a minimum will be of maximum support to us all. metta, Christine 21531 From: connie Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:35pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism >Thanks for sharing this with us. I can see a lot of thought and work went into it. >A very eclectic set of groupings. I'm sure your audience found it fascinating. Was there any particular group that they seemed interested in, or were their questions unrelated to your groupings (i.e., the usual ones about rebirth as an ant etc.)? >Jon Hi, Jon ~ It turned out to be more like a conversation, really. I gave up on my list pretty early and it just sat there on the table... Sarah again, reminding me that it wasn't about me... and was surprised that I'd mentioned as much from it as I had. Some of the questions: Can you practice Buddhism and another religion? Does the goal of this lifetime have to be nirvana? If you're for non-attachment, do you think it's it wrong for people to want to get married? How does chanting relate to meditation? Is it ok to drink as long as you stay mindful? Is karma worse for someone who knows better than for someone innocent? Can you explain the Tibetan Book of the Dead? peace, connie 21532 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:28pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Yasalalak, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > This is how I see it: > I wouldn't call any psycho-physical phenomenon mine, what I am, my > self. Any psycho-physical phenomenon is impermanent. It is dukkha. > It is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." I would not call what is not mine mine, what I am not I, what > is not my self my self. I agree that a computer is an inanimated > object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. > However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self. > > Thanks for again for sharing the thoughts!! > > Regards, > Victor > > > Computer as Dukkha > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just > wondered > > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand > the > > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… > understand > > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > > lakkhana. > > > > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked > any > > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only > be > > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull … etc. > > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of > contemplation. > > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take > self > > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing > an > > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it > comes > > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just > an > > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > > > With metta > > yasalalak Dear Victor, "I agree that a computer is an in animated object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self." Don't you think that in this type of assertion, we are getting away from the primary object of meditation. In meditating, whose experience of anicca, dukkha and anatma are we concerned with . Is it that of the meditator or that of the objects that he comes in contact through his sense faculties ? The eye comes in contact(passa) with the object(arammana). Then the eye consciousness arises, the meditator becomes aware of the object, but he does not react and the eye consciousness passes away. Nothing remains. But if the meditator looks longer, feelings(vedana)arise, and he recognizes(sanna) the object........Now he has got away from meditation he is enjoying (tanha) the object, he thinks of it as a object he would like to have. He gets attached(clinging) to it. He realizes he has no money to buy it, he therefore feels sad (dukkha). Then he suddenly….becomes mindful, realizes that all these are thoughts arising in a mind that had wandered away, at the contact of his eye with the object which he now knows is a computer, and is mindful of the thoughts passing away (anicca). The mind had wandered the meditator had no control over it (anatta). The meditator (not the computer) experienced the anicca, dukka, anatma....now the computer is out of his mind. But on the other hand, you look at the computer, and become" aware", of its mechanism, and realize that it will not last long, that it costs more than you can afford, and it is an inanimate object without any life in it........, you are not meditating you are thinking. With metta, Yasalalaka 21533 From: Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Way 79, Feeling 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 Contemplation of Feeling The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of contemplation of feeling. There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is wisely understood through inquiry. Who feels? No being or person. Whose is the feeling? Not of a being or person. Owing to what is there the feeling? Feeling can arise with (certain) things -- forms, sounds, smells and so forth -- as objects. That bhikkhu knows, therefore, that there is a mere experiencing of feeling after the objectifying of a particular pleasurable or painful physical basis or of one of indifference. (There is no ego that experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. It is said that an Elder of Cittala Hill was sick, turning over from side to side, again and again, and groaning with great pain. To him a young bhikkhu said: "Venerable Sir, which part of your body is painful?" -- "A specially painful place, indeed, there is not; as a result of taking certain things (such as forms, sounds etc.) for object there is the experiencing of painful feeling," replied the Elder. "Venerable Sir, from the time one knows that, is not bearing up befitting?" said the young bhikkhu. "I am bearing up, friend," said the Elder. "Bearing up is excellent, Venerable Sir," said the young bhikkhu. The Elder bore up. Thereafter, the aerial humor caused injury right up to the heart. His intestines protruded out and lay in a heap on the bed. The Elder pointed that out to the young bhikkhu and said: "Friend, is bearing up so far befitting?" The young bhikkhu remained silent. The Elder, having applied concentration with energy, attained arahantship with Analytical Knowledge and passed away into the final peace of Nibbana, in the state of consciousness immediately after the course of reflection on the fruit of arahantship, thus realizing the highest and passing away nearly at the same time. Just as when experiencing a pleasant feeling, so too when experiencing a painful feeling... a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling he understands, "I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling." 21534 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, ===== > > I see "accumulations", "habits", "tendencies", "character" > and "personality" as different ways of saying pretty much the same > thing. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about this in "Questions on Kamma": > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > Firstly let us deal with the psychological effect of kamma. When a > willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint > which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a > tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a > protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our > character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed > actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by > yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the > mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile > character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the > other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them > with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a > generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we > can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits > gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character > we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha > emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of > every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential > for the future. > > > > I see three stages of development; study, practice and wisdom. Study > forms the basis for practice and wisdom can only achieved through > practice. As the Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126), > results are only obtained through right practice, never because of > strong desire (and I would add, never because of intellectual study). > > Your practice seems more developed than mine (sometimes I get > trapped in "analysis paralysis"). At some point, your practice may > present you with an experience that your knowledge of the Abhidhamma > helps you to understand / appreciate better. If you were to ask me > if somebody could attain enlightenment without detailed knowledge of > the Abhidhamma, I would answer, "Certainly... the Buddha did!". For > those with the right accumulations (such as myself), the Abhidhamma > can be of great help along the path. > > ===== Hi Rob, Thank you for the link to this article by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Actually, I believe he makes a very serious mistake when he makes a leap from "character" to "personality"…as if they are both the same thing. I do not believe they are, but I am going on a connotative meaning that incorporates my university study of psychology. No reason to go into it at great length here. He also presents a very mechanistic analysis of karma, where I see it as more of a process; but he is an excellent writer. Actually, I do not believe that my practice is more developed than yours; I believe we are probably at the same space. I asked that question for a specific purpose, you fascinate me because you embrace the Abhidhamma yet you don't have the conceit I see in others who do the same… I was really wondering why that was so. I thought that maybe I had made a mistake in my internal analysis of things. But now I think I understand why you are different after reading your post about meeting the Thai meditation master. Metta, James 21535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalaka, Thanks for sharing your point of view. This is how I see it: Whatever the primary object of meditation is, it is impermanent. Perception of impermanence is not much of seeing the change in the object of meditation. Rather it is to reflect thus: "This is impermanent." And in terms of the five aggregates, the perception of impermanence is to reflect and focus thus: "Form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, fabrications are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent." * I slso don't think that seeing thus: "I have no control over this" is the same as seeing thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-060.html#anicca --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > "I agree that a computer is an in animated > object. It may or may not be a suitable > object for contemplation. > However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self." > > Don't you think that in this type of assertion, we are getting away > from the primary object of meditation. In meditating, whose > experience of anicca, dukkha and anatma are we concerned with . Is it > that of the meditator or that of the objects that he comes in > contact through his sense faculties ? > > The eye comes in contact(passa) with the object(arammana). Then the > eye consciousness arises, the meditator becomes aware of the object, > but he does not react and the eye consciousness passes away. Nothing > remains. > > But if the meditator looks longer, feelings(vedana)arise, and he > recognizes(sanna) the object........Now he has got away from > meditation he is enjoying (tanha) the object, he thinks of it as a > object he would like to have. He gets attached(clinging) to it. He > realizes he has no money to buy it, he therefore feels sad (dukkha). > Then he suddenly….becomes mindful, realizes that all these are > thoughts arising in a mind that had wandered away, at the contact of > his eye with the object which he now knows is a computer, and is > mindful of the thoughts passing away (anicca). The mind had wandered > the meditator had no control over it (anatta). The meditator (not > the computer) experienced the anicca, dukka, anatma....now the > computer is out of his mind. > > But on the other hand, you look at the computer, and become" aware", > of its mechanism, and realize that it will not last long, that it > costs more than you can afford, and it is an inanimate object without > any life in it........, you are not meditating you are thinking. > > With metta, > Yasalalaka 21536 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:43pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: < snip > According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the Abhidhamma. KKT: I think that the teaching of Abhidhamma as it is actually known to us nowadays is the development of Buddhists after Buddha's Parinibbana. I don't deny that the Buddha actually taught Abhidhamma. Such teachings of the Buddha like the five khandhas (aggregates), the twelve ayatanas (bases), the eighteen dhatus (elements), Paticcasamuppâda are actually Abhidhamma. But the complete & exhaustive analysis and the systematic classification of the ultimates (paramattha dhammas) are, I think, the work of later Buddhist generations. The proofs of my statement are rather << historical >> facts: __The split of Buddhism into eighteen different schools, all under the same banner Hinayana (a pejorative word used by the Mahayanists to call those schools) occurred about 250 years after Buddha's Parinibbana. Each of those schools possessed their own Sutras/Suttas, Vinayas as well Abhidharma/Abhidhamma. Among those 18 schools, there are two schools named Sarvastivada and Theravada which succeed in preserving intact and complete their Tripitaka/Tipitaka in Chinese and Pali respectively. A comparison of their Sutras/Suttas (Agamas for the Sarvastivada and Nikayas for the Theravada) and their respective Vinayas shows that they are not different while a comparison of their Abhidharma/Abhidhamma reveals that they are different. The resemblance of their Vinayas and Sutras/Suttas proves that those scriptures were compiled << before >> the split of the schools while the difference of their Abhidharma/Abhidhamma is the proof that the formation of those documents was made << after >> the split of the schools (ie. around 250 years after Buddha's Parinibbana) __Among the 18 schools, there is a school named Sautrantika. The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra because the fact is that this school accepted only the the teachings of the Buddha contained in the Sutras and refused to consider the teachings of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. So we see that early in that period, there were already people who refused the authority of the Abhidharma. (I think maybe James was a follower of this school in one of his previous lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) Please note that my argument is not to disparage the teaching of Abhidhamma. The contrary is more true. As I've said, I study Buddhism as a << whole >> (ie. all different schools, Abhidhamma included) Only I have my own vision of Buddhism. I see Buddhism as: Buddhism = the teachings of the Buddha + the teachings of different interpretations of many Buddhist generations after the Buddha. I see Abhidharma/Abhidhamma as the first movement of interpretation. The other two main interpretations following the Abhidharma belong to the Mahayana tradition which are Madhyamika (the Middle-Way school) and Yogacara or Vijnanavada (Mind-Only or Mere-Consciousness school) Following is an excerpt from the book A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana by Hirakawa Akira, p.127: The Sarvastivadin School argued that the abhidharma was preached by the Buddha. Sarvastivadins thus believed that the entire Tripitaka was, in a broad sense, the Buddha's preaching. However, the similarities in the texts of the Sutra-pitakas and Vinaya-pitakas followed by the various schools reveal that the basic contents of these two collections were determined before the divisions of Nikaya Buddhism had occurred. In contrast, the contents of abhidharma literature varies with each of the schools, indicating that this class of literature was compiled after the basic divisions of the schools had occurred. The Abhidharma-pitakas of most of the schools were probably compiled during a period beginning in 250 B.C.E. (after the first major schism) and ending around the start of the common era. Peace, KKT 21537 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, I started this portion of my reply with, "According to tradition, ..." because I find the traditional story to be a little like a fairy tale. You may be correct about the historical development of the Abhidhamma. It is possible that the complete truth as to the origin of the Abhidhamma has been lost in antiquity. Is this important? In my opinion, as long as there are no discrepencies between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, then the genesis of the Abhidhamma is not a big issue. Many monks are not attracted to the Abhidhamma because it is one of those boring subjects that they have to study with lots of memorization required to pass an exam. In my Sunday morning class, I try to take a different approach. I use the Abhidhamma as a structure to discuss the Dhamma; I do not focus on the Abhidhamma as a subject to be studied for its own sake. In my class, there are no long lists of Pali to be memorized; the approach is not scholarly. In a one year course, I spend eight months reviewing the cetasikas one by one and use each cetasika as a launching pad for discussions on how to apply the Dhamma in daily life. Thanks for the details on the history of Buddhism. I find it an interesting subject, but one that is difficult to relate to daily life and practice. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > > > KKT: I think that the teaching > of Abhidhamma as it is actually > known to us nowadays is > the development of Buddhists > after Buddha's Parinibbana. > 21538 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:38pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi KKT, I started this portion of my reply with, "According to tradition, ..." because I find the traditional story to be a little like a fairy tale. You may be correct about the historical development of the Abhidhamma. It is possible that the complete truth as to the origin of the Abhidhamma has been lost in antiquity. Is this important? In my opinion, as long as there are no discrepencies between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, then the genesis of the Abhidhamma is not a big issue. KKT: Agreed. -------------- Many monks are not attracted to the Abhidhamma because it is one of those boring subjects that they have to study with lots of memorization required to pass an exam. In my Sunday morning class, I try to take a different approach. I use the Abhidhamma as a structure to discuss the Dhamma; I do not focus on the Abhidhamma as a subject to be studied for its own sake. KKT: I think this is a wise approach. Using the Abhidhamma to shed light on the Dhamma (and vice versa) ------------ In my class, there are no long lists of Pali to be memorized; the approach is not scholarly. KKT: Thanks to the DSG, I begin to know some key words of Buddhist terminology in Pali :-)) ------------- In a one year course, I spend eight months reviewing the cetasikas one by one and use each cetasika as a launching pad for discussions on how to apply the Dhamma in daily life. KKT: I'm very interested to know how to apply the Abhidhamma in daily life according to your understanding? ------------- Thanks for the details on the history of Buddhism. I find it an interesting subject, but one that is difficult to relate to daily life and practice. Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: I have also to thank you for your "Introduction to the Abhidhamma" It's very clear and this is the proof that you have spent much time to reflect & contemplate over the teaching of Abhidhamma. Metta, KKT 21539 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta Hi, Christine, Many thanks for the reference on Metta. I have downloaded it and will read it. Yes, we often lose sight of metta's real meaning when it becomes just the sign-off at the end of a note or letter. But then, that is true for anything we do when there is no sati arising to keep us aware of a reality at any given moment (and such arisings are ssssooooo few and far between). But the right conditions were present for "you" to be aware of it and wish to learn of its meaning, at least at the pariyatti level, and then, upon reflection, if the conditions arise, "you" will understand it at deeper and deeper levels and be more aware of when it is there in everyday life, and when it isn't. I'm not quite caught up on dsg, but your note about metta was just such a wonderful example of how Dhamma can "work" in our daily lives, how conditions, such as the word metta at the end of a letter, lead you to first read about metta, and now to contemplate on it and "note it" with sanna when it arises or doesn't arise on a daily basis. Wisdom will then allow "you" to "see" just what is metta and what isn't. Then, when it arises more and more, owing to conditions, sanna will note it each time. But it is sooooooooooooo slow! Then, it is hoped, that khanti (patience) will arise too. Anomodhana, dear, Betty PS: And the anomodhana was not just a sign-off, but a genuine feeling of joy at the conditions arising for you. I'm saving it for future reference to possibly show to the monks I teach (English). _____________________ > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine > > > 21540 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:21pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Rob M, __Among the 18 schools, there is > a school named Sautrantika. > The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra > because the fact is that this school > accepted only the the teachings of > the Buddha contained in the Sutras > and refused to consider the teachings > of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. > > So we see that early in that period, > there were already people who > refused the authority of the Abhidharma. > > (I think maybe James was a follower > of this school in one of his previous > lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) Hi KKT, Follower nothing! I founded that school! Go Sautrantika! ;-)) Seriously, I am glad to know that there is some historical precedent for my position, which I didn't know previously. Let me just say that small discrepancies in the Buddha's teaching become larger as time passes, that is why I take the position I do…and sometimes end up seeming like some kinda radical Buddhist! ;-). Metta, James 21541 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:27pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 9-12 for comment The "Character" of the Abhidhamma Slide Contents ============== Philosophy - Defines reality, nature of the universe and nature of knowledge Science - Classifies and models Psychology - Focuses on personal experience Ethics - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind, that is the teaching of the Buddhas." Speaker Notes ============= Philosophy - The Abhidhamma defines the four ultimate realities; consciousness, mental factors, physical factors and Nibbana. The Abhidhamma defines the nature of the universe; impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-existence of self. The Abhidhamma looks at the nature of the mind and the controlling influences; greed, attachment and delusion. Science - The Abhidhamma lists classes and categories. We should avoid temptation to treat the Abhidhamma as an intellectual exercise (analysis paralysis). The Abhidhamma helps us to "see things as they truly are" in the present moment. Psychology - The Abhidhamma is really the science of the mind; in today's terms, this is called Psychology. The focus of the Abhidhamma is on personal experience. Ethics - The title of the first book of the Abhidhamma has been translated as "Buddhist Psychological Ethics". In the Cula- Malunkyovada Sutta, the Buddha was asked a number of theoretical questions; the Buddha refused to answer because the Buddha's teaching is practical in nature. The Buddha's teaching focuses on ethics. In this Sutta, the Buddha gives the analogy of a man pierced with a poison arrow who refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told the name, height, caste, etc. of the archer who shot the arrow. The man would die before he could learn all of these things. The mission of science is to create a model for the universe. The mission of the Abhidhamma is to free us from suffering. 21542 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: pneumonia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > 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 Hi Star Kid Hilary! Yes, I know about the outbreak of the special pneumonia in Hong Kong… and around the world. I am very sorry for you Star Kids and hope you stay safe. Wow! You ask me a lot of different questions in this letter! I will do my best to answer them: Question: Would Buddhist go to the temple to pray to be blessed? Answer: Sure they would. A prayer is like a wish for good things to happen. There is nothing wrong with wanting good things to happen to oneself. However, sometimes we have to accept that sometimes things don't go the way we want, but that might actually be what is best. Question: 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). Answer: Sure there is: The teaching of impermanence…the teaching that nothing lasts. Let me tell you a little story to illustrate. There was once a great King who was always upset. He was upset about the things that happened in his kingdom and the things that happened in his personal life. He wanted to find some peace, just like you want to do. So he decided to climb the highest mountain in the world and ask the wisest person in the world, who lived in a cave at the top, what he should do. When he got there, this wise man listened to the King and then gave him a ring and told him, "This is a magic ring. Whenever you feel really upset about something, you are to look into the ring and you will find the answer. And whenever you feel really happy about something, you are to look into the ring and you will again find the answer." The King thanked the wise man and took the ring home to his kingdom. Shortly thereafter, there was a horrible disease, like SARS, that spread through the kingdom and several people died. The King became very upset so he did as he was told and he held the ring up to his face and looked deep into it. Deep in the colored stone of the ring, the king read the words: "THIS TOO SHALL PASS." And sure enough, after a while the disease went away, everyone was healthy again, and everyone was happy. The King was very happy that his kingdom had escaped the disease so he looked into the ring again, as he was instructed to do, and he read, "THIS TOO SHALL PASS." The King was never upset or bothered about anything again. You see Hilary, nothing in life lasts. Good and Bad will come and go, you just have to let life happen. Remember this and you will remain calm. Question: Do the Buddhist have special types of funerals for the dead? Answer: Not really a special type of funeral for all Buddhists. Many Buddhists get cremated and their ashes scattered or put into an urn. Tibetan Buddhists have a special type of funeral called a `Sky Burial' where the body of the deceased is cut up with a knife (usually by the members of the family), left in the mountains, and buzzards come to eat the remains. Then the bones are burnt after the birds are done eating. I always thought that was a good way to do it, but that is against health regulations here in the US. Question: Will their be pneumonia in the second life? Answer: Yes, there will be. The Buddha taught the Truth of Suffering that is that life is birth, sickness, old age, and death. They cannot be escaped and they will not end as long as humans exist. I don't know if there will be SARS, they might find a cure for that. But there will always be some type of sickness…including pneumonia. Question: Do you ever think about the pneumonia now when you meditate? Answer: Thoughts about the pneumonia come up, yes. But mainly I `feel' the SARS pneumonia in the world. It feels like I am suffocating and I can't breathe. Consequently, I haven't been able to meditate much lately. Hilary, your questions aren't really weird, they are just fine. I have enjoyed answering them. Please take care of yourself and let's both pray that this pneumonia ends soon. Metta, James 21543 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Astrology Dear Michael, All these monks are Asians and we all monks received money. Yesterday I went to the opening of the Dammakaya new meditation centre in Sydney. There were 35 Theravathan monks and 21 Mahanaya monks, each one of us got $150 dollars donation from the Dammakaya foundation. Tomorrow I am goinmg to a funeral of a monk in Sydney, I will get money, around $ 50.00 dollars, Next Saturday there will be another funeral in Sydney, we get another $50 dollars, except me, they always put an extra $100 dollars to cover for my petrol. I live in Canberra, 300 km away. Dear Michael, maybe the world has change but every single monk here and in Asia handles money. When the monks received the money it is put in an envelop, there it is put on a piece of cloth., but after that in the room, the money goes very quickly into the wallet. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: Michael Newton [mailto:garberville83712@y...] Enviado el: Martes, Abril 22, 2003 03:39 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] Re: Astrology ... Dear Noble Sangha; I'm not really sure how I feel about Astrology as it relates to the Buddhist path,except that Buddhism teaches living from moment to moment-not putting too much concern about the future,so I wonder about these Lao and Cambodian monks doing these readings and charging $50.It appears to me that monks are not supposed to be handling money in this respect,unless my understanding incorrect.However,it's different in the West on this maybe.Please correct me if I'm wrong. YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METT,MICHAEL 21544 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:15am Subject: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup group. File : /Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Buddhism.doc Uploaded by : mdahiwale Description : Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on Indian Buddhism You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Dr.%20B.R.%20Ambedkar%20on%20Buddhism.doc To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, mdahiwale 21545 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Smallchap, > > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > > any number of persons to refer to something constant. > > Let's listen to the Buddha: > > Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta > ---------------------- > > "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of > views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of > views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, > despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, > cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." I am trying to figure out what is it that you want me to see. Are you trying to show me that I should not hold such views or at least making them into one? If so then let me explain my real position with regard to this matter. I wasn't saying that there is permanency anywhere. With regard to conventional objects, I think they do not exist as objects of experience except as mental constructions and reconstructions. The distinctive realities responsible for this are I believe, sanna, vittaka and vichara. Normally I wouldn't bother to ponder over what exists and what does not, my understanding is dictated by my knowledge of satipatthana and what objects can be the objects of sati of this level. In the above when I was asserting permanency, I was referring to concepts, and here I make no distinction between the descriptive word and "things" in Victor's description. For me words and 'things' are in their very nature, permanent, they refer to something that is "there", even if only for a moment. Even the word and description of "impermanence" is not the actual fact of impermanence. So when one uses impermanence to refer to 'things', then it has a different meaning to me. In order to drop the idea of permanence with reference to objects, I now use the idea of impermanence; this understanding can lead to a dead-end. But of course this doesn't have to be the case, that is if one sees in the first place, that those things exist only on the mental level. When making reference to paramattha dhammas it is a bit different. We understand that these exist, but only as conditions which rise and fall immediately along with other conditions. There is no static nature of the concept of impermanence here, since the description of these realities themselves shows this characteristic. Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to use the word impermanence with reference to conventional objects, just that it wouldn't have the same meaning as when made in reference to paramattha dhammas. Hope I have not confused further, since I feel I am a bit off track because I had something else in mind when earlier I read your response and now have ended up writing something different. In fact I feel some hesitation about sending this, since I have not given some of this much thought at all. best, Sukin 21546 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, > Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating > how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a > chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. OK I think I see your point. So at least you distinguish between the perception of impermanence and the idea of impermanence. I think we can then say that impermanence with regard to conventional reality is different from that of ultimate reality....?! > Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: > I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical > objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very > a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is > rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, > on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. > A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair > the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, > closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does > not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. But here I can't agree. I agree though that conventionally speaking; chairs ultimately become something other than chairs. And it may be fair to use the concept of impermanence to apply to this. But I would make the distinction as above and in my post to Smallchap just before this, that this is only an 'idea' of impermanence which may not be the same idea as applied to ultimate realities. This idea will always be dictated by how we understand the object it is being referred to. And referring to conventional things it can bring at best a level of wisdom with regard to those things as KKT has suggested to Jon, namely cause one to be somewhat 'detached from mundane things'. But this is not the goal of Buddha's teachings, nor does it require the Teachings to illustrate. > As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha > taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the > five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, > as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. Here I agree with you fully, I think. :-)) Thanks for sharing your thoughts (on dsg in general that is), often I find them very to the point and pertinent. Metta, Sukin. 21547 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Mike, Thanks for butting in. I think I often get carried away by my as yet weak understanding of Abhidhamma in particular and Dhamma in general. As you said, "it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of the good (sammuti-sacca)." There is a tendency on my part to do this, though not particularly with the Suttanta itself, but my understanding of other's interpretation. In general however I only "react". Sometimes I think I should wait for when I have more metta, and perhaps panna, before responding, but then I may never write at all. Then how will I know if I am tending towards wrong view or not? Mike, you seem to be interested in bridging the gap between Sutta and Abhidhamma. The fact of trying to get across to people the ideas of Abhidhamma using conventional expressions has often crossed my mind. I would therefore be very interested in any insights you have. Please don't hesitate to share them. Metta, Sukin. 21548 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: pneumonia Dear James, That is a beautiful story you recount, I liked reading your post, you answered very well all the questions Hilary had raised. May you be happy, Yasalalaka 21549 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:08am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thanks for the message. This is how I see it: I don't adopt the division between conventional reality and ultimate reality in understanding the Buddha's teaching. To me this dichotomy is unnecessary and misleading: it is an extra conceptual layer. However, the distinction I would make is that the term "form" is a very general term, and a chair is form or a specific instance of form, whereas form aggregate is the collection/set of all form. In that sense, the statement "a chair is impermanent" is as true as the statement "form is impermanent." An analogy would be like this: "Victor is mortal" and "human being is mortal." Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > OK I think I see your point. So at least you distinguish between the > perception of impermanence and the idea of impermanence. I think we > can then say that impermanence with regard to conventional reality is > different from that of ultimate reality....?! > [snip] > > But here I can't agree. I agree though that conventionally speaking; > chairs ultimately become something other than chairs. And it may be fair > to use the concept of impermanence to apply to this. But I would make > the distinction as above and in my post to Smallchap just before this, > that this is only an 'idea' of impermanence which may not be the same > idea as applied to ultimate realities. This idea will always be dictated by > how we understand the object it is being referred to. And referring to > conventional things it can bring at best a level of wisdom with regard to > those things as KKT has suggested to Jon, namely cause one to be > somewhat 'detached from mundane things'. But this is not the goal of > Buddha's teachings, nor does it require the Teachings to illustrate. > [snip] > > Here I agree with you fully, I think. :-)) > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts (on dsg in general that is), often I find > them very to the point and pertinent. > > Metta, > Sukin. 21550 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for butting in. I think I often get carried away by my as yet weak > understanding of Abhidhamma in particular and Dhamma in general. > As you said, > > "it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of > the good (sammuti-sacca)." > > There is a tendency on my part to do this, though not particularly with > the Suttanta itself, but my understanding of other's interpretation. I don't think so at all. I always find your posts well-considered and hope you didn't take mine as a criticism. > In > general however I only "react". Sometimes I think I should wait for > when I have more metta, and perhaps panna, before responding, but > then I may never write at all. For my part, I certainly hope you'll keep posting, more rather than less often. I always find your posts worthwhile and stimulating. > Then how will I know if I am tending > towards wrong view or not? Exactly. I'm not at all sure of my ground either--the greatest benefit I get from dsg (even though I don't always like it) is the frequent correction of my rash comments by those members who have learned, considered and understood more. > Mike, you seem to be interested in bridging the gap between Sutta and > Abhidhamma. The fact of trying to get across to people the ideas of > Abhidhamma using conventional expressions has often crossed my > mind. I would therefore be very interested in any insights you have. > Please don't hesitate to share them. I am interested in this, but mainly, I think, because of my deep attachment to the suttas (and the vinaya, for that matter). I want to bridge this gap, but what is my motivation? Kusala? Not much, I suspect. I hope there may be some virtue in this, but the jury's still out, as far as I'm concerned. > Metta, > Sukin. Always great to hear from you, man. mike 21551 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT & All, Apologies for any delays - we took advantage of fine weather over the long Easter weekend to hike and swim in the sea away from masks. Now students are beginning to trickle back and I’m having to spend extra time on precautionary SARS measures and long reassurance phone calls with nervous parents;-) ..... --- phamdluan2000 wrote:> > KKT: Thanks for your long post > with many quotes, Sarah. > > I see now that the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas > is << inherently >> in the teaching > of Abhidhamma. Sujin just points > out this important point. ..... ;-) ..... > I have some more questions > but before asking I want to draw > the whole picture to see more clearly > (correct me if I'm wrong) > > __The Buddha taught 2 truths: > Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. ..... I would say that the Buddha taught the Ultimate Truth using different kinds of language (conventional and ultimate) according to circumstances and in particular, according to what was appropriate for the listeners at the time. ..... > All the two Truths lead to enlightenment, > to liberation. ..... The Truth of ultimate dhammas and the characteristics of these dhammas, i.e. anicca, dukkha and anatta, leads to enlightenment. ..... > __Abhidhamma treats << exclusively >> > the Ultimate Truth. ..... I don’t understand the Truth taught to be any different in the Abhidhamma from the Suttas. In both it is the truth about the 5 khandhas and so on. ..... > The Ultimate Truth is about > the << true >> reality that is > rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. ..... Yes ..... > But because the Buddha's > main concern is to liberate man > (my teaching has only one taste, > the taste of liberation) > therefore what He taught should > lead man to detachment, to be > dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. ..... Yes ..... > My question is: > > What is the << concrete, practical >> way > of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? > > What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? ..... The <> way or <> as taught by the Buddha to realize this objective is the development of satipatthana. In other words the development of the eightfold/factor path. In order for satipatthana or the path to develop, however, there needs to be a clear understanding of the objects of sati, i.e. these same Ultimate Truths (paramattha dhammas), as clarified with the assistance of the Abhidhamma imho. Otherwise, in my view, there will be the idea that computers and other concepts can be directly known and as a result satipatthana will not develop. I appreciate that others here have different understandings ;-) Look forward to more of your comments and questions, KKT. Metta, Sarah ===== 21552 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:03am Subject: How The Buddha Indeed Taught Abhidhamma Dear Dhamma friends The following is my reply to Pali questions asked by Rene Salm. I hope you also find it useful. Please view my translation of an Anguttara Nikaaya quote (with Abhidhamma terms!) to illustrate the uses of (-assa) and (-aaya). As a spin-off, in this quote, we can witness beyond doubt that the Buddha indeed taught Abhidhamma, if partially. Regards, Suan _______________ __ ____ ______ ___ Dear Rene Salm How are you? You wrote: "I am trying to figure out the use of -assa vs. aaya (dative)." The use of (-aaya) should be noted as your quote from WARDER (p.67) : "In all declensions genitive forms are used for the dative also, but a special dative inflection exists alongside [the genitive] for the singular of masculines and neuters in -a: -aaya." He then becomes more specific: "The inflection -aaya has the specialized meaning of purpose." He gives the example: gaama.m pi.ndaaya paavisi (He entered the village for alms.) As for the use of (-assa) for dative, we could stick to the normal uses where the sense of recipient is conveyed, usually (to) in English. Please view the following quote from Anguttara nikaaya where the Buddha used both -assa form and -aaya form in the same sentence. "Liinacittassa, bhikkhave, anuppannañceva thinamiddham uppajjati uppannañca thinamiddham bhiyyobhaavaaya vepullaaya samvattatii"ti." "Monks, to the withdrawing mind, potential sloth and torpor duly arise, and the arising sloth and torpor are also in for increase and for expansion." Section 13, Ekakanipaatapaali, Anguttara Nikaaya. In the above sentence, we cannot say "Liinacittaaya". Nor can we say "bhiyyobhaavassa" or "vepullassa" without changing the original intended meanings. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org ---------------------------------- Dear Abhidhammika, I am trying to figure out the use of -assa vs. aaya (dative). ....... Rene 21553 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, James and KKT - In a message dated 4/22/03 11:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" > wrote: > >Dear Rob M, > __Among the 18 schools, there is > >a school named Sautrantika. > >The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra > >because the fact is that this school > >accepted only the the teachings of > >the Buddha contained in the Sutras > >and refused to consider the teachings > >of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. > > > >So we see that early in that period, > >there were already people who > >refused the authority of the Abhidharma. > > > >(I think maybe James was a follower > >of this school in one of his previous > >lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) > > > Hi KKT, > > Follower nothing! I founded that school! Go Sautrantika! ;-)) > Seriously, I am glad to know that there is some historical precedent > for my position, which I didn't know previously. Let me just say > that small discrepancies in the Buddha's teaching become larger as > time passes, that is why I take the position I do…and sometimes end > up seeming like some kinda radical Buddhist! ;-). > > Metta, James > > ============================ While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming contiguous, discrete point-moments. 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) 21554 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? ----- Original Message ----- From: "buddhatrue" To: Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: [dsg] 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 In general I agree with James that the Buddha did not teach about how nations should interact. He taught about the beginning and ending of suffering. But there is some information in the Canon on the subject. There are Suttas where the Buddha did lay out the consequences of war to a king who was going to attack and the king decided it was better not to. There is a Sutta where the Buddha talks about how a king should rule, and I believe non-aggression to neighbors was one of the suggestions listed. There is a Sutta where the Buddha says that soldiers who kill with anger or hate are bound for the hell realms after death. But there is also a sutta where a General asks if defending his country is blameworthy, and the Buddha said it was not. In general I would say the Buddha's teachings are teachings of nonviolence both for laypersons and certainly for those who become monks and nuns. The Canon is full of examples where the Buddha supports nonviolence by monks, even if they are attacked. The Buddhist precepts clearly state that one should not kill. So while there is little in the Canon about how nations should act, it is clear that individuals who follow the Buddha's teachings should cultivate loving kindness, compassion and a nonviolent approach to the world. The Canon says that this approach lays the foundation from which concentration and insight can develop. I hope this helps.....Ray 21555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:48am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 20 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 20 Everybody should know for himself what degree of kusala he wants to develop and to what extent. If someone does not listen to the Dhamma and he does not accumulate all kinds of good qualities he may not even be intent on the development of kusala. He may only be infatuated by pleasures and perform very few good deeds. Whereas if someone has listened also in past lives to the Dhamma of former Buddhas, if he has contemplated the Dhamma and acquired more understanding, he will be inclined to develop kusala. Some people may, throughout life, have no inclination to develop kusala as much as they are able to. They may not have the accumulated conditions to even think of kusala, and therefore, they cannot perform it. Someone may not be intent on helping others, or he has wrong understanding about kusala; he may wonder why he should tire himself or take the trouble to help others. This shows us the diverse nature of the cittas we accumulate day after day. Some people, even if they have listened to the Dhamma, may not be able to forgive others, because they cannot apply the Dhamma. We have to accumulate kusala from now on so that it can be further developed. We can begin to be intent on forgiving others, not disapproving of them. All of us who traverse the cycle of birth and death have many defilements and hence we should develop all the different ways of kusala so that defilements can be eradicated. If we merely think about developing kusala, kusala will not be strong enough to be a condition for sincerity and truthfulness so that we practise in conformity with our resolutions. The accumulation of wholesome qualities are the condition for truthfulness in action and speech. We have to continue to accumulate kusala so that we shall not be neglectful in applying kusala, in practising it. It is difficult to know the truth, also in worldly matters. For example, when we hear news through different media about an event that occurred near to us or far away, it is difficult to find out whether it is true. What we hear is sometimes not true, but we take it for the truth. Our confusion, our defilements make it most difficult to know what is true. To know realities as they are is even more difficult than knowing the truth of worldly matters. We should see the value of truthfulness, including sincerity with regard to ourselves. We should develop truthfulness in action, speech and thoughts, even in seemingly unimportant matters. This means, truthfulness in speech, also when it regards appointments or promises. One may believe that these matters are unimportant. We should know what type of citta arises when we feel that with regard to unimportant matters we do not need to be truthful to act in accordance with our speech and thoughts. The citta of each person is most intricate, and if there is no paññå accompanying sati, the subtle defilements that arise because of our accumulations will not be known. They have been accumulated not only during this life but also in past lives. Our life today is conditioned by past lives and the accumulation of defilements will continue from life to life. Someone who earnestly develops paññå should not only be intent on truthfulness, intent on knowing the truth, but he should also strive after the eradication of his defilements, so that he is truthful in action and speech. He should be steady and firm in the development of kusala, including the following perfection: the perfection of determination, aditthåna påramí. ******* The end of Ch 8, the Perfection of Truthfulness. 21556 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Howard / James / KKT, In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has three pages of explanation on this subject in the section titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the twelfth century - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather than a theory of moments - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the static phase. - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation of a personality without the help of a soul - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's Abhidhammathasangaha). - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and not to be found in the Suttas. My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas that were current at his time. The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious student" must differentiate between what is found in the original texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they > were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > 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) > 21557 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:14pm Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Would you say that the accumulations we often hear mentioned > on this list, are these same habits formed from some repeated > behaviour or thought (kusala or akusala)? ===== Yes, absolutely! ===== > I know that mostly these > are unintentional, simply arising from doing what we *want* to do - > but, perhaps, the same principle could work for modelling what we > want to achieve. And is this the same as 'ayuhana'? ===== They are all intentional; the greater the intention, the greater the kamma formed and the greater the imprint on the accumulations. We can use this understanding of accumulations to motivate us to continue the practice, even when there is no short-term immediate benefit visible to us. Yes, 'ayuhana' is the commentarial term for accumulations. ===== > > As regards metta not being 'psychic lightning' ... didn't the Blessed > One tell Ananda [who was trying to put himself in front of the Buddha > to protect him from the full charge of an attacking elephant] to step > aside, as all that was needed to bring the elephant to its knees was > the pervading of metta? Or is that an apocryphal story? ===== I don't see this story as apocryphal. Frankly, looking at a statue of the Buddha causes feelings of calmness to arise in me. The effect of looking on the Buddha himself must have been very powerful (for those with the accumulations). My interpretation is that the Buddha asked Ananda to step aside so that the elephant could properly see the Buddha and the reaction to seeing the Buddha in the mind of the elephant was the arising of extreme metta; enough to cause the animal to fall to its knees. Metta, Rob M :-) 21558 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: I'm very interested > to know how to apply > the Abhidhamma in daily life > according to your understanding? > ------------- Are we studying Abhdidhamma to learn classifications of reality? To learn new words in Pali? To learn that greed, hatred and delusion are bad things? No. Most of us study Abhidhamma to gain a Buddhist perspective on life. Perspective is extremely important. Changing our perspective causes a fundamental shift in our perception of the world. As we gain a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the mind (lobha, dosa, moha) and the characteristics of reality (anicca, dukkha, anatta) will be obvious to us; not just at a "knowledge level" but at a deeper, "belief / confidence level". An untrained ear hears a melody. A trained ear instantly recognizes notes, structure, chord progressions, etc. in the music. The trained ear has a different, deeper perspective when listening to music. A "trained ear" requires considerable study of music theory followed up by practice of listening to music. Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a "trained mind". The next step, which should be done in parallel with study, is the practice of Dana, Sila and Bhavana (meditation). With a "trained mind" we will see things as they truly are. A single day of practice of the Dhamma is more valuable than a hundred years of theoretical study. When I prepare my lecture each week, I often start with an objective; what I want the students to take back with them after the class. My "objective" is ususally framed in terms of giving them a different perspective on day to day life which encourages more practice. For example, this Sunday's class will cover the four universal akusala cetasikas (moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca). I plan to start by defining these terms so that the students can immediately recognize them in their own minds when they arise. I will then explain how these four are the foundation of all akusala cittas; I will quickly review greed, wrong view, conceit, aversion, envy, selfishness, remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt to show how each of these akusala states has the four universal akusala cetasikas as a base. I will give an example of a person having greed and I will show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca work as a team to support this greed. I will then take the opposite of greed (generosity) and show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca cannot arise in a mind filled with generosity. At the end of the class, I hope that the students will have a different prespective on their own mind-states. My experience in vipassana is that noting something is often enough to make it go away (at least temporarily). Metta, Rob M :-) 21559 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- Dear RobM, Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > twelfth century > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > than a theory of moments > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the > static phase. > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation > of a personality without the help of a soul > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > Abhidhammathasangaha). > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > not to be found in the Suttas. > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas > that were current at his time. > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > ============================ > > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, > I've read > > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their > own. > > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who > adopted the > > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that > events > > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, > like the > > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That > is, they > > were among the founders of a position that some believe is > characteristic of > > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, > but which > > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not > attribute > > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts > of) the > > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having > directly read from > > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', > meaning "time" or > > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is > that of an > > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a > discrete > > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been > pluralistic > > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas > the > > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the > suttas > > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of > reality. The > > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later > occasions to arise > > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, > earlier > > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of > presuming > > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > 21560 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Robert K, I believe that the Abhidhammathasangaha has "extra stuff added". I do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). My remarks were not in any way intended to question the value of the contents of the Abhidhammathasangaha. I am suggesting that a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma should be aware of what was in the original seven volumes and what was "added later". Because my class is for beginners, I don't talk about this in my class and therefore have not researched it thoroughly. I note, however, that the appendix to Nyanatiloka's dictionary mentions that most of the specific terms for the cittas in the citta process are not found in the Tipitaka (though the concepts are there). For example, according to Nyanatiloka, the term "bhavanga" only appears two or three times in the Tipitaka (in the Patthana). I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- > Dear RobM, > Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is > this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . > RobertK > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > > twelfth century > > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > > than a theory of moments > > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; > for > > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added > the > > static phase. > > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the > continuation > > of a personality without the help of a soul > > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" > phase > > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth > of > > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > > Abhidhammathasangaha). > > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of > moments > > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > > not to be found in the Suttas. > > > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting > ideas > > that were current at his time. > > > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > ============================ > > > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, > > I've read > > > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of > their > > own. > > > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who > > adopted the > > > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that > > events > > > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, > > like the > > > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. > That > > is, they > > > were among the founders of a position that some believe is > > characteristic of > > > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin > commentaries, > > but which > > > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does > not > > attribute > > > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts > > of) the > > > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having > > directly read from > > > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', > > meaning "time" or > > > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense > is > > that of an > > > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than > a > > discrete > > > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been > > pluralistic > > > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, > whereas > > the > > > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in > the > > suttas > > > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of > > reality. The > > > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later > > occasions to arise > > > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, > > earlier > > > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of > > presuming > > > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 21561 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Buddhism 2 Hi Philip, Thanks for writing! > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > To: dsg > > 1. Did the Buddha create us? Suppose that I tell you that Buddha created us. How do you know what I am saying to you is true? When people tell you something and they say it is true, do you always believe in it? What do you do to find out if what is said is true? > 2. Did the Buddha create the universe and all the > living things? > 3. Is the Buddha holy? When you are kind to somebody, at that moment, the kindness is "holy": it cannot be faulted. Same thing when you help people who are in need, or joyful when they receive good things. The Buddha is immeasurably kind for he teaches us knowledge of great depth impossible to learn otherwise, and for that, he is very holy. > 4. According to the Buddha, is there a devil and a > hell? The Buddha said there is no being that lives forever. So, there wouldn't be a devil (a being) that lives forever. The true devil is the defilements within us. When we are angry, greedy, jealous, stingy, then at the moment, we are the devil. Bad deeds, done because of anger, greed, jealousy, and stinginess, can cause one to be born in an unhappy plane of existence. Look at some animals around you (like chicken, for example), they have pretty tough lives. The Buddha teaches about hell, a birth place that is even unhappier than an animal realm. > > Thank you for answering. > No problem. Asking questions is a very good thing; otherwise, one doesn't learn anything.... kom 21562 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- Dear RobM, Thaks for clarifying. Glad you find that the Abhidhammthasangaha agrees with the suttas. In your post you wrote that ."Anuruddha also added material reflecting > > ideas > > > that were current at his time" and refer to such ideas as perhaps coming outside theravada: "The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" > > phase > > > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one > sixteenth > > of > > > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > > > Abhidhammathasangaha)."" I must admit I don't know the Yogacara school or what it believed. Could you explain it in more detail. If you like I could add something about 'momentariness' as it is explained in Theravada, including the Abhidhammatthasangaha. RobertK >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > I believe that the Abhidhammathasangaha has "extra stuff added". I > do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the > Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I > would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the > nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). > > My remarks were not in any way intended to question the value of the > contents of the Abhidhammathasangaha. I am suggesting that > a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma should be aware of what was in > the original seven volumes and what was "added later". > > Because my class is for beginners, I don't talk about this in my > class and therefore have not researched it thoroughly. I note, > however, that the appendix to Nyanatiloka's dictionary mentions that > most of the specific terms for the cittas in the citta process are > not found in the Tipitaka (though the concepts are there). For > example, according to Nyanatiloka, the term "bhavanga" only appears > two or three times in the Tipitaka (in the Patthana). > > I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of > Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful > in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't > consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > >been removed] 21563 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Rob - Excellent! Thank you for the following. BTW, I had ordered "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, but there was a foul-up, and I never got it. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/23/03 7:32:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > twelfth century > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > than a theory of moments > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the > static phase. > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation > of a personality without the help of a soul > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > Abhidhammathasangaha). > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > not to be found in the Suttas. > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas > that were current at his time. > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > /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) 21564 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT, Regarding "what is the <> of abhidhamma" you might consider the following from "Way 79": The Contemplation of Feeling The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of contemplation of feeling. There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is wisely understood through inquiry. L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). Larry 21565 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Robert K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I must admit I don't know the Yogacara school or what it believed. > Could you explain it in more detail. Thanks for the prompting. I have run across references to the Yogacara school a few times, but never investigated further. Courtesy of Google, I found "Yogacara Buddhism Research Association" with interesting information at: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/ > If you like I could add something about 'momentariness' as it is > explained in Theravada, including the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I have read some material on this subject, but I would be interested in knowing more. Metta, Rob M :-) 21566 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:16pm Subject: transl. Vinaya Co. Dear Sarah, Do you have the Inception of Discipline, and is the contents of this part the Bahira nidana, about the sources of the scriptures and the Council, you quoted from before? Or is there more in it? This is the only part of the Vinaya co in English I believe. I am thinking of ordering it, but I like to know what is in it. Thank you, Nina. 21567 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:04am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga) ... It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness. " Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati You see in the suttas the Buddha was very careful to help people to see that each moment is different from the last. The eye- consciousness has different conditions than the ear consciousness. Someone, before they heard the teaching, might imagine that the same consciousness lasts and could take two or three objects at about the same time. But it can be seen that this is not so. The sutta continues: "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ...'"" The commentaries stress this so much more – they explain that in the time it takes to snap a finger ..kotis of mindmoments have arisen and passed, each one not the same but conditioned by different conditions, and none of these conditions is exactly the same either. Take a moment of seeing: For seeing to arise there must be cakkhu pasada (seeing base). This is the extremely refined rupa that arises in the center of the eye. This special rupa is the result of kamma. reason we can keep seeing is that at this moment the force of the kamma is still working to continue replacing the cakkhu pasada. The visible eye, the eyeball, and the surrounding matter, the rest of the body, are also conditioned by different conditions - not only kamma- and these rupas also only last for a moment before vanishing forever. Every conditioning factor is simarly evanescent as is every conditioned moment. Your book by Mr. Sarachchandra, says " the Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the twelfth century - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather than a theory of moments - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the static phase.""" This 'static' phase is far from static according to the Theravada commentaries, and also the later tikas. For example The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis" Note that vedana (feeling) arises and passes together with consciousness and all other mental elements.Any words we use to describe the nature of realities –impermanent, momentary, temporary, instant by instant- cannot convey the actual rapidity of the arising and passing away. But to explain the dhamma it is useful to use such words as 'moments' when ,say, explaining the difference between a moment of seeing and a moment of hearing. In the Patthana - the last book of the Abhidhamma , the importance of which is greatly stressed in the commentaries and Abhidhammathasangaha is all about conditions. Here we learn that "moments" are extraordinarily complex instants in time with influences from past and present factors. The dhammas themselves are not different from the quality they posses. In fact the Atthasalini says that "there is no other thing than the quality born by it" . And no moment is identical with another-It is true that such dhammas as sanna(perception) or vedana (feeling) or vinnana (consciouness) are classified under the same heading but the actual quality is influenced by so many diverse factiors that not even one moment of feeling is exactly the same. Also because similar conditions arise repeatedly nor are succeeding moments totally different. The same feeling can appear [and I stress appear] to last for seconds because of this. The Abhidhamma allows us to understad that this is illusion and to learn to study directly the present moment so that eventually this idea of permenance is broken. You wrote that "Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas that were current at his time." I don't think so. He put, in a simple way, what was already well rehearsed by generations of great monks from the time of the Buddha. Although sometimes the commentaries added extra useful material a great deal of them came from the time of the Buddha. The Atthakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse "The ancient commentary therof was sang By the First council, Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, 13. Yaa Mahaakassapaadiihi vaasiih'a.t.thakathaa puraa sa"ngiitaa anusa"ngiitaa pacchaa pi ca isiihi yaa It then says "Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote RobertK 21568 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: pneumonia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > Dear James, > > That is a beautiful story you recount, I liked reading your post, you > answered very well all the questions Hilary had raised. > > May you be happy, > > Yasalalaka Thank you Yasalalaka, I am glad that you enjoyed it. Metta, James 21569 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] transl. Vinaya Co. Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Do you have the Inception of Discipline, and is the contents of this > part > the Bahira nidana, about the sources of the scriptures and the Council, > you > quoted from before? Or is there more in it? ..... Yes to all these questions;-) We have the older 1962 edition (reprint in 1986 accord. to PTS catalogue). For others - this is the translation of Buddhaghosa’s commentary to the Vinaya - the introductory section. It is a very useful volume and a good translation (easy to read) by Jayawickrama with lots of helpful cross references and detailed footnotes, esp. to the rest of the Vinaya commentary which is untranslated as yet. Also for you, Nina, it has the Pali at the back as well for the whole text and it’s very easy to locate the passages quickly. Much of the detail about the First Council is also contained in the Mahavamsa and Atthasalini, but if I remember, when I was writing the series, there was more detail here. Also it is one of the earliest accounts of the Second and Third Councils and there is a lot of detail on the latter, in particular and about the schisms etc. Unlike the Mahavamsa, this is definitely a scripture and commentary to the Vinaya, so any references to kings are in passing and there are a lot of cross-references to the suttas, vinaya and abhidhamma instead. It also details the succession of teachers down to the bringing of the bo tree to Anuradhapura. I don’t believe there are any discrepancies with the Mahavamsa to this point which suggests they were both referring to the same ancient (Sinhalese) commentaries for reference, I think. In the introduction it is suggested that the Vinaya commentaries were written by Buddhaghosa after the Abhidhamma commentaries and Visuddhimagga (which was first), but before the sutta commentaries. This text was probably written in AC 429-430. ..... >This is the only part of the > Vinaya co in English I believe. I am thinking of ordering it, but I like > to > know what is in it. ..... As you say, it’s the only part in English. B.Bodhi seemed surprised when I suggested it would be very useful for the entire Samantapasadika (comy to Vinaya) to be translated. Perhaps if there is more interest, it will be;-) Pls let me know if there is anything in particular you'd like me to check meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ====== 21570 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon --- nidive wrote: > Hi Jonothan Abbott, > > But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be > discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by > Sarah? I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by 'the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts'. However, I'll make some general comments on desire/clinging and insight, as I understand it, and hope that it's to the point. Desire/clinging is one of the conditioned phenomena that make up the five aggregates, and hence its characteristic can be directly known by understanding that is of the level of insight. When desire/clinging appears and is directly known, its characteristic is the same regardless of the object of the desire or clinging. Likewise, when desire/clinging is absent, that too can be known by insight. Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being something. I hope this relates to your comment. > I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of > fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on > the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall > away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. > > I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are > not real. I hope you get what I mean. I think I know what you mean when you say there is a sense in which concepts s are real. We all tend to think in terms of concepts as a kind of 'thing', whereas in fact they are not. They are mere conceptualisations of the mind. There is no 'thing' to be made up (fabricated) at that moment. The 4th aggregate (sankhara khandha) has a very specific meaning. In the suttas it is described as the mental factor of intention (cetana), while in the Abhidhamma this is further elaborated to mean all the mental factors not encompassed by the 2nd and 3rd aggregates of feeling and perception. "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations? There are 6 classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind objects...." S. XXII, 56 (as quoted in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' under the entry for 'Khandha') (The expression 'sankhara khandha' is translated by Nyanatiloka here as 'group of mental formations'; Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it as 'aggregate of volitional formations'.) To my understanding, neither the sutta nor the Abhidhamma definition allows for concepts to be regarded as forming part of sankhara khandha. > I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate > realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely > taught the ultimate teaching. I'm not sure that I agree with the logic here. Different listeners were capable of responding to the teachings presented in different ways. A vast proportion of the teachings can be seen as the same thing expressed in different ways (e.g., khandhas vs. dhatus vs. ayatanas vs. nama and rupa vs. citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana) Later in your post you say: > Why would the Buddha > present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single > sutta? A similar situation applies here. The truths taught by the Buddha are ultimate truths, but the teaching about those truths is presented in the suttas using both conventional expression and ultimate expression. I gave an example of this is a recent post to Victor which you will have seen. My views, anyway. Jon 21571 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT & All, < snip > > The Ultimate Truth is about > the << true >> reality that is > rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. ..... Yes ..... > But because the Buddha's > main concern is to liberate man > (my teaching has only one taste, > the taste of liberation) > therefore what He taught should > lead man to detachment, to be > dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. ..... Yes ..... > My question is: > > What is the << concrete, practical >> way > of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? > > What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? ..... The <> way or <> as taught by the Buddha to realize this objective is the development of satipatthana. In other words the development of the eightfold/factor path. In order for satipatthana or the path to develop, however, there needs to be a clear understanding of the objects of sati, i.e. these same Ultimate Truths (paramattha dhammas), as clarified with the assistance of the Abhidhamma imho. Otherwise, in my view, there will be the idea that computers and other concepts can be directly known and as a result satipatthana will not develop. I appreciate that others here have different understandings ;-) Look forward to more of your comments and questions, KKT. Metta, Sarah KKT: Thanks for your answer, Sarah. So the point is: __Abhidhamma is the << theory >> part. __Satipatthana is the << practice >> part. (to realize what is exposed in the Abhidhamma) Is it correct? I think the practice of Satipatthana for you means << to observe paramattha dhammas arising and falling at the 6 sense-doors >> Is it correct? Another very important point I want to ask is Panna (insight, wisdom) Is the following definition of Panna correct? Panna = to see things as they really are ie. making clearly the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas. Since everything arises by conditions, so does Panna. Is the practice of Satipatthana the main condition for Panna to arise? Panna should have the power of liberation ie. making one free from defilements, free from attachments, free from craving, becoming. Therefore Panna should be much more than a merely intellectual understanding. This is what I think about Panna. Can you talk more about Panna according to Abhidhamma? Thank you, Sarah. Metta, KKT 21572 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi KKT, < snip > When I prepare my lecture each week, I often start with an objective; what I want the students to take back with them after the class. My "objective" is ususally framed in terms of giving them a different perspective on day to day life which encourages more practice. For example, this Sunday's class will cover the four universal akusala cetasikas (moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca). I plan to start by defining these terms so that the students can immediately recognize them in their own minds when they arise. I will then explain how these four are the foundation of all akusala cittas; I will quickly review greed, wrong view, conceit, aversion, envy, selfishness, remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt to show how each of these akusala states has the four universal akusala cetasikas as a base. I will give an example of a person having greed and I will show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca work as a team to support this greed. I will then take the opposite of greed (generosity) and show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca cannot arise in a mind filled with generosity. At the end of the class, I hope that the students will have a different prespective on their own mind-states. My experience in vipassana is that noting something is often enough to make it go away (at least temporarily). Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's very interesting. I have a question: Do we need to << name >> a cetasika while noting it? We know that rupa, citta, cetasika arise and fall away very quickly. Therefore the fact of << naming >> makes the process of noting too late, doesn't it? For example: By inadvertence, we touch the stove, the sensation is so acute that we remove right away our hand. We don't need to name it << hot >> :-)) Metta, KKT 21573 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02am Subject: Re: concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi KKT, < snip > L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). Larry KKT: Agreed. This is why the Buddha analysed the body/mind into five aggregates and why Abhidhamma made a classification of 82 paramattha dhammas. Metta, KKT 21574 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, This is great! Could you please be more specific as to the source, translation etc.? What is 'Way 79'? mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence > Hi KKT, > > Regarding "what is the <> of abhidhamma" you might consider the > following from "Way 79": > > The Contemplation of Feeling > > The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness > through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And > now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of > contemplation of feeling. > > There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as > follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant > feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." > > Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the > breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know > that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is > different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their > backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out > the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not > become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the > Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the > belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of > meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is > wisely understood through inquiry. > > L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this > wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more > clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, > to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). > > Larry > 21575 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Robs K & M, Well asked and well answered. Rob M, I think you hit the nail on the head, in a way. I'm not familiar except in passing with the history of the abhidhamma, and of course have no way of knowing exactly what was and wasn't present at the creation, or what was added afterwards. Usually when the history of the various schools is cited it's as a challenge to the validity (by way of historicity) of abhidhamma. This is why I've never been particularly interested in the history itself (and because I've no scholarly 'accumulations'--thanks, by the way for 'aayuuhana'--I've been using 'anusaya' for 'accumulation'). I came some time ago to the same conclusion as yours below, but have never articulated it so well as you did when you wrote, > I do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the > Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I > would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the > nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). Such details as 'momentariness' vs. 'moments' etc. are of no significance to me at all (maybe because of my lack of detailed understanding). I suspect this may be more important if one is looking for some kind of continuous 'consciousness' or 'awareness' underlying experience--not sure. For me, though, the abhidhamma 'model' works just as well either way and either way is perfectly compatible with the suttanta/vinaya. That's how it seems to me, anyway. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:38 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment > Hi Robert K, ... > I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of > Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful > in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't > consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > --- > > Dear RobM, > > Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is > > this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . > > RobertK 21576 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Robert K (and Rob M) - In a message dated 4/24/03 4:08:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > Dear RobM, > In the > 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' > (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga) ... > It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that > consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is > know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye > and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if > consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as > hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and > smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness > arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- > consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, > it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises > because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental > consciousness. " > ========================= Certainly hearing and seeing etc don't co-occur. But any "moment" of seeing, for example, arises gradually from a state of relative subliminality, to a peak of awareness, and back down again, grading off into the next. When there is a visual process, a whole successive series of such risings, peakings, and diminishings proceeds without gap. Such a process is a continuous process, being gap-free. According to Abhidhamma, the cittas comprising that process may differ due to changes in accompanying factors, the cetasikas. These arise gradually, peak, and diminish, along with the level of conscious awareness. The fact that an entire process is incredibly fast compared to the flow of conventional worldly objects constructed by sankharic processes doesn't turn that process into a film-frame phenomenon. Bhavanga cittas don't make much of an appearance in the Abhidhamma and none in the Sutta Pitaka, and there is no need for them. As I see it, they are unnecessarily imposed by scholars who were troubled by the empirical approach of the Buddha and wanted to impose a more analytical scheme. Now, the film-frame perspective isn't contradictory, as I see it. I have no problem with "action-at-a-distance" at all. I just don't see it as a logical necessity or as implied by the teachings in the Sutta Pitaka, or even (probably) by the teachings of the Abhidhamma. 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) 21577 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming contiguous, discrete point-moments. With metta, Howard KKT: What you wrote about the Sautrantika is correct. But I'm always unclear about the position of the Theravada on those matters. An excerpt from A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana by Hirakawa Akira, p.118: In the discussions of Buddhism found in Brahmanical philosophical texts, the Mahayana Madhyamika and Yogacara schools and the Nikaya Buddhist Vaibhasika (Sarvastivadin) and Sautrantika schools are often mentioned. Vedanta scholars probably chose these four schools of Buddhism because they represented a variety of positions and could be presented in a diagrammatic fashion. The Sarvastivadins were said to regard the external world as real (bahyartha-pratyaksatva). The Sautrantikas were said to regard the external world as having only an instantaneous existence and thus to have argued that its existence could be recognized only through inference (bahyarthanumeyatva). The Yogacarins were said to recognize only consciousness as existing and to deny the existence of the external world (bahyarthasunyatva). Finally, the Madhyamikas claimed that both subject and object were nonsubstantial (sarvasunyatva). What is the position of the Theravada regarding the external world ? (Does the 'computer' exist or not ? :-)) Metta, KKT 21578 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Swee Boon and all, Pardon me for jumping in. Jon, I would think that you had hit the point with the following: Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21179 I would say that what is assembled is impermanent. This is how I see it: Clinging to concept leads to dukkha. Seeing concept thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." one grows dispassionate toward concept. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Swee Boon > > --- nidive wrote: > Hi Jonothan Abbott, > > > > But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be > > discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by > > Sarah? > > I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by 'the abandonment of > desire/clinging to concepts'. However, I'll make some general > comments on desire/clinging and insight, as I understand it, and hope > that it's to the point. > > Desire/clinging is one of the conditioned phenomena that make up the > five aggregates, and hence its characteristic can be directly known > by understanding that is of the level of insight. > > When desire/clinging appears and is directly known, its > characteristic is the same regardless of the object of the desire or > clinging. > > Likewise, when desire/clinging is absent, that too can be known by > insight. > > Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular > kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my > understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so > without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being > something. > > I hope this relates to your comment. > > > I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of > > fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on > > the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall > > away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. > > > > I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are > > not real. I hope you get what I mean. > > I think I know what you mean when you say there is a sense in which > concepts s are real. We all tend to think in terms of concepts as a > kind of 'thing', whereas in fact they are not. They are mere > conceptualisations of the mind. There is no 'thing' to be made up > (fabricated) at that moment. > > The 4th aggregate (sankhara khandha) has a very specific meaning. In > the suttas it is described as the mental factor of intention > (cetana), while in the Abhidhamma this is further elaborated to mean > all the mental factors not encompassed by the 2nd and 3rd aggregates > of feeling and perception. > > "What, o monks, is the group of mental formations? There are 6 > classes of volitional states (cetaná): with regard to visual objects, > to sounds, to odours, to tastes, to bodily impressions and to mind > objects...." > S. XXII, 56 (as quoted in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' under > the entry for 'Khandha') > > (The expression 'sankhara khandha' is translated by Nyanatiloka here > as 'group of mental formations'; Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it as > 'aggregate of volitional formations'.) > > To my understanding, neither the sutta nor the Abhidhamma definition > allows for concepts to be regarded as forming part of sankhara > khandha. > > > I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate > > realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely > > taught the ultimate teaching. > > I'm not sure that I agree with the logic here. Different listeners > were capable of responding to the teachings presented in different > ways. A vast proportion of the teachings can be seen as the same > thing expressed in different ways (e.g., khandhas vs. dhatus vs. > ayatanas vs. nama and rupa vs. citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana) > > Later in your post you say: > > Why would the Buddha > > present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single > > sutta? > > A similar situation applies here. The truths taught by the Buddha > are ultimate truths, but the teaching about those truths is presented > in the suttas using both conventional expression and ultimate > expression. I gave an example of this is a recent post to Victor > which you will have seen. > > My views, anyway. > > Jon 21579 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, KKT (and Rob M) - In a message dated 4/24/03 8:50:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > It's very interesting. > > I have a question: > > Do we need to <>a cetasika > while noting it? > > We know that rupa, citta, cetasika > arise and fall away very quickly. > > Therefore the fact of <>makes > the process of noting too late, doesn't it? > > For example: > > By inadvertence, we touch the stove, > the sensation is so acute that > we remove right away our hand. > > We don't need to name it <>:-)) > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > > ============================ It seems to me that wordless recognition is a function that can be trained, and that pariyatti can play a role in that. I agree with you that attempting to think about what one is observing at the time one is observing it is is an exercise in futility that actually interferes with proper attention. But sa~n~na conditioned in part by correct study has a better chance at being (or leading to) pa~n~na than does sa~n~na not so trained. This, for example, is why it is worthwhile to study the Buddha's suttas in which he teaches dependent arising, the four noble truths, the three characteristics, etc. 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) 21580 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Co mahaaraahulovadasutta, no 9. Commentary Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no. 9 Relevant passage of the sutta: ``katamaa ca, raahula, aakaasadhaatu? aakaasadhaatu siyaa ajjhattikaa, siyaa baahiraa. katamaa ca, raahula, ajjhattikaa aakaasadhaatu? ya.m ajjhatta.m paccatta.m aakaasa.m aakaasagata.m upaadinna.m, seyyathida.m -- ka.n.nacchidda.m naasacchidda.m² "And what, Rahula, is the space element? The space element may be internal or external. And what, Rahula, is the internal space element? That, internally, and individually, is space, empty, and clung to, namely: the orifice of the ear, nose, mouth.² Commentary: eva.m kirassa ahosi -- ``raahulassa attabhaava.m nissaaya chandaraago uppanno, It must have occurred to him thus: ³Since for Rahula attachment has arisen on account of the body, he.t.thaa cassa sa"nkhepena ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathita.m. I have explained to him before in brief (sa²nkhepena) the meditation subject on materiality. idaanissaapi dvicattaaliisaaya aakaarehi attabhaava.m viraajetvaa visa"nkharitvaa ta.mnissita.m chandaraaga.m Now, after I have analysed the body in fortytwo ways and I have made him get rid of (visa"nkharitvaa) attachment that is dependent on it, anuppattidhammata.m aapaadessaamii''ti. I shall now make him understand what he did not grasp according to the truth.² atha aakaasadhaatu.m kasmaa vitthaaresiiti? Why did he then explain the element of space? upaadaaruupadassanattha.m. In order to show the derived material phenomena. he.t.thaa hi cattaari mahaabhuutaaneva kathitaani, na upaadaaruupa.m. Before he had spoken about the four great Elements, not about the derived physical phenomena. tasmaa iminaa mukhena ta.m dassetu.m aakaasadhaatu.m vitthaaresi. Therefore, in order to show these he explained in detail the element of space. apica ajjhattikena aakaasena paricchinnaruupampi paaka.ta.m hoti. He made known also the matter that is delimitated by the internal space. ³aakaasena paricchinna.m ruupa.m yaati vibhuutata.m. He proceeds (yaati) to clarify matter that is delimitated by space. tasseva.m aavibhaavattha.m, ta.m pakaasesi naayako. the Guide makes known what is unclear of this.² ettha pana purimaasu taava catuusu dhaatuusu ya.m vattabba.m, ta.m mahaahatthipadopame vuttameva. But here what should be said with regard to the preceding four (great) elements, that was said in the ³Discourse on the great Elephant¹s Footprint². aakaasadhaatuya.m aakaasagatanti aakaasabhaava.m gata.m. As to the words ³with regard to the element of space, connected with (gata) space², this means, having the characteristic of space. upaadinnantiaadinna.m gahita.m paraama.t.tha.m, sariira.t.thakanti attho. clung to, means, grasped and misapprehended, it means, belonging to the bodily frame. ka.n.nacchiddanti ma.msalohitaadiihi asamphu.t.thaka.n.navivara.m. cavity in the ear, meaning, opening in the ear, not touched by flesh and blood, etc. naasacchiddaadiisupi eseva nayo. With regard to cavity in the nose etc. this is also (according to) this system (of teaching). ***** Remarks: In the first book of the Abhidhamma (Dhammasangani) § 638, aakaasa is listed among the derived physical phenomena. There are 28 kinds of physical phenomena, four of which are the four principle rupas or mahaabhuuta ruupas, of solidity (earth), cohesion (water), heat (fire) and motion (wind). The rupas other than these four are the 24 derived rupas, upaadaaruupa. These arise in dependence on the four great elements. Sound, for example, is a derived rupa arising in a group of rupas consisting among others of the four great elements. Sound does not float in the air by itself, it needs the four great elements and other rupas. We read about space in the Dhammasangani: In Buddhaghosa's Commentary to the first Book of the Abhidhamma (Atthasaalinii, tr as Expositor, 326) and also in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga (XIV, 63) more details are given as to its function. We read in the "Visuddhimagga": Nina. 21581 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 79, It feels. Abhidhamma teaching. Dear Larry and all, this passage of the Way on feeling I find most helpful. See below, interspersed. op 23-04-2003 00:55 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as > follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant > feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." > Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the > breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know > that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is > different. .... N: This reminds us that just noting feeling is not the same as understanding the characteristic of feeling. It is just as we read under mindfulness of body, about the passage:I am standing, etc. and he knows that he is standing. Jackals also know this, this is not awareness and understanding. We are bound to make mistakes in this area and take a quick noting for awareness. There may be a subtle clinging to thinking of or concentration on feeling. But a degree of detachment in the development of understanding is essential right from the beginning. Otherwise we shall never know that "it feels", no "I" who feels. The way: But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the > belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of > meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is > wisely understood through inquiry. N: listening to the Dhamma, inquiry, asking questions, consideration of the Dhamma, these are conditions for the growth of understanding. The way: Who feels? No being or person. Whose is the feeling? Not of a being or > person. Owing to what is there the feeling? Feeling can arise with > (certain) things -- forms, sounds, smells and so forth -- as objects. > That bhikkhu knows, therefore, that there is a mere experiencing of > feeling after the objectifying of a particular pleasurable or painful > physical basis or of one of indifference. N: Feeling arises because of its own conditions: the objects are among these conditions. Also the physical base, vatthu, is a condition. Feeling is very complex. It is difficult to know the difference between bodily painful feeling arising on account of an object impinging on the bodysense, and the unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the citta rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise shortly afterwards. Happy and unhappy (mental) feelings can in their turn condition physical phenomena. It is thanks to the Abhidhamma that we can learn what we do not know, otherwise we may believe that we have a great deal of understanding, we may accumulate even more conceit than we have already. The Abhidhamma shows how intricate realities and their conditions are. The way: (There is no ego that > experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare > process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is > impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a > conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. > It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the > objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. N: There are bare processes going on, they are all proceeding according to their own conditions. It depends on the individual to what extent he wants to study the details of the Abhidhamma, but it is beneficial to keep in mind some basic principles. The Abhidhamma teaches that all realities of our daily life are mere elements, each performing their own function and proceeding according to their own conditions. The four great elements (solidity, cohesion, heat, and motion) perform each their own function, as is also taught in the suttas, such as the Maha-Rahulovada sutta. We digest our food because these elements perform each their own function, it has nothing to do with us. Nobody uses a ladle to push the food through, nobody lights a fire in the stomach so that heat causes our food inside to be digested. There are cavities and holes in the belly, and these have a function, nothing to do with us. Also cittas perform each their own function. The cittas that arise in processes proceed according to conditions and arise in a specific order, nobody can change this order and ask cittas to stop or to slow down. The cetasikas that accompany cittas each perform their own function, they are mere elements. Understanding realities as elements each performing their own function, as taught in detail in the Abhidhamma, can be our guiding principle in the development of vipassana. Sati of satipatthana has the function of being mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Right from the beginning we should see them as elements performing their own functions. This leads to abandoning of the idea of "I am practising, I am developing vipassana". Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I said before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that develops insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is only a moment of sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of self who is guiding, this can be accumulated, so that there will be conditions again for their arising. We should not underestimate the force of panna that is accumulated. The dependant origination and also hetu and phala we discussed before can only be understood when stages of insight have been reached accordingly, not before. At the second stage of insight dhammas can be understood more clearly as conditioned realities. Before that stage is reached we can only have intellectual understanding of conditions, of hetu and phala. Nina. 21582 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] transl. Vinaya Co. and Pali text. Dear Sarah, Thank you very much, I shall order it. Very interesting what you write about. Here is a short text for memorizing Pali you may like: Nina. op 24-04-2003 10:49 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > It is a very useful volume and a good translation (easy to read) by 21583 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities > Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular > kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my > understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so > without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being > something. This makes sense to me, but I can't put my finger on 'clinging to concepts' as an aspect of wrong view. Bhikkhu Bodhi's guide to The Unwholesome Factors, p. 84 CMA has it as: "Di.t.thi here means seeing wrongly. Its characteristic is unwise (unjustified) interpretation of things. Its function is to preassume [I like this bit--the 'a priori'--mn]. It is manifested as a wrong interpretation or belief. Its proximate cause is unwillingness to see the noble ones (ariya) and so on." Do you extrapolate 'clinging to concepts' from this, or is it from a different source? Thanks, mike 21584 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:21pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > It's very interesting. > > I have a question: > > Do we need to << name >> a cetasika > while noting it? > > We know that rupa, citta, cetasika > arise and fall away very quickly. > > Therefore the fact of << naming >> makes > the process of noting too late, doesn't it? > > For example: > > By inadvertence, we touch the stove, > the sensation is so acute that > we remove right away our hand. > > We don't need to name it << hot >> :-)) > ===== "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. "Seeing things as they truly are" means having a habit of reacting to what is presented to us based on the object being anicca, dukkha and anatta. If we like what we see, this is fertile soil for lobha to take root. If we dislike what we see, this is fertile soil for dosa to take root. If we ignore what we see, this is fertile soil for moha to take root. The kind of soil that does not allow lobha, dosa or moha to take root is seeing what is presented to us as anicca, dukha and anatta. So then, why do we spend all this time learning lists of cetasikas? Analyzing mind states helps us intellectually understand the truth of anatta. We break the mind state into citta and so many cetasikas and can see intellectually that none of the pieces has any "self". It therefore makes sense that, since none of the components has any "self", the whole has has no "self". The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - these are states that are good." The list of the Dhammasangani does not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy (mudita), and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the serious student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the list of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position (i.e. *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open-ended list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). What if Anuruddha got it wrong? What is there are not exactly 52 cetasikas? Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal. What is important is seeing mental states as non-self and supporting an intellectual understanding of non-self through analysis of mind- states into citta and a bunch of cetasikas (each of which is non- self). Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) 21585 From: Michael Newton Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya --- buddhatrue wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael > Newton > wrote: > > > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks > from > > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > > would be disrobed. > > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > > against supporting wars which would apply to both > > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > > fear,and hatred. > > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing > with > > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > > A Buddhist would not support war. > > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL > > Hi Michael, > > Then by your definition, the Lord Buddha wasn't a > very good > Buddhist. Please read the beginning part of this > sutta "The Last > Days of the Buddha": > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > > Vassakara and the Lord Buddha discuss an upcoming > war against the > Vajjis. The Lord Buddha ultimately tells Vassakara > to do whatever he > sees fit in waging war against the Vajjis. The Lord > Buddha, contrary > to popular opinion, wasn't anti-war. > > Metta, James > Hi James, Thank you for your clarification,I have looked at the Mahaparinibbana Sutta,and I would refer you to line 5,just before line 6.The Buddha,simply responds to brahmin Vassakara,who asked,permission to depart,then tells him,to depart as it seems fit to him.This is simply a goodbye,and doesn't appear to be a permission for war.Maybe I stand to be corrected.Check that last section out.Thank you,for your communication. May all beings be Happy,Michael > 21586 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:27pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > these are states that are good." ______________ Dear RobM, I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. _____________________ The list of the Dhammasangani does > not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision > (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind > (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy (mudita), > and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right > livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the serious > student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the > Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the list > of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the > canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position (i.e. > *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the > Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but > it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas > from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open-ended > list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). _________- You seem to be implying that Anuruddha invented this list. . The Abhidhamma (Dhammasangani) says "yevapana...dhamma" ( , or whatever other..dhammas).And this includes the ones listed by Anuruddha. These factors have all been included since long before Anuruddha. Chanda, Adhimokkha, manisikara, metta, tatramajjhattata and karuna - these are all in the list of mental factors in the Visuddhimagga (see for example XiV 133). The Visuddhimagga was written centuries before Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha. Nina Van gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas11.html notes about adhimokkha: "The Dhammasangani does not mention adhimokkha in its list of dhammas, but it adds:"or whatever other factors there are"(1). The Atthasalini and the Visuddhimaga classify adhimokkha among the nine "whatsoevers" (ye va panaka)."" Manasikara is also classified among the "whatsoevers". Manasikara and adhimokkha are mentioned in the "Discourse on the Uninterrupted" (Middle Length Saying III, no.111) ."" endquote. RobertK 21587 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:04pm Subject: Way 80, Feeling cont. 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 Contemplation of Feeling, continued Thus the Blessed One when expounding the non-corporeal subject of meditation after the corporeal subject of meditation, expounds it by way of feeling. For twofold is the subject of meditation: the subject of meditation of corporeality or materiality and the subject of meditation which is non-corporeal or non-material. This twofold subject of meditation is also spoken of as the laying hold of the mental and the laying hold of the material. While the Blessed One is expounding the material subject of meditation by way of brief or lengthy reflection he expounds the discernment of the four modes (or elements) of materiality [dhatu]. Both those ways of reflection are pointed out fully, in the Path of Purity. While expounding, however, the mental subject of meditation generally the Master expounds it by way of the contemplation on feeling. Threefold, indeed, is the establishing in the mental subject of meditation: by way of sense-impression, feeling and mind. How? To some meditator, indeed, when the material subject of meditation is laid hold of, when there is the first impact of mind-with-mental-characteristics on the object (or the first Apprehension of that object), the sense-impression that arises with the contacting of that object becomes clear. To another the feeling that arises with the experiencing of that object becomes clear. To yet another the consciousness that arises with the knowing of that object becomes clear. When sense-impression becomes clear, not only does sense-impression arise; together with that sense-impression, arise feeling, perception, volition and consciousness. When feeling becomes clear the other four too arise. Also when consciousness becomes clear the other four arise. The bhikkhu, on reflecting thus: "Dependent on what is this group of five things?" knows as follows: "Dependent on the (coarse) corporeal base (vatthu)." That coarse body [karaja kaya] about which it is said: "And indeed this consciousness of mine is depending on, is bound up with this body," that, in its actual nature consists of the four great physical things, the four great primaries, and the physical qualities sourcing from the four great primaries. These physical qualities are called derived materiality. Here, the bhikkhu sees mind and body, thinking, "The (coarse) corporeal base aforesaid is body; the five beginning with sense-impression are mind." In this connection there are the five aggregates because the body is the aggregate of materiality, and the mind, the four aggregates of non-material things. There is neither a fivefold aggregation separate from the mind and body nor a mind and body separate from the fivefold aggregation. The bhikkhu who tries to find out what the cause of these five aggregates is sees that these are due to ignorance, etc. Henceforth the bhikkhu lives with thorough knowledge thinking that this thing, the fivefold aggregation, is only something conditioned and includes what is produced from conditioning. It is a congeries of bare formations, indeed, of bare processes. He applies to it, by way of the mind and body that exist together with conditions, according to the gradual succession of insight-producing knowledge, the words: "impermanent,", "subject-to-suffering," and "soulless". 21588 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. "Seeing things as they truly are" means having a habit of reacting to what is presented to us based on the object being anicca, dukkha and anatta. If we like what we see, this is fertile soil for lobha to take root. If we dislike what we see, this is fertile soil for dosa to take root. If we ignore what we see, this is fertile soil for moha to take root. The kind of soil that does not allow lobha, dosa or moha to take root is seeing what is presented to us as anicca, dukha and anatta. So then, why do we spend all this time learning lists of cetasikas? Analyzing mind states helps us intellectually understand the truth of anatta. We break the mind state into citta and so many cetasikas and can see intellectually that none of the pieces has any "self". It therefore makes sense that, since none of the components has any "self", the whole has has no "self". < snip > What if Anuruddha got it wrong? What is there are not exactly 52 cetasikas? Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal. What is important is seeing mental states as non-self and supporting an intellectual understanding of non-self through analysis of mind- states into citta and a bunch of cetasikas (each of which is non- self). Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: Yes, this makes sense. One of the objectives of Abhidhamma is to uproot unwholesome mental factors. Until now what you present is rather an << intellectual understanding >> of non-self through analysis of mind-states. Could you talk a little bit about Panna according to your understanding? I think Panna should be something more than a merely intellectual understanding? Thank you, RobM. Metta, KKT 21589 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:03pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > > these are states that are good." > ______________ > Dear RobM, > I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. > _____________________ ===== I pulled out my PTS version of the Dhammasangani (1997 printing). I looked at Book I, Chapter I, paragraph 1 (page 3-4). There are 56 cetasikas listed. They are described in the following paragraphs (paragraph 2 - 57; this is how I mistakenly said 57 cetasikas). ===== > The list of the Dhammasangani does > > not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision > > (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind > > (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy > (mudita), > > and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right > > livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the > serious > > student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the > > Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the > list > > of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the > > canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position > (i.e. > > *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the > > Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but > > it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas > > from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open- ended > > list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). > _________- > You seem to be implying that Anuruddha invented this list. . ===== My belief is that Anuruddha, like Buddhaghosa, "reformatted" a lot of material available to him at the time. I suspect that Anuruddha, like Buddhaghosa, had so much respect for the material that he was working with, that he took pains not to introduce too many of his own interpretations. It is quite possible that the list of cetasikas was fixed at 52 before Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha, but that fixing the quantity at 52 is not in the Dhammasangi or the other six books of the Abhidhamma Canon. Somebody in the approximately 17 centuries between the Abhidhamma Canon and Anuruddha's time fixed the quantity at 52. It might have been Anuruddha or it might have been somebody else. I don't mean to "pin the blame" on Anuruddha for "inventing this list". Metta, Rob M :-) 21590 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > > > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > > > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > > > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > > > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > > > > these are states that are good." > > ______________ > > Dear RobM, > > I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. > > _____________________ > > ===== > > I pulled out my PTS version of the Dhammasangani (1997 printing). I > looked at Book I, Chapter I, paragraph 1 (page 3-4). There are 56 > cetasikas listed. They are described in the following paragraphs > (paragraph 2 - 57; this is how I mistakenly said 57 cetasikas). > > __ Dear Rob, I don't have the Dhammasangani with me but I think there is less. Remember some are repeated. For example Vitakka ( as vitakka and as samma sankappa). Saddha (as saddhindriya and as saddhabala ) Alobha (as alobha and as anabhijjha). Viriya has 4 terms: as viriyindriya, as sammavayama, as viriyabala, and as paggaha. RobertK 21591 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: Yes, this makes sense. > > One of the objectives of > Abhidhamma is to uproot > unwholesome mental factors. > > Until now what you present > is rather an << intellectual > understanding >> of non-self > through analysis of mind-states. > > Could you talk a little bit about > Panna according to your understanding? > > I think Panna should be something > more than a merely intellectual understanding? People might think that I paid you to ask such a leading question that fits perfectly into my next posting (slides 13-16) :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 21592 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:27pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 13-16 for comment Why do people study the Abhidhamma? Slide Contents ============== A stick figure of a man: Study ----- Leg: Nature of mind - Greed (lobha) - Hatred (dosa) - Delusion (moha) Leg: Characterisitics of existence - Impermanence (anicca) - Suffering (dukkha) - No Self (anattā) Lower Torso: Five Aggregates - How the mind and the body interact Practice -------- Arm: Giving (Dāna) - Do good Arm: Virtue (Sīla) - Avoid evil Upper Torso (with a heart): Meditation (Bhāvanā) - Purify the mind Realization ----------- Head: Wisdom (Paññā) Speaker Notes ============= The foundation of the Abhidhamma is an understanding of the nature of reality. This includes the nature of mind, the three characteristics of existence and the realities which constitute a being – the five aggregates. Abhidhamma provides a framework for the understanding of our everyday experience and this understanding is a condition for the arising of insight. The mind plays a central role in Buddhism. The first verses of the Dhammapada: "Mind is the forerunner of all evil states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with a wicked mind, because of that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox. Mind is the forerunner of all good states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, because of that, happiness follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves." "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind, that is the teaching of the Buddhas." Abhidhamma is the study of the mind, and this will lead to a more effective practice and eventually a "trained mind". The Bhumija Sutta (Mn126) explains that results are obtained, not because of strong desire for results, but rather because of proper practice. The practice of dāna, sīla and bhāvanā will l= ead to wisdom. Abhidhamma is meant for practical use in following the Eightfold Path, rather than for abstract theorizing. We start by studying the nature of reality. We follow this with putting the theory into practice through dāna, sīla and bhāvanā. The correct pr= actice will lead us to realization or wisdom. 21593 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Abhidhammathasangha, Abhidhamma Canon and Heisenberg Hi Rob K (and all), If you ask the vast majority of people to explain their concept of an atom, you will get descriptions of minature solar systems with the nucleus of the atom as the sun and the electrons as planets. This is what is explained to us in high school. A "serious student" of physics knows that this model is a simplification and sees electrons (and all matter), not as discrete particles but rather as probability waves. The high school science book gives an introduction to the subject. The author simplifies so that the intended audience can understand; knowing that the "serious student" will eventually discard this simple model as they progress in their studies. Why did Anuruddha write the Abhidhammathasangaha? He was writing an introduction to the Abhidhamma to make it easier to learn/memorize. I view Anuruddha as being like the author of that high school science textbook. I feel that a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma has to be ready (at some point) to tackle the Abhidhamma Canon and recognize that the Abhidhammathasangaha is a simpified version of something much bigger. It must be simplified; the Abhidhammatthasangaha is only about 50 pages long, compared to the thousands of pages in the Abhidhamma Canon. Speaking of modern physics, one of my favourite quotes is by Werner Heisenberg (one of the creaters of quantum mechanics). He said, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." It sounds like a very Buddhist kind of thing to say, but Heisenberg was, in fact talking about the path of movement of atomic particles! Metta, Rob M :-) 21594 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thank you for your clarification,I have looked at the > Mahaparinibbana Sutta,and I would refer you to line > 5,just before line 6.The Buddha,simply responds to > brahmin Vassakara,who asked,permission to depart,then > tells him,to depart as it seems fit to him.This is > simply a goodbye,and doesn't appear to be a permission > for war.Maybe I stand to be corrected.Check that last > section out.Thank you,for your communication. > May all beings be Happy,Michael Hi Michael, Your interpretation of the Buddha's words is really far out, I must say. Why would the Buddha, as you paraphrase, "then tells him, to depart as it seems fit to him"? Was he suggesting that maybe Vassakara could leave him hopping upside down on one hand? Or maybe both hands? Or maybe he could have moonwalked out of the Blessed One's presence? ;-). Please understand, no one would say that kind of thing to someone unless it had a deeper meaning. I really don't want to seem sarcastic to you, because you are a really sweet person, but I don't know any other way to put it! Wake up and smell the coffee! The Lord Buddha told Vassakara to go ahead and conspire against the Vajjis in order to wage war against them... ultimately he knew that Vassakara and his King wouldn't be successful anyway. But why didn't he just state that outright? Because he wasn't anti-war like you suggest; he didn't get out his peace beads, put on his tie-dye shirt, and make a stance for no more war anywhere! If you know what I mean… but maybe you won't. Honestly, I have had this type of discussion many times with those Buddhists who are 'VEGETARIANS', and believe everyone else should be also, but get upset when I tell them that the Lord Buddha wasn't vegetarian nor did he believe in that! Well! Throw the baby out with the bathwater!! ;-)) Believe it or not, any kind of peace reguires more toughness and suffering than war does! Metta, James 21595 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > In the "Analysis of Concepts" chapter p. 325 in CMA I don't see where it > says mental images are concepts. ..... OK, what is says is “what remains are concepts” (tato avasesa pa~n~natti)apart from the 5 aggregates and nibbana. Which aggregate would you classify mental image under if you don’t think it is a concept? ..... >The reference to jhana is unclear but I > take it to be confined to counterpart signs only and not mental images > such as occur in dreams and memories. Certainly the shape of a computer > or the red light of a stop sign are not concepts any more than the sound > of speech is a concept. ..... If we consider the classification of 28 rupas, visible object and sound are included, but ‘shape of a computer’ or ‘red light of a stop sign’ are not. These would definitely be included under the various kinds of concepts as I understand. Furthermore, I believe it can be tested at this moment that seeing consciousness merely sees visible object and hearing hears sound. ..... > Concepts are dhammas so they are real. ..... ‘Dhammas’ have different meanings in different contexts. In some contexts, the word includes concepts. This is a quote about just a few of them from another post of mine. Cy refers to the commentary to the Mulapariyaya Sutta: >>We read further about the various meanings of dhamma (here translated as ‘things’) in the suttas: “Cy. The word “dhamma” is found used in the following senses: the scriptures (pariyatti), the (Four Noble) Truths (sacca), concentration (samaadhi), wisdom (pa~n~na), nature (pakati), things endowed with a specific nature (sabhava), emptiness (su~n~nataa), merit (pu~n~na), a disciplinary offense (aapatti), the knowable (~neyya) etc.”<< ..... >I think the expression "no > own-nature" simply means there is no hardness in the concept of > hardness, for example. To say the *meaning* of a concept has no > own-nature is _not_ to say the *referent* of a concept has no > own-nature. Hardness has its own nature (characteristic) but "hardness" > is a concept. I think there is considerable confusion in the texts > regarding this point. ..... Comy to Mulapariyaya Sutta: “here the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.na”m dhaarentii ti dhammaa”. Sub Comy clarifies further that concepts, “mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultiamtely real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), whereas those with sabhava can. I think the confusion may be in our minds;-) Just to clarify, at the moment of touching ‘hardness’, the hardness has sabhava or the characteristic of pathavi that is directly experienced and can at that instant be the object of satipatthana. Now we’re having a discussion about ‘hardness’ and in this case it is the concept of ‘hardness’, just as it would be a concept if it were ‘shape of a computer’ or ‘red stop sign’ being considered. In these cases, the ‘unreal’ object or pannatti has no characteristic or nature. ..... >Some concepts have a real referent and some do > not. .... yes. .... Some concepts are true but have no paramatta dhamma as a referent > (impermanence, for example). ..... Impermanence is a characteristic (as in tri-lakhana) of reality. It is not a concept, except now when we consider it. ..... >All concepts have no own nature. In other > words, their meaning can't be experienced. We can't experience "Sarah" > or the *meaning* of "hardness" ..... Correct ..... >but we can talk to you and experience > hardness. ..... We think we can talk to a person, but whenever there is this impression there are many concepts involved. As we know from ‘Way’, talking consists of various cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Still, I think I know what you are saying. ..... > I don't see abhidhamma making a big issue out of the discrimination of > concept and reality ..... I think that mostly the texts are just looking at realities - khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus and so on. The reason we need to ‘make a big issue’ is that concept and reality are confused and so even when we read about rupas or sankhara khandha for example, there is an idea of concepts in these classifications of realities. Rupa khandha consists of the 28 rupas, sankhara khandha consists of 50 cetasikas, but we need to understand what these rupas and cetasikas are in order to undestand there is no computer, stop sign or any other concept included. No beings or things - this is the truth of anatta. ..... >but most meditative traditions do use this > discrimination in a conventional sense to get beginning meditators to > recognize discursive thinking and wandering mind. So there is no reason > why abhidhammikas shouldn't engage in a similar practice. I think it is > a beginning step in recognizing thinking as not self. However, as a > philosophical issue, there are many subtle and controversial points. I > don't find it particularly helpful to say concepts don't exist or are > not real. ..... I think that what is important is the direct knowledge and understanding of what is real or experienced at this moment. This is the way to eradicated any idea of self and in the process it becomes apparent that concepts don’t exist. ..... > It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by > focusing mainly on the sense of touch, probably because touch isn't > mixed with concept very much. A similar emphasis on touch can be seen in > the preliminary stages of anapanasati. ..... I’m not quite sure where these comments about what A.Sujin teaches are coming from??? I think it’s helpful to hear and consider all realities, but the reason that we read so much in the texts about visible object, sound, taste, odour, hardness/softness, temperature, pressure/movement is because these are the rupas that are readily apparent. However, any focus or wish/attempt/intention to be mindful or focus on any of them in particular, would merely suggest more clinging or an idea of selection as I see it. I also think we can see more and more subtle ideas of self-view at times of selecting an object. Controversial, I realise ;-) ..... >I think it would be beneficial > to extend this discrimination to the other khandhas but trying to be > absolutely paramatta in one's analysis would just lead to confusion and > be useless. The main idea is that feeling, recognizing, and intending > could be separated from concept. ..... As panna develops, there is less and less confusion and no need to try and be ‘absolutely paramatta’ or anything else. As you suggest, these various mental factors can be known as they are (distinct from concepts). I also think the careful considering and reflecting that you (and everyone else) are doing in your posts is very helpful and cannot be underestimated in terms of the light it will shed on all these phenomena. ..... >Even a little bit of looseness could > result in seeing "this feeling is not self" or "this concept is not > self", for example. That is the main point, imo. ..... I’m not sure I’m quite clear here, so I’ll let it pass. You ask another leading question which I think I’ll put in a follow-up post as I know I’m already past my Larry-limit with this one;-) Apologies for the delay and also for not replying in your preferred format with 100% trim;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 21596 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, cont. > Is there anything you would care to share regarding A. Sujin's approach > or your own experience with this practice? ..... Speaking personally, A.Sujin has been my guide or sign-post over the years, as well a greatest friend and inspiration in all regards. I don’t consider (and nor does she) an ‘A.Sujin approach’, though I understand why you or others might. For me, she is merely pointing out what is evident in the texts under our noses if we care to investigate. She definitely does not encourage attachment or dependence on her in anyway or any ‘approach’ being named after her;-) In my case, unless I'm directly quoting her or mention I'm summarising something I've just heard, what I say is according to what I understand and wouldn't wish her or anyone else to be held responsible for any of my mistakes or misunderstandings of the Teachings;-) Investigating, checking and careful considering whilst understanding the value of all kinds of kusala is perhaps how I’d consider the practice. The greatest kusala (wholesome state) is of course the understanding and detachment from the reality conditioned at this moment. I think this is incredibly liberating - liberating because there need not be any other time or any other reality. Whatever our lifestyle or circumstances there are namas and rupas appearing now and the opportunity to really understand the Buddha’s teachings. Did I answer satisfactorily? If not please ask more. ..... > It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by > focusing .... ..... I laughed to myself just now as I replied to the comment, because I’ve just received a hostile letter from a parent (whom I’ve never met) accusing me of discrimination, a real SARS buzz-word here at the moment. It's the first time in my career I've ever been accused of this. In brief, the parent is a doctor in an ICU unit in one of the large public hospitals here, desperately and valiantly trying to contain the SARS spread. Each day we here about numbers of front-line staff falling sick themselves. She wished her daughter (like others, now out of school for weeks) to join one of my classes, re-starting today. Only having made all the arrangements, belatedly and after my probing, did she inform me of her position. I discussed it with Jon (who of course informed me of the legal implications from other parents if I put their children at obvious extra risk) and I considered the nervous states we’re all already in and my responsibility to the children I already take care of. So with much regret I told her I wouldn’t accept her daughter and she’s now threatening her own campaign of action against my discrimination, including letters to the press. Besides using this as an excuse for keeping a few friends posted on the current situation here, it’s a good opportunity for me to reflect further on the dhamma and practice you ask about. I went off to Tai-chi yesterday evening feeling quite stressed and forgetting all my steps after just finding out about it on the phone and feeling unhappy about any decision I might reach. Again, it is the thinking and proliferating that is the problem. The worry, aversion and other unwholesome states rather than the ‘story’ or the possible, unknown future akusala vipaka. There are so many opportunities for kusala and it can show in the way one responds. Opportunities sometimes just for equanimity in face of hostility. Kindness and compassion for those who are working on the front-line and who are obviously stressed out. Different moments of seeing and hearing, no personality - just different ever-changing namas and rupas and so much ignorance and wrong view giving rise to the illusion of a being or person acting this or that way. I hope this just gives some indication of how I don't see the practice as in anyway separate from daily life however it unfolds, usually quite unpredictably in a conventional sense but always consisting of just the same paramattha dhammas (absolute realities)as taught by the Buddha. Metta, Sarah p.s if you or anyone else would like to listen to a few tapes of discussion with A.Sujin in order to come to your own conclusions, pls contact me or Sukin off-list. 21597 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:07am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob, You ask what is wisdom (panna). That is an interesting question from the point view of Dhamma. It is different from knowlege, which wehave accumulated through, reading, listening and discussing. All knowledge is of the past. If one talks of the future, or of some thing one does not know, it will be based on the knowlge which is of the past.No thought is new. Wisdom(panna) is not the understanding, but realising or being aware of a truth,by oneself. It is knowing the impermanance, unsatisfactoryness, and no-self, not according to what we have read or heard, but but through a sudden awakening to the truth about it. What one has realised by wisdom cannot be related to another, because the language we use being conceptual, the words are inadequate to describe it. Wisdom(panna)is a mental awakening to a truth. One cannot transfer wisdom to another by way of knowledge, as one who has no knowlege of it, will not understand it the same way, as the one who lealised it. It is a sudden awakening to it. Like awakening to Satori in Zen. In satori it is said that if there is no element of suddenness, it is not satori. We have of course instances of it in Buddhist teachings. Venerable Ananda, was doing walking meditation and being tired wanted to lay down. He took his legs on to the bed and was about to lay his head on the pillow, when he attained the state of arahat. Patachar, saw the water with which she had washed her feet trickle down and disappear on to the earth and was awakened to the truth. Even Lord Buddha did not explain what Nirvana is, he left it for us to realize. He did not even say what exactly happened at the foot of the Bodhi tree, awakening to panna...the enlightenment, it is only a Buddha who could understand the wisdom of a Buddha. with metta, Yasalalaka 21598 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:14am Subject: Re: Abhidhammathasangha, Abhidhamma Canon and Heisenberg --- Dear Rob, I agree that venerable Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha as an introductory text. I'm not sure your comparison with atomic models as being something one discards is correct, as the knowledge as the ABh..sangaha is quite in accordance with the Abhidhamma. What I think is true is that someone might read the A..sangaha and - because of its highly compact format- draw incorrect conclusions, such as you highlighted with the book by mr. S... RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K (and all), > > If you ask the vast majority of people to explain their concept of > an atom, you will get descriptions of minature solar systems with > the nucleus of the atom as the sun and the electrons as planets. > This is what is explained to us in high school. A "serious student" > of physics knows that this model is a simplification and sees > electrons (and all matter), not as discrete particles but rather as > probability waves. The high school science book gives an > introduction to the subject. The author simplifies so that the > intended audience can understand; knowing that the "serious student" > will eventually discard this simple model as they progress in their > studies. > > 21599 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, Well said! I agree with almost everything you have written. Where I have a bit of a problem is your focus on "suddenness". I started by Buddhist practice with Zen and this was the problem that I had at that time as well. I see the journey to "panna" as requiring 10,000 steps. The last step is the most exciting, but it cannot be made before 9,999 steps of groundwork have been done. Ananda achieved enlightenment as he began lay down. Does that mean that beginning to lay down is the technique to achieve enlightenment? No. After spending almost his entire adult life listening to the Buddha and memorizing every word the Buddha said, conditions and Ananda's accumulations were ripe for the event of enlightenment to occur. As it says in the Bhumija sutta, proper practice is a requirement for results. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > You ask what is wisdom (panna). That is an interesting question from > the point view of Dhamma. It is different from knowlege, which wehave > accumulated through, reading, listening and discussing. All > knowledge is of the past. If one talks of the future, or of some > thing one does not know, it will be based on the knowlge which is of > the past.No thought is new. Wisdom(panna) is not the understanding, > but realising or being aware of a truth,by oneself. It is knowing > the impermanance, unsatisfactoryness, and no-self, not according to > what we have read or heard, but but through a sudden awakening to the > truth about it. What one has realised by wisdom cannot be related > to another, because the language we use being conceptual, the words > are inadequate to describe it. Wisdom(panna)is a mental awakening to > a truth. > > One cannot transfer wisdom to another by way of knowledge, as one who > has no knowlege of it, will not understand it the same way, as the > one who lealised it. It is a sudden awakening to it. Like awakening > to Satori in Zen. In satori it is said that if there is no element of > suddenness, it is not satori. > > We have of course instances of it in Buddhist teachings. Venerable > Ananda, was doing walking meditation and being tired wanted to lay > down. He took his legs on to the bed and was about to lay his head > on the pillow, when he attained the state of arahat. Patachar, saw > the water with which she had washed her feet trickle down and > disappear on to the earth and was awakened to the truth. Even Lord > Buddha did not explain what Nirvana is, he left it for us to > realize. He did not even say what exactly happened at the foot of > the Bodhi tree, awakening to panna...the enlightenment, it is only a > Buddha who could understand the wisdom of a Buddha.